Sitting of 9 June 1931

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ashton-under-Lyne, Stalybridge, and Dukinfield (District) Waterworks Bill [Lords],
To be read a Second time upon Thursday.
Doncaster Corporation Bill [Lords],
Felixstowe and District Water Bill [Lords],
Romford Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Royston and Brodsworth Gas Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  SCOTLAND.

    STEEL HOUSES (RENTS).
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is prepared to advise a reduction in the rent of steel houses at Sandyhills, Shettleston?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): I would refer to the reply on this subject given to my hon. Friend on the 9th December last, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. McGOVERN: In view of the difference in the rentals of these houses in various areas, would the hon. Gentleman consider this question further, with a view to a reduction of these rents?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I do not know that the Department has any power to grant reductions, but I will certainly have inquiries made into the point raised by
    780
    my hon. Friend, and see whether it is possible for anything to be done in the way of advice or suggestion to this housing company.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will not the hon. Gentleman, in view of the general reduction in wages that is now taking place, and the almost impossibility of paying these rents, consider recommending to the authorities that they should reduce the rents charged?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I am afraid that, as I have already pointed out, the Department has no power, because I am advised that, under the terms of the agreement between the housing company and the Department, the rents of steel houses, subject to the approval of the Department, must be fixed with reference to the rents charged for houses with similar accommodation in the district; but I have already said, in reply to the first supplementary question, that I will certainly have proper inquiries made and see if it is possible to do anything in the direction suggested.

    PROPEBTY VALUATION, GLASGOW.
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether his attention has been drawn to the defalcations in the assessor's department of the Glasgow Corporation where employés have tampered with and reduced the valuation of properties in the city without the knowledge or consent of the assessor; and what action, if any, he proposes to take?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. My right hon. Friend has no control over the proceedings of the assessor or his staff.
    Mr. McGOVERN: As I understand that these valuations have to be approved by the Scottish Office, may I ask whether it is the fact that 61 valuations have been reduced by these employés, that the cost to the city was £13,000 to restore them, and that important papers were stolen and valuations obliterated by these employés; and whether the hon. Gentleman does not consider that the Scottish Office should take action with a view to setting up a complete Governmental inquiry into these allegations?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: All I can say is that, according to the advice given to me, the Department has no control over the assessor. It is an appointment made by the town council, and under the complete supervision of the town council.
    Mr. McGOVERN: If the Scottish Office has to approve of these valuations; if, after they have been approved by the Scottish Office, those employés, behind its back, have been reducing these valuations, and if the claim is made by the assessor that a sum of money has changed hands, does not the hon. Gentleman think that the Scottish Office ought to take action to see that these values should not be tampered with?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I shall certainly have inquiries made into the point raised, and see if it is possible for anything to be done.

    PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT.
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Lord Advocate why, after a complaint had been lodged in Glasgow of an attempt to bribe Bailie Jeffrey in order that he should vote for or support the granting of a public house licence, the prosecution was dropped?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison): The complaint referred to was a police complaint that libelled an alleged contravention of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906. On examination it appeared that the facts of the case would not support a charge of contravention of the Statute, and the complaint was dropped. As the matter has been brought to my notice, I am considering whether on the facts of the case a prosecution for an offence at common law should be directed.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    WORKING HOURS.
    Major BEAUMONT THOMASasked the Secretary for Mines whether the Government have yet come to any decision with regard to the operation of the seven-hours day after 8th July?
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary for Mines if he can now state what are the intentions of the Government in regard to
    782
    legislation affecting the hours of labour underground in coal mines?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): My hon. Friend regrets that he cannot as yet add anything to the answers previously given to questions on this subject. Discussions are still proceeding between the Government, the Mining Association, and the Miners' Federation, and no stone is being left unturned in the endeavour to find a satisfactory solution to the problem as a whole.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary for Mines in how many districts coal miners are working on spread-over agreements as to hours which have not been sanctioned by the Miners' Federation of Great Britain?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Practically speaking, such working is confined to two districts, Scotland and part of North Wales; though my hon. Friend has been notified of two isolated cases in other districts.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Do the Government condone the illegalities——
    Mr. SPEAKER rose——
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that it is the Miners' Federation that is prohibiting the spread-over in Scotland, and will the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the Miners' Federation allow the Scottish miners to have Home Rule in this matter?

    EXPORTS, SOUTH WALES AND POLAND.
    Mr. OSWALD LEWISasked the Secretary for Mines the quantity of coal exported from South Wales during the first three months of 1930 and 1931, respectively, and also the corresponding figure for exports of coal from Poland?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The quantity of coal exported from the Bristol Channel ports during the first three months of 1930 was 6,634,680 tons, and during the same period of 1031, 4,096,040 tons. The corresponding figures of exports of coal from Poland were 2,808,893 tons and 2,770,119 tons, respectively.

    COLLIERIES, DURHAM (CLOSING).
    Mr. HERRIOTTSasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has received a report from Messrs. Pease and Partners, the owners of the Chilton Colliery Com-

    783
    pany, Durham, with regard to the closing down of that mine and the dismantling of the pumping machinery and the consequent flooding of the workings; and whether there is any action his Department can take with a view to preventing this?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. My hon. Friend has had inquiries made, however, and he understands that the proposal is to withdraw the pumps at Chilton Colliery from the lower seams only. This mine has been idle for the last 13 months, owing to the depression in the iron and steel trade, upon which it is entirely dependent, and the owners consider that the cost of pumping and of the maintenance of the workings in the lower seams can no longer be afforded. The withdrawal of the pumps from these seams is, however, regarded by them only as a temporary measure, and they hope to re-open the seams when trade improves. My hon. Friend regrets that there is no action that he can take in the matter.
    Mr. HERRIOTTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the opinion of expert mining engineers and practical workmen, if these pumps are withdrawn it will be many long years before they can be started again; and will he consider a very practical proposal for setting up central pumping machinery in that area, in order that the work may be done more efficiently and the whole cost may not fall upon the workers?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend in regard to this trouble. The second part of his supplementary question would require consideration, but, as regards the first part, I am advised that it would always be possible to resume without any very great difficulty.
    Mr. HERRIOTTS: May we have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he will consider the question of setting up central pumping machinery?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Plainly I must make inquiries, and I will, of course, do so, and will inform my hon. Friend of the result.
    Mr. HANNON: In view of the references to the steel industry in the right hon. Gentleman's reply, may I ask him
    784
    if he still adheres to the policy laid down by the Government in relation to steel?
    Mr. HERRIOTTSasked the Secretary for Mines whether the Mines Reorganisation Commission have had under consideration the following mines in Durham County, owned by Messrs. Pease and Partners, namely: West Comforth, Chilton, and Windlestone; and, if not, will he suggest that this be done immediately before these mines become derelict, owing to the removal of pumping machinery and the withdrawal of safety men?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to a question by the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. P. Oliver) on the 31st March, of which I am sending him a copy. I understand that there is at present no question of these collieries being permanently abandoned.
    Mr. HERRIOTTS: May I again ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is fully aware of the fact that valuable seams are likely to be lost, and that this is an urgent matter which ought to receive the immediate attention of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission, as a question which is suitable for the particular class of inquiry which the Commission is conducting?
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a colliery in Durham in which there are estimated to be 8,500,000 tons of coal has been scrapped?
    HON. MEMBERS: The Coal Mines Act!
    Mr. RICHARDSON: No, it is not due to the Coal Mines Act.
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid that this is a much wider problem, and I must not say more than a word or two in reply to the supplementary questions. There is, of course, depression in the industry, but I will undertake to bring these supplementary questions to the notice of the Commission.
    Mr. BATEY rose——
    Mr. SPEAKER: These questions do not really arise out of the question on the Paper.
    Mr. BATEY: As this question is so important, and the answers are so unsatisfactory, I beg to give notice that

    785
    at the earliest opportunity I shall raise, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, the question of the closing of these coal mines in Durham.

    LOW-TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary for Mines if he will give the figures, up to the latest convenient date, of the total expenditure on low-temperature carbonisation experiments conducted by the Government since experimental work in this branch of research was first undertaken?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I regret that it is impossible to give the figures for which the hon. Member asks owing to the fact that experiments on low-temperature carbonisation form but a part of the general programme of research on fuel conducted by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research the cost of which was given by my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines in reply to a question asked by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Freeman) on 22nd May. The different parts of the programme are so interdependent that it is not possible to say in terms of expenditure how much of it has been devoted to low-temperature carbonisation. For a fuller explanation of this interdependence I would refer the hon. Member to the report of the Fuel Research Board for the year ending 31st March, 1931, pp. 9–12.
    Mr. HANNON: As the right hon. Gentleman cannot ascertain the precise figures, would he say if the expenditure incurred up to the present has been justified by the results achieved by the experiment?
    Mr. GRAHAM: This is undeniably a very difficult problem, but I hope the research has been justified.

  FIXED EASTER.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HACKINGasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has had any recent communications with any of the Dominions regarding the fixing of a regular date for Easter; and, if so, what was the result of such communications?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Steps were taken at the end
  786
  of 1929 to ascertain the views of His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions and of the Governments of the Australian States and of Southern Rhodesia on the proposal to stabilise the date of Easter. Though replies have not been received from all the Governments consulted, those so far received do not disclose any unanimity in favour of the proposal.
  Mr. HACKING: Do I understand that some of the Dominions have not replied to the communication sent by the right hon. Gentleman two years ago?
  Mr. THOMAS: It is true that some of the Dominions have not yet replied to the communication sent by the previous Government.
  Mr. HACKING: Will the right hon. Gentleman, with his great influence over the Dominions, repeat the question?
  Mr. THOMAS: I gather that the object is to stabilise Easter and insure good weather. It may be that August would be a better month.

  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE (POSTPONEMENT).
  Sir Kingsley WOODasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he is now in a position to make a further statement concerning the forthcoming Ottawa Conference?
  Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the British representatives to the Ottawa Conference have yet been appointed; if so, what their names are; what preparation has been made in this country for the work of the conference; and whether it is the intention of the Government to propose any definite measure of imperial economic preference?
  Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any informartion as to the intention of the various British Dominions in regard to attendance or non-attendance at the postponed Imperial Conference at Ottawa?
  Mr. THOMAS: As the House is aware, the arrangements for the Conference have been in the hands of His Majesty's Government in Canada. As announced in the Press this morning, a statement was made yesterday in the Canadian

  787
  Parliament by the Prime Minister of Canada to the effect that owing to the difficulties experienced by Australia and New Zealand in arranging for full representation in August it had become necessary for the Canadian Government to propose postponement of the Conference till 1932, and that all the other Governments concerned had accepted the proposal.
  Captain MACDONALD: Is it not the case that the withdrawal of the Dominion Conference is due to the attitude the present Government adopted at the last Imperial Conference?
  Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: Pending the summoning of the adjourned Conference, will the Government give favourable consideration to extending the marketing order to Empire butter and other Empire produce?
  Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it the case that the British Government made no definite proposals before the time when the postponement was decided?
  Mr. THOMAS: I am glad of the opportunity of answering the question, because it is equally necessary to protect the Dominions concerned. Some of the supplementary questions reflect upon the Dominions. The British Government acquiesced in the date suggested by Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett then made a request to the British Government for a postponement, based upon reasons that were satisfactory to him. We had no other alternative than to accept Mr. Bennett's suggestion.
  Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that there was anything derogatory to the Dominions in my supplementary question. It did not mention the Dominions. It merely asked a definite question, whether or not the British Government have made any proposals, to which I have not had any reply.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Suggestions of that kind are always undesirable.
  Mr. WISE: In view of the apparently definite postponement of the Conference, will the Government now lay before the House its own proposals for the control of imports and the better organisation of the import and export trade?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRIES.
    Mr. HACKINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has anything to report in connection with the reorganisation of the iron and steel industries?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given on 12th May to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer).
    Mr. HACKING: Has nothing happened since 12th May?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Things are happening very week. I have promised to make a full report on them on the Board of Trade Vote.

    TEA IMPORTS, HOLLAND.
    Mr. O. LEWISasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the value of tea imported from the British Empire and the Dutch foreign possessions, respectively, into Holland during each of the years 1928, 1929 and 1930?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: During the years 1928, 1929 and 1930, the value of British Indian and Ceylon tea imported for consumption into the Netherlands was £152,000, £187,000 and £216,000 respectively. During the same years the imports of tea grown in Java and other Dutch East Indies amounted to £1,257,000, £1,172,000 and £1,070,000, respectively. By far the greater part of the British Indian and Ceylon tea and an appreciable proportion of the Dutch Colonial tea imported during these years consisted of re-exports from the United Kingdom.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that, since the abolition of the Tea Duty by the late Government——
    Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Kingsley Wood.

    TARIFF TRUCE.
    Sir K. WOODasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now make a further statement as to the position of the tariff truce proposals; and whether he proposes to ask the German Government to reconsider their decision not to deposit their ratification of the commercial convention?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: With regard to the first part of the question, I can add nothing to the answer which was given on the 19th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Freeman), of which I am sending the right hon. Gentleman a copy. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to continue this matter further?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, Sir, it will be continued with all earnestness.

    TARIFF REDUCTIONS (NHGOTIATIONS).
    Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade, with regard to the negotiations with the French Government for alterations of tariffs on United Kingdom goods, in view of the fact that an offer by the French Government to give us most-favoured-nation treatment in any new arrangement confers no advantage on British goods entering France, whether he will state what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I cannot admit that the most-favoured-nation tariff treatment which United Kingdom exports to France at present enjoy confers no advantage on our trade with that country. As regards the proposals which Has Majesty's Government have submitted to the French Government for reductions of the rates of duty levied on United Kingdom goods I can add nothing at present to the information which I have already communicated to the House.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect any tangible results from negotiations?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, Sir, I have always said that it is a difficult matter, but I am still full of hope.
    Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British Chamber of Commerce in Paris has reported to the Board of Trade that the most-favoured-nation clause confer no benefit whatever upon British goods?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have already given the hon. Member a reply on that point,
    790
    and I feel that I cannot accept his view regarding the position of this matter at all.

    OILS, FATS AND SOAP (PRICES).
    Mr. W. J. BROWNasked the President of the Board of Trade what has been the percentage drop in the cost of oils and fats during the last two years; and what has been the corresponding percentage drop in retail soap prices?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The average declared import value (c.i.f.) of oils and fats, other than mineral and for food, imported into the United Kingdom during the first four months of 1929 was about £36 per ton and during the first four months of 1931 £23 10s. per ton, a fall of about 1⅛d. per lb. or 35 per cent. The average retail price of household soap in great Britain, as calculated from returns supplied to the Ministry of Labour for the purpose of the Cost of Living Statistics, was approximately 6½d. per lb. in the first four months of 1929, and 6d. per lb. in the first four months of 1931, a fall of about 8 per cent.
    Mr. BROWN: In view of the extraordinary disparity between the size of the drop in the wholesale price of oils and fats, and the size of the drop in retail prices of soap, can the Government hold out any expectation of legislation with a view to dealing with this gap?
    Mr. GRAHAM: That, of course, is precisely one of the objects covered by the Consumers' Council Bill.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how he got the figure, because my information is that it is £8 a ton.

    BRITISH FILM INDUSTRY (AMERICAN INTERESTS).
    Mr. REMERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has investigated the report submitted to him by the London Trades Council on the Americanisation of the British film industry; and if he is prepared to publish that report?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I can only refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave him on this subject on 19th May.
    Mr. REMER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman of the opinion that the public are entitled to know that the film

    791
    industry in this country is largely controlled by Mr. William Fox at the present moment?
    Mr. GRAHAM: This is a report by the London Trades Council marked "Private and Confidential." It is entirely for the Trades Council to say whether it should be published, and it is not a matter with which I have anything to do at all.
    Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the London Trades Council said they have no objection to the publication of the matter?
    Mr. GRAHAM: In that event, it lies with them to publish it.
    Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that there are many British companies which are not controlled by Mr. William Fox?

    SUEZ CANAL (DUES).
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to obtain compliance with the 1883 Suez Canal agreement, which provides for the canal transit dues to be reduced to a basis of five francs (gold) when the canal dividend has reached 25 per cent.?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: His Majesty's Government has, from time to time, supported in the general interest proposals for reasonable reductions in the Suez Canal dues and, in particular, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade indicated in the Debate on the Adjournment of 22nd May, the Government lent their support to proposals for reduction in the present level of the dues. As regards the precise provisions of the 1883 agreement, however, I would point out that this appears to have been concluded between the Association of Steamship Owners trading with the East on the one hand and the Suez Canal Company on the other. His Majesty's Government were not a party to the agreement, and any question of securing compliance with its terms would appear to be a matter for the shipowners concerned.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that he is a party to acquiescing in non-compliance with the agreement of 1883?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir, that cannot be suggested. The last part of the reply
    792
    makes it clear that the question of compliance really relates to the Suez Canal Company and the shipowners concerned.
    Mr. SAMUEL: If the shipowners apply to the Board of Trade, will the right hon. Gentleman give them support for getting compliance with the 1883 agreement with the help of the British Government?
    Mr. GRAHAM: If that relates to efforts to secure a reduction of dues, we have, of course, already done that.

    INDUSTRIAL SURVEY (NOETH-EAST COAST).
    Mr. HERRIOTTSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the industrial survey of the North-East Coast has been undertaken; if so, whether any report has been made to his Department; and will he instruct those persons responsible for this survey to specially consider the possibility of starting new industries in the distressed mining areas of the south and west of Durham county?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The industrial surveys of this and other areas have been commenced, but in view of the large amount of statistical and other material to be examined some months must elapse before the results can be expected. As regards the last part of the question, the object of these inquiries is to present a survey of the present industrial position of the areas and of the prospects of early expansion and new development.
    Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that these surveys by the universities do not take into account the starting of new businesses in distressed mining areas?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Oh, no, that would be a serious error. They survey the whole industrial position, and part of the inquiry-is to see what new industries can be established.
    Mr. BATEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what will be the use of these surveys to the mining classes?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I should hope that in due course they will be useful in suggesting new industries to replace other industries.

    CANADIAN CUSTOMS TARIFF.
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Trade how many articles are subject to additional duties by the new Canadian tariff; and whether he will

    793
    make representations to the Canadian Government as to the undesirability of imposing fresh barriers on trade at a time of universal trade depression?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I have not yet received retails of all the changes recently made in the Canadian Customs tariff, and I am unable therefore to say how many of the articles exported from this country will be subjected to increased duties. Some details were published in the last issue of the "Board of Trade Journal," and full particulars will be similarly published as soon as they are received. The point raised in the second part of the question cannot usefully be considered in the absence of fuller information than I at present possess.
    Mr. HARRIS: When the right hon. Gentleman is in full possession of the facts, if he find that some of these duties are increasing against this country, will he consider making representations?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I can assure my hon. Friend that that point will be considered.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the making of representations will be of the slightest use, unless he is prepared to offer something in return?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Yes. On innumerable occasions in all parts of the world we get concessions without becoming involved in tariffs in this country.

    ARGENTINA.
    Mr. MANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade the present position with regard to the trade agreement made by Lord D'Abernon's mission to the Argentine?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The agreement is still awaiting legislative approval in Argentina.
    Mr. MANDER: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea when it is likely to be given effect to?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No. It depends entirely on the circumstances in Argentina, and those are beyond my control.

    RUSSIAN BUTTER AND BRITISH MARGAEINE.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of Russian butter imported into
    794
    this country in the last six months to date, and the amount of British margarine exported to Russia in that period?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: During the five months ended 30th April, 1931, 7,007 cwt. of butter, valued at £34,455, were imported into the United Kingdom registered as consigned from the Soviet Union, and 128,195 cwt. of margarine, valued at £301,875, of United Kingdom manufacture, were exported from this country registered as consigned to the Soviet Union. The figures for the domestic exports of margarine to the Soviet Union during May have not yet been compiled, but I will send them to the hon. Member as soon as they are available, together with particulars regarding the imports of butter from the Soviet Union during May, which will be published on the 12th June in the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom."
    Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Russian Government have asked to be informed of the conditions under which British margarine is made?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir. There is no question of that kind, as far as I know.
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is it not produced under fair conditions of labour?
    Sir COOPER RAWSON: Is there any reason why such a stupid question should be answered?

    DYESTUFFS.
    Mr. PHILIP OLIVERasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is still the opinion of his advisers that it is essential to maintain in this country an efficient dyestuffs industry for research and other purposes; and what comparable alternative for the safeguarding of the industry do they propose which is more consistent with the general fiscal and commercial policy of this country than a continuance of the Dye-stuffs (Import Regulation) Act?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): It is the business of my advisers to advise on questions of national defence, and from this point of view the importance of an efficient dye-stuffs industry is recognised. My ad-

    795
    visers would not, however, make proposals in the sphere of fiscal and commercial policy.
    Mr. OLIVER: May we take it that they have no alternative plan?
    Mr. SHAW: It is not the business of the advisers of the War Office to make plans of a fiscal nature.
    Mr. OLIVER: Am I to understand that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in December last that they were considering comparable plans with other countries, was not correct?
    Mr. SHAW: I never made a statement that the advisers of the War Office were considering alternative plans. It is not their business to advise as to fiscal policy.

    EXPORT CREDITS (RUSSIAN SHIPS).
    Major GLYNasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can state the details of official representations made to the Government by the Soviet Government for credits to construct vessels in British yards for employment under the Soviet flag; and if the Government have come to any decision on this matter?
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can now state what progress has been made in the negotiations now taking place between His Majesty's Government and the trade representatives of the Russian Government on the request from the latter for credits to enable them to order a number of ships to be built in British shipyards; and whether His Majesty's Government will give such credits in order to encourage heavy and light engineering?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: His Majesty's Government are considering this matter as one of urgency, but a decision cannot be reached until all the necessary information is available.
    Major GLYN: With a large amount of shipping laid up, is it necessary to consider construction, and the giving of money to the Soviet Government until some of the existing shipping is purchased?
    Mr. GRAHAM: There is, of course, a very large amount of unused tonnage
    796
    lying up and that is being taken into account, but there are many other considerations, including in particular certain classes of ships.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these ships would feed the unemployed and that we have thousands of shipbuilders in this country who are anxious and willing to build these ships for the Russians? Will he, therefore, see his way to grant the Russians the same credits as they are getting from Italy?
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITE rose——
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. Why am I not getting a reply to my question?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have already indicated that much additional information is necessary on this by no means easy problem, and that information includes the question of rival credit terms.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply which I have received to this very important question, affecting the shipbuilding and engineering trade which I represent, I beg to give notice that I am going to raise the matter on the first available opportunity.

    FOREIGN BUTTER AND MARGARINE (MARKING).
    Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the committee set up on the marking of foreign butter has yet reported; and, if not, when is it likely to report?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): The Standing Committee has submitted its report which will be published in the course of a day or two.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is there any need to mark foreign butter seeing that it is easily recognisable by the lepidoptera contained in it?
    Mr. MARJORIBANKSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is prepared to consider the extension of the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act to foreign butter and margarine?
    Dr. ADDISON: There is power under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, to make an Order in Council requiring the

    797
    marking of imported goods of any class or description provided an application is made for the Order substantially representing one or more of the interests mentioned in Section 2 (3) of the Act. No such application has been made in respect of margarine. In the case of butter an application made by a number of interests has been the subject of an inquiry by the Standing Committee set up under the Act and the report of this body will be published in the course of a day or two. I am not, however, at present in a position to say what action will be taken upon it.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is sympathetic, at any rate, to the proposal contained in the question?

  COASTGUARD SERVICES.
  Mr. DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the terms of reference to the committee inquiring into the organisation and efficiency of the coastguard services include the working conditions of the employés of that service; and can he state when this committee will be in a position to issue a report?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: The terms of refernce to the Coastguard Committee of inquiry are—
  "to inquire into the efficiency and adequacy of the present organisation for carrying out the coast watching duties of the Coastguard Service and to report what modifications, if any, in the organisation are, in their opinion desirable."
  In so far as the committee may consider that the working conditions of members of the coastguard service affect the efficiency and adequacy of the organisation, they are empowered to deal with them. It is hoped that the committee's report may be made in about six weeks' time.

  BRITISH ARMY (RECRUITING OF OFFICERS).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the advisability of appointing a committee to investigate whether there are any more effective methods of obtaining officers for the Army than through officers' training corps?
  Mr. SHAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 18th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Shillaker).
  Mr. MANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the existing method is the best, in view of the very small percentage of those who have been through the officers' training corps who actually join the Army?
  Mr. SHAW: I am satisfied that an addition to the existing method might be made, but I am not inclined to agree that the existing method is bad.
  Sir ERNEST BENNETT: Is it not a fact that of the whole body of the officers' training corps, 30,000 strong, not 2 per cent. take commissions in the Regular Army, and not 3 per cent. even in the Territorial Army?
  Mr. GODFREY WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware what the officers' training corps did for the Army in the War?

  FOOD PRICES.
  Sir K. WOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Food Council have now received the necessary information concerning the new price of flour; and whether he has yet received their report?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: I presume that the right hon. Gentleman refers to the scale by which the price of bread in London is related to the price of flour. I have nothing at present to add to my reply to his question of 19th May.
  Sir K. WOOD: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement on the matter, which has now been pending for some weeks?
  Mr. GRAHAM: There will be a meeting of the Food Council on 19th June, but, as I have informed the right hon. Gentleman, much of the difficulty turns on the absence of compulsory powers in getting the information.
  Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question, which has nothing to do with compulsory powers, whether they have received the necessary information?
  Mr. GRAHAM: That raises precisely that point. It is very difficult to get the information in the absence of powers.
  Mr. HARRISasked the Minister of Labour whether she can make a statement as to the fall in the retail prices of bread, butter, meat and sugar during the last 12 months?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL

  Average Retail Prices in Great Britain and Northern Ireland at 1st May, 1930, and 1st May, 1931, as calculated from returns supplied to the Ministry of Labour.

  (Note: The prices relate to the kinds and qualities usually bought by the working classes.)

  ——

  Average Reatail Price

  Fall between 1st May, 1930, and 1st May, 1931.

  1st May, 1930.

  1st May, 1931.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  d.

  per

  4 lbs.

  per

  4 lbs.

  per 4 lbs.

  Bread

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  8¾

  7

  1¾

  per

  lb.

  per

  lb.

  per lb.

  Butter, Fresh

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  1

  7½

  1

  5¼

  2¼

  Butter, Salt

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  1

  6

  1

  3½

  2½

  Beef, British:—

  Ribs

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  1

  4¾

  1

  3¾

  1

  Thin Flank

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  9¼

  8¾

  ½

  Beef, Chilled or Frozen:—

  Ribs

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  10½

  9½

  1

  Thin Flank

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  5¾

  5¼

  ½

  Mutton, British:—

  Legs

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  1

  6

  1

  5¼

  ¾

  Breast

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  10

  9¼

  ¾

  Mutton, Frozen:—

  Legs

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  11½

  10

  1½

  Breast

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  5¼

  4½

  ¾

  Bacon, Streaky*

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  1

  5

  1

  0

  5

  Sugar, Granulated

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  2¾

  2½

  ¼

  * If this kind is seldom sold in a locality the returns quote the prices of another kind locally representative.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA (CONTENTION).
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISHasked the President of the Board of Trade what Governments who were represented at the Convention of 1929 for Safety of Life at Sea have ratified that Convention; and if any reservations have been declared?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: Up to the present Denmark and the Netherlands only have ratified the Convention, with no reservations in either case.
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Has the Convention to be accepted as a whole, or may it be signed with reservations?
    REPORT a table showing the fall in average retail prices of these commodities.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Will the right hon. Lady also make a statement as to the fall in the Labour vote at Gateshead?
    Following is the table:
    Mr. GRAHAM: That is a rather different point, and I prefer that the hon. and gallant Member should give me notice of the question.

    HELM ORDEES.
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISHasked the President of the Board of Trade at whose instance the question of lack of uniform practice in the use and application of helm orders was raised at the Convention of 1929; and if he is prepared to publish the minutes of evidence on this subject?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The proposal for a uniform international system of helm orders was discussed at the International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea held

    801
    in 1913–14, and the Conference recommended that "in view of the diversity of practice and opinion in the different countries, the question of the adoption of a uniform system of helm orders should be considered at the same time as the revision of the regulations for preventing collisions at sea." As proposals for the amendment of the Collision Regulations were to be considered at the 1929 Conference, it was inevitable that the subject of helm orders should be discussed; and definite notice to raise the matter was given before the Conference assembled by Denmark, Finland, The Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. As regards the second part of the question I am circulating a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    There are no Minutes of Evidence available for publication as regards the proceedings of the International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea, 1929, on the subject of helm orders; but a brief statement may be made regarding the course of the discussions at the conference.
    The reluctance of British seamen to change their traditional system, and the misgivings which some of them feel as to possible danger in the event of a change of their system, were fully stated by the British delegates. It appeared, however, that a number of the countries represented at the conference were already using the direct system of helm orders, while certain others proposed to adopt that system irrespective of any decision of the conference on the subject. Denmark and Belgium have, in fact, since taken action in the matter, the direct system having been introduced on Danish ships on the 1st January, 1930, while it has been stated in the Press that Belgium proposes to adopt the direct system as from the 1st July next.
    The general opinion of the countries represented at the conference was in favour of the adoption of a uniform international system, particularly from the point of view of pilotage, and also having regard to the fact that seamen frequently serve on ships of different countries. It was also the general opinion that a uniform system would make for greater safety of life at sea. The discussions further showed that, where the change had been made, no
    802
    serious difficulties had been encountered; and this fact has since been confirmed by the experience of Denmark during the recent change-over on the ships of that country.
    In all the circumstances, as it was clear that there was no chance whatever of securing general agreement on the basis of the indirect system, as there was no reason to suppose that a change which had been successfully carried out by foreign countries could not be made equally satisfactory by British seamen, and as to have maintained opposition to the change would have endangered unanimity on other proposals to which this country attached importance, the delegates of Great Britain and those countries which were still using the indirect system agreed to co-operate with the others to establish a uniform international system.

    SUEZ CANAL COMPANY (REPRESENTATION).
    Mr. REMERasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he will approach the various leading British shipowners' associations and suggest to them that they should themselves nominate their own joint representatives to fill future vacancies on the board of the Suez Canal Company;
    (2) if he will state the method by which directors are selected to represent British shipping and British shipowners on the board of the Suez Canal Company?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am informed that under the London Agreement of 1883 seven directors chosen from among British shipowners and merchants were added to the board of the Suez Canal Company. These directors form what is known as the London Committee, and I understand that it is the practice of the committee on the occurrence of a vacancy in its membership to nominate a new member, whose name is then submitted to the board of directors for election and for subsequent confirmation at a meeting of shareholders. The question of the best means of securing proper representation for British shipping interests is one for the shipping industry itself.
    Mr. REMER: Am I to understand from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that these representatives are now nominated by the Shipowners' Associa-

    803
    tion, or are they nominated by the Government?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, I think that I made it clear that it is largely an agreement between the Suez Canal Company and the shipping interests and that nominations will be made in that way.
    Major THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether the present seven directors on the board of the Suez Canal Company under the agreement of 1883 represent British shipping and are themselves shipowners;
    (2) whether the British Chamber of Shipping and the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association are directly represented on the board of the Suez Canal Company?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Under the agreement of 1883 the seven directors in question are to be chosen from amongst English shipowners and merchants. In fact six of the seven are either shipowners or closely connected with shipping. The Chamber of Shipping and the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association are not directly represented on the board of the company but there are two ex-presidents of the chamber and two ex-chairmen of the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association among these directors.

    STEAMERS, CRAIGENDORAN (CREWS' HOURS).
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the crews of steamers at Craigendoran, owned by the London and North Eastern Railway Company, are required to work an 11-hour day, with overtime in addition; that in the steamer "Waverley" the seamen and firemen have been reduced by two; that in the steamer "Jeanie Deans" only one fireman is employed to attend a double-ended boiler with six fires, closed stokehold, and forced draught for 11 hours at a stretch; and whether he will inquire into the matter in order to provide for the safety of passengers and secure proper working conditions for the crew?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I have obtained a report on this matter from which it appears that the facts differ in certain respects from those stated in the question. The position is that the new vessel
    804
    "Jeanie Deans" is not at present on any regular service but will shortly take up the service now carried on by the "Waverley," and the latter will be transferred to another service. The number of seamen on the "Waverley" has been reduced from six to five, and the number of firemen was experimentally reduced from five to three. As, however, the arrangements involved one fireman being on duty alone for part of each day, the owners have decided to increase the number of firemen to four and have arranged the conditions so that at no time while the ship is on service are less than two men employed in the stokehold. The same conditions will apply to the "Jeanie Deans" when she takes up service. The Board are satisfied that no question of safety arises as regards the manning of these vessels either on deck or in the stokehold.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: If I satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that engineers, firemen in the stokehold and the crew are working 11 hours without any break, will he interfere and see that that is changed?
    Mr. GRAHAM: My hon. Friend knows that I am very anxious to do my best in regard to these matters, and certain improvements are represented in the reply that I have read. I can also give him information on the subsequent points which he has put.

  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
  Mr. P. OLIVERasked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to grant facilities for the discussion of the report of the Select Committee on Capital Punishment?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): In view of the state of Parliamentary business, I can hold out no hope of facilities being given for the discussion of this report at present.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT.
    Mr. BRACKENasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government propose to implement the recommendations contained in the first report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Thursday last in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. BRACKEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government accept in principle the recommendations of the Commission?
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Did not the right hon. Gentleman himself press again and again that the Commission should issue an interim report?

    ELDORADO ICE CREAM COMPANY.
    Mr. McSHANEasked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that unemployed men are being offered, by Employment Exchanges, jobs with the Eldorado Ice Cream Company; that the wages offered are 3s. per day plus 2s. in the £ commission; that the hours are expressly stated as 9.30 a.m. to 9 p.m., Mondays to Sundays; that this means 801 hours per week; and that men who have refused such work have been disallowed benefit; and whether she will give instructions to her officers to offer no more of these jobs?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The wages and hours are substantially as stated; I understand the hours are those of leaving and returning to the depot. In certain cases benefit has been disallowed by courts of referees on refusal of this employment, but I am informed that the question of an appeal to the Umpire is under consideration. I have no authority to issue the instructions suggested in the last part of the question.
    Mr. McSHANE: Does not the right hon. Lady see the danger of the principle involved in this matter, and that is that no one shall be allowed unemployment benefit if they refuse a job where they have to work seven days a week? Does she not see the danger of the implication?
    Miss BONDFIELD: That is not the principle involved here, because, as a, matter of fact, in two or three cases of a similar kind the courts of referees have allowed benefit.

  FINANCE BILL.

    LAND VALUE TAX.
    Mr. O. LEWISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether land of
    806
    which the freehold is owned by private individuals and which is subject in perpetuity to restrictions providing that no buildings shall be erected on it will have the privilege of exemption from the proposed land tax?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EX-CHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): No, Sir. Such land would not be exempt from tax; but while I cannot of course speak with assurance in the absence of details of a particular case, it may be anticipated that the restrictions to which the hon. Member refers would normally be taken into account in arriving at land value.
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: Does that mean that land on which no building can be erected will be subject to the tax?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Unless I have full details of particular places I cannot give a definite reply that will be applicable generally.
    Mr. HARRISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider publishing a White Paper giving the method of taxing and rating land values in the Dominion of New Zealand as well as in the various States comprising the Commonwealth of Australia?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I have considered this suggestion. The information asked for by my hon. Friend could not be compiled before the discussions on the Finance Bill are concluded, and in these circumstances I doubt whether the labour involved in the compilation would be justified.
    Mr. HARRIS: Could not this information be obtained from the various High Commissioners' offices and Agents-General without much delay?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: As the hon. Member knows, a good deal of information on these matters can already be found in various publications. As I have said, it will take considerable time to put it into proper form, and I am quite sure it could not be done in time for the consideration of the Finance Bill.
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Is it not the fact that the system of rating and taxation in these lands is entirely different from the proposals of the Government?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Not at all.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. MAWDERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the possibility of action being taken by the Treasury to obtain Income Tax, either from the recipients or the donors, on gifts made by or on behalf of commercial firms with the object of influencing trade?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: In cases where inquiry appears to be called for, all possible action will continue to be taken with a view to ascertaining the facts and securing the due assessment of liabilities to Income Tax in connection with such payments. I am obliged to the hon. Member for calling attention to this matter.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    CIVIL SERVICE (COMMISSION'S REPORT).
    Mr. W. J. BROWNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he anticipates that the report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, anticipated for the end of July, will be available to the public?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I anticipate that the report will be available to the public within a few days of its presentation.

    BONUS.
    Mr. W. J. BROWNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to reply to the request of the staff side of the Civil Service Whitley Council for the reception of a deputation to urge that no further cuts in Civil Service bonus should take place pending Governmental decision on the report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: A reply has now been sent.

    MR. H. SAMWELL, BRIGHTON.
    Sir C. RAWSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why Mr. Harold Samwell, of 101, Compton Road, Brighton, who volunteered and served in the Army from 1915 until 1919, and has since been employed temporarily in different Government Departments with satisfactory references, has now been informed by the Joint Substitution Board that his employment is discontinued and
    808
    that the possibility of further temporary Government employment must be regarded as remote?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): If the hon. Member will take an opportunity of seeing me about this case, I will explain the position to him.

  WAR LOAN (CONVERSION).
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is proposed to take action in the matter of the conversion of the War Loan?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: It would clearly be impossible for me to make any statement of the kind suggested.

  WILLS (PHOTOSTAT COPIES).
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (1) at whose instance and for what purpose was the new method of photostat reproduction of copies of wills for probate instituted; and, seeing that this matter specially affects solicitors and their clients, will he inform the House for what reason the views of the Law Society were not ascertained before such an important change in practice was made;
  (2) if he will inform the House of the nature of the additional savings which the Treasury consider will accrue to the public as the result of the new method of photostat reproduction of copies of wills for probate, apart from the estimated saving to the Exchequer of £1,500 per annum?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The photostat process for the reproduction of wills has been introduced in the Principal Probate Registry at the suggestion of the Treasury for the purpose of securing the advantages incidental to the adoption of up-to-date methods, including greater speed, accuracy and economy. The decision to make the change was taken by the President of the Probate Division after very careful consideration, and I understand that the change was not considered to be one on which it was necessary to consult the Law Society. The

  809
  additional savings to the public referred to in my reply to the hon. Member of the 20th May are comprised in reduced charges for copies of wills and in the waiving, in most cases, of the requirement to produce an engrossment copy of the will when applying for probate.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Does not the Financial Secretary think that it would have been desirable to consult the Law Society and ask their opinion, at any rate?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That was not the view of the President of the Probate Division and I do not see why I should interfere in the matter.

  BRITAIN AND FRANCE (CONVERSATIONS).
  Mr. DAYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the discussions recently held between the representatives of the French and British Treasuries have now been concluded; and can he make a statement?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No further meetings between the British and French Treasuries have taken place since February last, but the two Treasuries remain in close touch, and the question of arranging further meetings will be considered whenever it may appear desirable.

  LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL.
  Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the communication which he has received from Sir William Clare Lees, president of the British Chambers of Commerce, with reference to the provisions in the London Passenger Transport Bill; and what has been his reply?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Parkinson): My right hon. Friend has considered the letter to which my hon. Friend refers. For reasons which he has already stated he is unable to agree with the suggestions made in the letter.
  Mr. DAY: Has the answer been conveyed to the gentleman mentioned in the question?
  Mr. PARKINSON: Yes.

  INDIA.

    NORTH WEST FRONTIER OPERATIONS (MEDAL).
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the second battalion, Essex Regiment, who have been on active service on the Kajuri Plain since last autumn, have been officially informed that the frontier medal cannot be given them as the Government could not afford it; and whether he will look into this matter?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): I have no such information. I should be grateful if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would furnish me with the facts on which his question is based.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this battalion has suffered many casualties and that this information was given by the Commander-in-Chief?
    Mr. BENN: There is no question as to the gallant behaviour of this battalion. The question is as to the accuracy of the statements made by the hon. and gallant Member in the question, and, if he will give me particulars, I wall, of course, investigate them.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Commander-in-Chief recently inspected the battalion he said that they were an excellent battalion, but that the Government of India could not afford to give them a medal at present?
    Mr. BENN: That is what I am asking the hon. and gallant Member to substantiate. If he can give me an authorised report of that, I will have it investigated.

    DEPRESSED CLASSES (CONFERENCE REPRESENTATION).
    Mr. BRACKENasked the Secretary of State for India whether His Majesty's Government will ensure that

    811
    the delegation representing the Untouchables at future meetings of the Round. Table Conference or any of its committees will have representation proportionate to that granted to the Hindus?
    Mr. BENN: The Depressed Classes are represented on the Conference and the question of their representation on the Federal Structure Committee is being considered.
    Mr. BRACKEN: Will the Secretary of State answer the question as to the proportion of representation to be granted? I did not ask if they were granted, but what is the proportion to be granted?
    Mr. BENN: It has never been the policy that the proportion of delegates at the Round Table Conference should be worked out on a population basis.

    GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (WAGES).
    Mr. BRACKENasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will recommend that a fair wages clause be made an essential part of all contracts granted by the Government of India to Indian and British firms?
    Mr. BENN: It has been accepted policy since 1926 that the Government of India in the purchase of stores, other than military stores, should exercise their discretion without control by the Secretary of State. I may mention that the High Commissioner for India informs me that his contracts ordinarily contain the equivalent of the Fair Wages Clause.

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, DEHBY-SHIRE (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
  Mr. LEESasked the Attorney-General when the last meeting of the Derbyshire county committee for the appointment of magistrates was held; and whether any recommendations were then submitted?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps): I am unable to state when the last meeting of this committee was held as the meetings are convened by the Lord Lieutenant, and the Lord Chancellor does not receive any official notice thereof.
  Mr. LEES: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a meeting of this description should have been held during the last two years; and what steps is be prepared to take to see that a meeting is called?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As the Lord Chancellor has received no official notice and is not aware of the fact, I cannot say what steps he would take if he were aware of it.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is a fine reply from a Labour man to a Labour man. Just like a lawyer!
  Mr. BENSON: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman kindly convey to the Lord Chancellor the fact that there is considerable feeling in Derbyshire about this matter?
  Mr. LEES: Will he also inform the Lord Lieutenant that it is time he did something to hold a meeting?

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (CHEMISTS).
  Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Minister of Health whether the Government have now come to a decision upon the proposal to introduce legislation to repeal the section which prohibits insurance chemists from giving an insured person an inducement by gift or otherwise in consideration of his presenting an order for drugs or appliances on a National Health Insurance form?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): Legislation is not necessary to deal with this point, but an appeal has been made against the recent decision of the courts in the matter, and until it has been heard my right hon. Friend cannot properly make any statement.

  HOUSING (RURAL AREAS).
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Minister of Health whether it is the intention of the Government to accelerate further the building of cottages and small houses in the rural districts; and whether he can make any statement on the matter?
  Miss LAWRENCE: My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make any statement on this matter. It is still under consideration.
  Mr. BROCKWAY: Has the hon. Lady's attention been drawn to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) on this matter: and will she confirm that statement?
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the hon. Lady say whether this is the only progress that has been made in two years with rural housing?

  TEISTAN DA CUNHA.
  Sir W. DAVISONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government will consider the desirability of evacuating the inhabitants of the Island of Tristan da Cunha, in view of the difficulty and cost of supplying them with the necessaries of life, for which provision has to be made in the Estimates, and having regard to the fact that the Island is of no commercial or strategic value?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): The question of evacuating the inhabitants of Tristan da Cunha has been considered from time to time, but owing to the opposition of the islanders to their removal, it has not been thought desirable to take any action in the matter. The charge on public funds, to which the hon. Member refers, is confined to the cost of providing occasional steamer calls for the purpose of carrying mails and supplies, which are paid for from private subscriptions.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (COMMITTEE ROOMS (STRANGERS' ADDRESSES).
Sir THOMAS INSKIP: I desire respectfully, Mr. Speaker, to ask you for an expression of an opinion on a document which was, apparently, circulated to hon. Members yesterday. The document in question purports to be a reproduction of an address given by an official of the Soviet Embassy in London on 22nd April, and appears to be propaganda of a very controversial order, from the point of view of a Socialist, in favour of the five-year plan of the Soviet Union. On the front outside page it is stated that the address was delivered in a Committee Room of the House of
814
Commons. No other statement appears as to the persons to whom it was made, or the persons responsible for arranging the meeting. In these circumstances, I respectfully submit two points. The first is that the imprint describing the speech as having been delivered in a Committee Room of the House of Commons, without any indication of the nature of the audience, or the body responsible for the meeting, is calculated to give a wholly misleading impression in quarters outside the House, and to afford an unwarranted advertisement of the political theories advanced in the address. Secondly, I submit that the delivery in a Committee Room upstairs of a partisan speech, on a matter of current political controversy is an abuse of the privileges which Members enjoy, especially when the speech is intended for subsequent publication.
Mr. SPEAKER: My attention had been called to the matter to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers. Of course, the House is very well aware of the rule which governs the granting of the use of Committee Rooms to Members of this House, namely, that the Members to whom that privilege is given, and who make use of Committee Rooms must be held responsible for what takes place in those Committee Rooms. As regards the actual statement on this paper that the address was delivered in a Committee Room of the House of Commons, I think it is undesirable that on documents of this kind, which are undoubtedly meant for a large circulation, a statement of that kind should be printed, because it gives a false impression to those who are not well initiated in the procedure which goes on in the Committee Rooms upstairs, of the weight attaching to a document or an address of this kind, and it is apt to mislead the public. I think that for those reasons it is undesirable that that statement should have been printed upon that document.
Mr. MACLEAN: We may take it, Sir, that the Ruling which you are now giving is for our future guidance. I think it is within the memory of every Member who has been here for any length of time that various Committees of Members of this House have invited different individuals to give addresses in Committee Rooms upstairs upon different subjects, some of a decidedly partisan and political

815
character. In addition, sometimes the addresses so delivered have been printed and circulated, not merely to Members of this House, but to people outside. I submit that the matter raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman is no new matter. It is no innovation, as regards the way in which the Committee Booms are used, and I trust, Sir, that if you are now giving a Ruling, that Ruling will be made general to all sections of this House and will not really be made upon this particular case in which the parties concerned acted in all good faith and in accordance with the customary practice of Members of this House.
Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry that the Ruling which I gave a few minutes ago was entirely misunderstood by the hon. Member. I made no comment at all upon the use to which the Committee Boom had been put. The only Ruling I gave was that I thought it undesirable that undue weight should be given to the document by having printed upon it that the address was delivered in a Committee Boom of the House of Commons. That is the only comment I made. I do not say that it was out of order, but merely that it was undesirable, I make that remark for the guidance of Members of all parties.
Mr. MACLEAN: That is the point upon which I was dwelling. On pamphlets that have been circulated containing addresses made in Committee Rooms in the past, it has been stated that the address was delivered to Members of the House of Commons. I can produce several which I have had sent to me. One was by Mr. Goodenough, the banker. These documents contained the information that the address was delivered to Members of the House of Commons, and I am putting it to you, Mr. Speaker, that your observations are for future guidance and cast no reflection on anything that has been done in the past.
Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: In fairness to the gentleman who delivered the address, it ought to be stated that the publication was at the almost unanimous request of Members who were gathered at the meeting. I think that it was clearly not intended that the speech should be published for general distribution, but there was an almost unanimous request from
816
the Members present that the speech should be published in order that Members could have the address.
Mr. SPEAKER: Again, I say that I am making no comment on the way in which the speech was published. I only say that it is undesirable that undue weight should be given to such speeches by having printed on them that they were delivered in a Committee room of the House of Commons.
Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This matter seems to call for a consideration by this House of the use of the Committee rooms for meetings and addresses by gentlemen other than Members of this House, to whatever party the audience or the speaker belongs. I want to ask the Prime Minister two questions arising out of this incident. The first is whether he does not think it would be desirable, perhaps through the usual channels, to have this matter considered by the representatives of the three parties—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—and to decide, subject to your authority, Sir, what are the limits within which any section of this House should be entitled to ask for the use of the Committee rooms. The second question, which is quite apart from that, is whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks it proper that one of the diplomatic representatives of another country should in any circumstances or on any subject——
Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. The question was raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney-General with regard to a particular meeting. He was good enough to mention no names and not to bring into his question anything relating to any nation with which that particular gentleman may have been associated. The point now being raised by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) is an entirely new question, and I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that you ought to have received notice of it.
Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the question which the right hon. Gentleman was putting was being put to the Prime Minister. Between 3.45 and 4 o'clock it is the common custom of this House to allow questions of that sort to be put to the Leader of the House.
Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the custom if such a question is to be put, to give notice of it? [HON. MEMBERS: "What are you afraid of?"] No one there, anyway. [Interruption.] The question has been put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham as if it definitely arose out of the matter which was raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip).
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: My second question is whether the Prime Minister thinks that it is consonant with the traditions of this House or with diplomatic amenities that a member of any foreign embassy should address a party meeting in a Committee room of this House.
The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first question, I am not sure that it comes within my sphere. As the right hon. Gentleman has given me no notice of it, I am not quite prepared to answer it. With regard to the second question, that is obviously one of those private notice questions which ought to pass through your hands, Mr. Speaker, first of all. I certainly cannot answer it. Until I heard the question put by the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) I did not know that such a pamphlet existed. I have never seen it, and even now I do not know who the author is. If the right hon. Gentleman will go through the ordinary process, I will do my very best to answer him.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Subject to your permission, Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice that I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman to-morrow.
Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Has the Prime Minister considered that private Members of this House have no rooms of their own, and that it is a great convenience to them., through those responsible for letting the rooms, to have the rooms to discuss all kinds of questions?

DOMESTIC SERVICE.
Mr. MANDER: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a domestic service commission; and for other purposes connected therewith."
I introduce this Motion in the interests of both parties concerned—both mistresses and servants—because I appre-
818
ciate that any complaints that there may be with regard to matters of this kind are not one-sided. I am aware that this subject provokes very keen interest, not to say controversy. It deals with no fewer than 1,100,000 of our fellow-citizens. I should like to say at once that the greater number of these will be in no way affected by the provisions of this Bill, because I am quite ready to believe that in the vast majority of cases the conditions are quite satisfactory, the personal relations are all that could be desired, and no intervention by the State is called for. It is quite clear, wherever you have on either side ordinary consideration and good will, there is no problem at all which requires to be dealt with, but I do feel that there remains a minority of cases which does require some intervention by the State. When I first began to take an interest in this subject, at the direct request of some of my women constituents rather more than a year ago, I received a large correspondence from different parts of the country. Some letters of a very moving kind made me feel that the matter did require something to be done. Furthermore, there was the very significant investigation which was made by the education committee of Middlesbrough some time ago, when they produced evidence of rather a remarkable character showing that some action ought to be taken.
In the main, the difficulties, I think, are psychological. There has arisen in the past, for some reason, a sort of feeling that domestic service is inferior, is of a nature that ought not to be undertaken by all sorts of people. I think that we want to do something to raise the status, and make people feel that the occupation of domestic service is as dignified and as honourable as any other occupation in this country, and that it ought not to be confined necessarily to one class of the community. I quite appreciate the very real difficulty there is in dealing with a problem of this kind. The relationship is so personal, so intimate, that you have to be very careful in making any proposals. Therefore, I do feel that if we could take any steps which would establish as a common rule throughout the country what is the usual practice among good employers at the present time, we should be promoting something which every Member of this House would be glad to see done, and I submit that this Bill promotes that result.

819
To come to the actual terms of the Bill, it sets out, first of all, that there shall be a domestic service commission of five members, of which the chairman and at least two others shall be women. The duties of this commission would be, in the first instance, to review comprehensively the conditions of employment and to promote measures to raise the status of the occupation; to promote the organisation of a consultative joint council for domestic service representative of employers and employed, and district councils subsidiary thereto; to consider by what methods, and in co-operation with what organisations and agencies, the training of domestic servants can most satisfactorily be promoted; and, further, in consultation with the Minister of Labour, to consider the following questions—the machinery for the engagement of domestic servants, the issue of certificates of proficiency, and the desirability of bringing domestic service within the ambit of the Unemployment Insurance Acts. Perhaps the most important Clause is Clause 4, which enables the commission, after consultation with the consultative council, to submit to the Minister draft regulations which, in due course, after going through the procedure which I will describe, would have the force of law. These regulations would be in the nature of a domestic servants charter, and they would, if the commission though fit, cover the following subjects: remuneration, hours of work, holidays, accommodation and recreation, with a view to making general the standards existing among good employers.
I hope that the House will realise the very great safeguards that are imposed in this Bill to prevent any regulations of an extreme or unreasonable nature being promulgated. There is a four-fold check. First of all, the commission would no doubt desire to carry with it the consultative committee. Then they would have to obtain the direct approval of the Minister of Labour, and, even then, when the Minister had put forward these regulations, they could be annulled by the House of Commons or the House of Lords. I think that it will be generally felt that any regulations that survive obstacles of that kind are not likely to be of an extreme nature, and are likely to command the assent of anybody associated with this problem. I hope the House will realise that this is a cautious
820
and moderate attempt to deal with a difficult problem that does require, to some small extent perhaps, the intervention of the State. I hope the House will be good enough to allow the First Reading of the Bill, so that the terms may be studied, and a first step may be taken to make it clear that Parliament recognises the occupation of domestic service as being equal in usefulness and in honour to any other occupation in the State.
Miss WILKINSON: I am very sorry, indeed, to appear to oppose a well-meant attempt to deal with what is a serious problem, for I am the last person on earth not to wish to see an improvement in the conditions of domestic service——
HON. MEMBERS: Speak up!
Mr. MANDER: On a point of Order. I understand that the hon. Member is not opposing the introduction of the Bill, and, in that case, I desire to know whether it is in order to speak.
Miss WILKINSON: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I was saying how good it was to bring in a Bill, but that I felt compelled to oppose it.
Mr. MANDER: I understood the hon. Lady to say that she did not object to the First Reading and to the printing of the Bill.
Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Lady is not going to object to the Bill being brought in, I am afraid that she cannot speak on it.
Miss WILKINSON: I am sorry if I gave that impression, because I am going to oppose the Bill, as I think it is the wrong way to bring about what the hon. Gentleman desires. I do not think that what he is proposing will ever result in getting anything done. I appreciate his desire to deal with what is not a new problem, but the old problem of long hours, bad conditions and wide variation in the pay of domestic servants. I do not share the hon. Member's optimism that a large number of domestic servants are well paid. A few are. The machinery of the Bill, of which the hon. Member considerately gave me a copy, is something approaching a combination of Whitley Council and Royal Commission. I suggest that the best way of achieving what the hon. Member desires would be

821
by some simple procedure, as, for example, that which is to be found in the Trade Boards Acts. The only way you are going to solve this very vexed problem is have something like a recognised minimum wage and a recognised maximum number of hours. If you have all the complicated machinery set up by this Bill, I think it will obscure the object in view, and nothing will happen as a result. While appreciating
to the full the very good intentions behind the Bill, I do not think that it will achieve a useful purpose, and I, therefore, oppose it.
Question put,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a domestic service commission; and for other purposes connected therewith."
The House divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 89.

Division No. 285.]

AYES.

[4.13 p.m.

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

Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

Muff, G.

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Harris, Percy A.

Nathan, Major H. L.

Alpass, J. H.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Naylor, T. E.

Ammon, Charles George

Haycock, A. W.

Noel Baker, P. J.

Angell, Sir Norman

Hayes, John Henry

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

Arnott, John

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

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

Attlee, Clement Richard

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Palin, John Henry.

Ayles, Walter

Herriotts, J.

Paling, Wilfrid

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

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

Palmer, E. T.

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Hoffman, P. C.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Barnes, Alfred John

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Perry, S. F.

Barr, James

Hopkin, Daniel

Pethick-Lawrencs, F. W.

Batey, Joseph

Hunter, Dr. Joseph

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

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

Isaacs, George

Potts, John S.

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Jenkins, Sir William

Price, M. P.

Benton, G.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Rathbone, Eleanor

Bowen, J. W.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Raynes, W. R.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Richards, R.

Broad, Francis Alfred

Kelly, W. T.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Brockway, A. Fenner

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Brooke, W.

Kin'ey, J.

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

Brothers, M.

Kirkwood, D.

Ritson, J

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

Knight, Holford

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

Brown, Ernest (Lelth)

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

Romerll, H. G.

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

Lang, Gordon

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Rowson, Guy

Buchanan, G.

Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)

Burgess, F. G.

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

Law, A. (Rossendale)

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

Cape, Thomas

Lawrence, Susan

Sanders, W. S.

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

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Sexton, Sir James

Charleton, H. C.

Leach, W.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Chater, Daniel

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Church, Major A. G.

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Sherwood, G. H.

Cluse, W. S.

Lees, J.

Shield, George William

Compton, Joseph

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Shillaker, J. F.

Cove, William G.

Lindley, Fred W.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Simmons, C. J.

Daggar, George

Logan, David Gilbert

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

Dallas, George

Longbottom, A. W.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Dalton, Hugn

Lovat-Fraser, S. A.

Sinkinson, George

Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Day, Harry

MarDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

McElwee, A.

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

Ede, James Chuter

McEntee, V. L

Smith, Rennle (Penlstcne)

Edmunds, J. E.

McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

Smith. Tom (Pontefract)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

MacNeill-Welr, L.

Sorensen, R.

Egan, W. H.

McShane, John James

Stephen, Campbell

Foot, Isaac

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

Strauss, G. R.

Freeman, Peter

Manning, E. L.

Sullivan, J.

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

Mansfield, W.

Sutton, J. E.

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

March, S.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

Marcus, M.

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

Glassey, A. E.

Marshall, Fred

Thorne, W. (West Ham, plalstow)

Gossling, A. G.

Mathers, George

Thurtle, Ernest

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Matters, L. W.

Tillett, Ben

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Maxton, James

Tinker, John Joseph

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Messer, Fred

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Millar, J. D.

Turner, Sir Ben

Groves, Thomas E.

Milner, Major J.

Vaughan, David

Grundy, Thomas W.

Morley, Ralph

Viant, S. P.

Hall G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

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

Watkins, F. C.

Hail, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).

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

Mort, D. L.

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Wise, E. F.

West, F. R.

Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Westwood, Joseph

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

White, H. G.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Mr. Mander and Mr. Gray.

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Flelden, E. B.

Perkins, W. R. D.

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

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Atkinson, C.

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

Beaumont, M. W.

Grace, John

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

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

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

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Hamilton. Sir George (Ilford)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Boyce, Leslie

Hartington, Marquess of

Savery, S. S.

Broadbent, Colonel J.

Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)

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

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

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

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

Smithors, Waldron

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Knox, Sir Alfred

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

Colfox, Major William Philip

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Colville, Major D. J.

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

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

Cooper, A. Duff

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Cranborne, Viscount

Lymington, Viscount

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Crookshank, Capt, H. C.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Warrender, Sir Victor

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Wells, Sydney R.

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

Marjoribanks, Edward

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

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

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

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

Muirhead. A. J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

O'Connor, T. J.

Sir Gerald Hurst and Mr. Remer.

Ferguson, Sir John

Penny, Sir George

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mander, Mr. W. M. Adamson, Sir Ernest Bennett, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Gray, Mr. Kingsley Griffith, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, and Mr. Simon.

DOMESTIC SERVICE.

  DOMESTIC SERVICE BILL,
  "to establish a domestic service commission; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 169.]
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN: On a point of Order. Is it in order, under the Standing Orders, for an hon. Member to speak in opposition to a Bill, mislead the Chair and the House into supposing that she was going to object to the Bill—in so doing preventing another hon. Member who did object to the Bill having an opportunity to speak—and then neither appoint Tellers nor vote against the Bill?
  Miss WILKINSON: On that point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to impute motives to another Member which are utterly and absolutely false?
  Mr. SPEAKER: In these particular matters I have only to carry out the Standing Order, which says that I can permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who is moving for leave to introduce the Bill and a brief statement from a Member who opposes it. What they do afterwards has nothing to do with me.
  Mr. BROWN: Is not the Chair the only protection the House has against a Member who does not play the game with the House?
  Miss WILKINSON: May I seek the protection of the Chair against charges of that kind? My opposition to the Bill was a serious and considered opposition. I did not vote, and I claim that a Member has a perfect right to withhold his or her vote or give it as he or she may wish, without running the risk of having motives attributed. I claim your protection against these charges by the hon. Member.
  Mr. BROWN: Further to that point of Order, is it not a fact that the hon. Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) rose and desired to object to the Bill, does object to the Bill, and told and voted against it, but was deprived of his

  825
  right to put his ease against the Bill, because the hon. Member, who did not vote, put her case?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have already said that whether a Member votes or not is not a matter with which I am concerned.

RURAL EDUCATION AND BETTER FEEDING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorise educational authorities to acquire land and buildings and to erect buildings in rural areas for the purpose of boarding, educating, and training children; and for purposes connected therewith."
This is a voluntary Measure. If the children from the towns are to be sent, as I propose, to live in the rural areas under the conditions suggested they must go of their own free will and with the free consent of their parents. Anything in the nature of compulsion would excite fierce hostility both from parents and children. My own view is that under our present education system the children living in the towns suffer very great handicaps, and it is impossible for them to be adequately fed. In a great many cases the children of the poorer-paid workers are sustained largely on bread and tea and margarine, and the result is that we have a C 3 race growing up. If the provisions of this Measure were adopted, in less than a generation we should have an A 1 population. What I am suggesting is that those authorities who are wise enough to do so should have the right to rent areas of land and to make provision for bringing up children there. They would engage a farmer to supervise the agricultural operations, a gardener to supervise the horticultural work and a poultry expert to look after the rearing of the fowls. The children themselves would be employed for brief periods of the day in doing the agricultural, horticultural and other work necessary to grow their own food supplies.
I believe this plan has already been adopted in the case of the Blue Coat School. The authorities of that school invested in a considerable area of land and, I believe, they grow all the food
826
which the pupils need. Those fortunate boys get practically unlimited supplies of the kind of food which is necessary for the rising generation. No great labour would be involved. The number of hours worked per week could be limited to from six to 10 hours. An hour or two a day would be adequate; with that amount of work they could produce all they required. Teachers would be residents there, and all the usual studies would be pursued. I can imagine nothing that would more delight the heart of a boy in his tender years than helping to rear the chickens and hens and rabbits and doing all the usual things that are done on a farm. The children would be growing their own food supplies and in unlimited quantities. Provision would be made that none of the produce should be sold, because that would lead to commercialisation, and there might be opportunities for exploiting the children.
Under this system all those children would grow up with a knowledge of agriculture instilled into them from their earliest years. Afterwards they could look about the world to see where they could get a bit of land for themselves and they would know what to do with it; they would know that with a comparatively small area of land a man can provide subsistence for himself. There is plenty of land for this purpose in this country. More land is falling out of cultivation in this country than would be necessary to support all these children if they were working for themselves. Some of my hon. Friends beside me have suggested that this is a Socialistic proposal and would cost a good deal of money. I do not think I have over heard anything quite so sensible coming from the other side, and, as it is a sensible suggestion, I hope that it will recommend itself to them. I do not think that there will be any particular expense, because if you had the children drawing their home supplies and feeding themselves they would be saving a great deal of the cost of providing their sustenance under present conditions. My object is to bring back the people to the land, because fanning is the finest occupation for anybody. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] In this way you would get a first-class farming population,

827
and it is no good having that unless you train them.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Macquisten, Colonel Wedgwood, Mr. Hurd, and Mr. Robert Wilson.

RURAL EDUCATION AND BETTER FEEDING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN.
  RURAL EDUCATION AND BETTER FEEDING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN BILL,
  "to authorise educational authorities to acquire land and buildings and to erect buildings in rural areas for the purpose of boarding, educating, and training children; and for purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 170.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Alpass, Sir Ernest Bennett, Mr. Bennett, Major Colfox, Mr. Daggar, Captain Gunston, Mr. Herriotts, Mr. Messer, Lady Noel-Buxton, Mr. Ramsay, Colonel Ruggles-Brise, Mr. Scott, Sir Ernest Shepperson, and Mr. Charles Williams; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Hall-Caine, Major Church, Sir William Davison, Major Glyn, Mr. Kedward, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Mr. Lang, Mr. Marjoribanks, Mr. W. S. Morrison, Sir Cooper Rawson, Mr. Richard Russell, Mr. Strauss, Mr. Toole, and Mr. Young.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Sunday Performances (Regulation) Bill): The Attorney-General, Mr. Beckett, Sir Alfred Butt, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Foot, Mr. David Grenfell, Captain Austin Hudson, Sir Thomas Inskip, Mr. Isaacs, Mr. Ellis Lloyd, Commander Oliver Locker-Lampson, Mr. Morris, Lord Eustace Percy, Mr. Remer, Mr. Short, Mr. Annesley Somerville, Colonel Sir Kenyon Vaughan-Morgan, Mr. Watkins, Mr. James Welsh (Paisley), and Mr. Womersley.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FINANCE BILL.
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

  FINANCE BILL.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Charge of Land Value Tax.)
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment I propose to call is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) in page 4, line 39. The first three Amendments standing in the hon. Member's name are largely drafting Amendments, but the one I have called and the following one in page 5, line 1, are the substantial ones. I suggest that the general Debate on these and others which concern the date should take place on this Amendment.
    Sir DENNIS HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 4, line 39, after the word "for" to insert the words "such financial year as Parliament may hereafter determine not being earlier than."
    The alteration which would be effected by this Amendment is that, whereas this Clause provides that the tax shall be charged for the financial year ending the 31st of March, 1934, my Amendment would provide that it should be charged for
    "such financial year as Parliament may hereafter determine."
    My reason for moving this Amendment must be obvious to hon. Members. I think it is undesirable that Parliament should at this date purport to charge a tax for a year three years ahead because nobody knows what may happen meanwhile. No one can say for certain that the machinery necessary to put the new tax into force will be ready. There may be many others reasons for altering the year in which the tax is to be charged. If it were possible to get the machinery at work earlier, Parliament might, in the future, desire to impose a tax for the financial year 1933 instead of 1934. I know that this is an alteration which could not be made except at the instance of the Government and that it would necessitate a further Financial Resolution. I move my Amendment in this
    840
    particular form because I think it is highly undesirable to adopt a method of charging a tax for several years ahead. The Committee can understand that the Government are proposing the institution of a new form of taxation, so-called, which they cannot make without some years of preparation. That no doubt is a Sufficient justification for passing the necessary legislation to enable the tax to be levied in the future.
    The Government have not sufficient foresight to be able to say with certainty that everything will be ready in time to levy the tax in 1934, and there is a possibility that by that time the finances of the country may have improved to such an extent that there may not be sufficient reason for levying this tax in that year. I think it will be agreed that it is undesirable that a tax, which has never been levied before, should suddenly come into operation in one particular financial year without any reference being made to it in the Finance Bill, or in any other legislation before that year. The number of taxpayers who will be affected is very large, and in the case of small landowners I think it is undesirable that a tax should come into operation for the first time as a result of legislation passed years before without any particular notice being given in the year in which it is imposed. I hope that, for reasons of finance generally, the Government may see their way to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. CADOGAN: The effect of the Amendments standing in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) is to postpone the date so as to give more time for the valuation. There are as many as 12 months' hereditaments now to be valued due to the break-up of large estates and other causes. I am quite prepared to admit that, when it is a question of the taxpayer being mulcted, it is a more expeditious process when the taxpayer has some claims upon the Treasury, but it is difficult to understand how the valuation can be completed at the date suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The chief valuer of the Board of Inland Revenue, giving evidence before the last Land Valuation Committee in 1919, stated that the valuation commenced in April, 1910, and by July, 1914, only 74 per cent. of the provisional valuations had been completed. It was then stated that

    841
    a staff of 0,200 was employed at headquarters and 7,000 in the provinces. That is a very large staff. I am aware that it depends on the number of officials employed how long the valuation will take, but surely at a time like this when you should be axing rather than grafting you are creating an unwieldy organisation out of all proportion to any revenue you will collect. There is one other important consideration which arises. If the Town and Country Planning Bill becomes law, and is put into operation, the valuation will have to be made over again. There may be a site assessed as eligible for a factory, but under a town planning scheme, it may be scheduled as an open space. But what is to happen? Suppose that the scheme comes into operation. Is there to be another valuation? That may be a case which will be very frequent all over the country. If so, surely there should be a second valuation, and for that you would require considerable time. If the Government are going to get the valuation done in time, they will have to employ the Guillotine for the valuation as they have done for the Debates in this House.
    Lord ERSKINE: I wish to support the Amendment. It is an extraordinary procedure and one which has not been adopted in this House before, to bring in a tax in one year and to say that it is not to come into operation for two or three or more years. If the Bill passes as it stands, this House will not again have a chance of considering the tax before it comes into operation. I do not quite know why the Government have chosen this particular method of bringing in the tax. I should have thought it would have been far better to have had an ordinary valuation Bill, and then to have imposed the tax; but for some reason best known to themselves the Government have chosen this particular method. We should support the Amendment because it does allow the House to have another chance of considering whether or not it desires to impose this tax in the financial year 1933–34. The Government really are wrong in saying that the valuation will take such a very short time. The point has already been raised, but I would remind the hon. and learned Solicitor-General that after the land taxes of
    842
    1909, the valuation took a very long time, and in fact had not been completed on the outbreak of war. There is no guarantee whatever that this new valuation will be finished by the time that the Government propose that the tax should come into operation.
    The last speaker raised the point that the Financial Bill clashes with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Bill which is now before a Standing Committee. It has always seemed to me that the provisions of the Finance Bill and of the Town and Country Planning Bill are mutually contradictory. It will be found when this valuation is made that certain spaces have been scheduled as open spaces under the Town and Country Planning Bill, and when the tax comes into operation it will in many cases prove unworkable, or will be very unfair, because owners of property will be taxed on the valuation when all the time their property will have been town-planned. There are three reasons why the Committee should support the Amendment, One is the time that will be taken to make the valuation; secondly, there is the clash between the Town and Country Planning Bill and the Finance Bill; and, thirdly, there is the present procedure, which I can only stigmatise as improper—bringing in a tax in one year and not imposing it for three years.
    Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: I understand that we are discussing various alternative Amendments which deal with the same subject. My preference is for the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), which proposes that the tax should not come into force until 1936. That would ensure that the present Parliament, even if it lasted the full five years, would have ceased to exist at the time when the Budget Resolution putting the tax into force would be brought forward in this House. That is to say, the Noble Lord's Amendment would ensure that the people would have an opportunity of expressing their opinion before being taxed. I feel sure that most hon. Members realise that the question of this Land Tax was not before the country at the General Election two years ago. Personally, I never heard of it at a single meeting or in a single question put at a meeting. The

    843
    minds of the people were not turned to the subject at that time. A revolutionary tax of this sort ought, therefore, not to be imposed now.
    I know that the proposal has been in the cupboard for many years, and that the idea of taxing land values had been discussed for a very long time. I know also that two hon. Members opposite are very enthusiastic on this particular subject, and that probably in their own constituencies they made it the main plank in their platform, but I think that hon. Members opposite, if they look honestly into their own consciences, will not be able to say that this was an issue at the last election. As I say, I prefer the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham, because it would give the people an opportunity of thinking over the matter and of recording a Vote upon it before any such tax was imposed.
    Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: I wish to make a brief reference to the question of the date from which the tax should be levied. I would remind the Committee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making his financial statement used these words:
    "It would be unwise, if not impracticable, to attempt to value and tax concurrently."
    Later he said:
    "I propose that the valuation should be substantially completed before the tax begins to be levied."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1931; cols. 1409 and 1410, Vol. 251.]
    It must be obvious to all of us that in the first place, with a view to getting a correct and fair valuation, the valuation should not be unduly hurried, and on the other hand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was indubitably right in saying that it was most desirable that the valuation should be substantially complete before the tax began to operate. So far as I am aware, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not favoured the House with any reasons in support of the suggestion that the valuation can be completed within the time set forth in the Finance Bill. I want to address two specific questions to the learned Solicitor-General on the subject. First can he tell the Committee of any evidence drawn from the experience of other countries with regard to land valuation that would tend to show that
    844
    the period set down in the Finance Bill is a reasonable period. Secondly, can he tell the Committee on what number of staff the Chancellor of the Exchequer has based his calculation for making the valuation within the period set down in the Finance Bill? If the Solicitor-General cannot satisfy the Committee on either of those two points, or in some similiar way show that there is substantial argument in support of the belief that the valuation can be made within the short time laid down in the Bill, the Committee will be well advised to substitute therefor the period of time suggested by the Noble Lord or that which is now suggested.
    Mr. BEAUMONT: I commend this Amendment to the Government because I think that acceptance of it is the only honest course that they can pursue. We all know that this is a sham tax. The Noble Lord the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Lord Erskine) said it was a mystery to him why the Government had adopted this particular procedure with regard to land valuation. It is no mystery to me. The Government are not interested in the revenue from this tax. Their motto is, "We could not love the poor so much loathed we not landlords more." The only object they have is to try to break the landlord. The penny tax is just sham. The time may come when it will be 2s. 6d., 5s. or even 10s. in the pound. To impose a sham tax which is bound to operate in a certain year is almost beyond the bounds of what one would expect even from this Government. They try to hide behind the penny in the pound tax, which is to come into operation at the happy time when they go out of office. Such camouflage deceives no one. It is a gross travesty of Parliamentary procedure. It is entirely wrong to impose taxes for other than the financial year in which they are levied. I suggest that the Government drop this sham scheme and at least be frank as to their intentions.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps): In spite of the very welcome and cordial terms in which the hon. Member has invited us to meet the views put forward in the Amendment, I am afraid that we are unable to do so. The Committee will appreciate that the primary object of this part of the

    845
    Finance Bill is to levy a tax, but as a necessary ancillary to that one has to carry through the valuation. It would be quite idle to set up am expensive machinery and staff for the valuation unless at the same time one came to a determination as to whether a tax was to be levied or not. It would be idle to ask the Committee now to consider the question of the valuation of all the land of the country except the agricultural land, unless the Committee was determined that at some future date a tax should be levied on the basis of the valuation. As to the question whether it is wise and when it is wise to fix the date, there are two considerations which I am sure the Committee will have in mind. The first is that it is obviously desirable to levy the tax as soon as possible if you are going to levy it at all. No doubt those who think the tax a bad tax would like it delayed as long as possible, but I am assuming for the moment that one is proceeding on the basis that this is a tax which should be levied, and one would naturally attempt to levy it at the earliest possible moment. Another matter of equal importance is that it is only fair that there should be as long notice as possible to owners that the tax would be in fact levied. It is only by inserting in the present Bill the precise date on which it is proposed to levy the tax that that notice can be adequately given.
    I do not think that anything car really be said in support of one of the arguments put forward, that this tax will creep upon owners like a thief in the night and will never be observed until it is put upon them, for I understand that it is generally known at the present time that there is to be a land tax, and the welcome that it has met with everywhere leads one to believe that everyone is thankful that it is to be imposed so early. The fixing of the date is necessary for these two reasons. The necessary assessments and valuations which will take place in the intervening period will probably keep those who own land in the knowledge throughout the period that there is likely to be a land tax at the end of it.
    5.0 p.m.
    The other point which was raised as regards the question of date was the valuation and the time that it was likely to take. It is idle, in my submission,
    846
    to compare this in any way with the 1809–10 valuation. I will not repeat the reasons, which have been set forth so often, but the primary reason is because that was a valuation on a completely different basis, one of vast complexity, involving the ascertainment of as many as 20 different figures for each site in the country, and the consequent delay which could be manufactured by the owners, and which was indeed necessary if a fair valuation on the basis there laid down was to be arrived at, could not be avoided.
    I was asked by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis) as to what staff it was contemplated would be required in order to carry through the valuation in the time that has been allotted to it. The figure that is anticipated is somewhere in the region of 2,000 additional to those who are at the present time engaged in the Valuation Department, and it is on the basis of some such number as that—I am not giving, of course, precise figures—that those who are best able to judge, from an experience of very wide valuation throughout the country, say that the period which has been set for the valuation can and will be complied with. I do not think the Government can do more than take the best advice available to them in order to ascertain how long this valuation is to take. In answer to the other question which the hon. Member put to me, I do not know myself of any useful figures of comparison with other countries, where a similar valuation has been carried out for a similar number of units, that could give anything beyond some very general guide, which I think would be of less value than the expert information which has been obtained by the Government. Those are the reasons why I suggest to the Committee that it is essential that this date should be fixed in this first Clause dealing with the land tax, and that it should be fixed at the earliest date possible, in view of the best advice which the Government can get as to how long the valuation will take.
    The idea of the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts), who suggested that the reason for postponing it was because a future Parliament might take a different view, does not, in my submission, seem to be a very good reason. If this Parliament is incapable of making up

    847
    its mind, I think it is really rather a confession of weakness. Surely this Parliament is sufficiently capable to say for itself whether or not it thinks it wise that this tax should be imposed. It is well known, I think, that this matter has long been before the country as part of the programme certainly of two parties in the House, and it is impossible to say that this Land Tax is anything which has not been fully and thoroughly discussed, both in theory and in practice, in many parts of the world, including this country. Therefore, I regret to say that we are unable to accept the Amendment.
    Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am not altogether surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General is unable to accept the Amendment, but I am somewhat surprised at some of the reasons which he has given to the Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that it is idle to have a proposal for a valuation unless you include along with it proposals for taxation. But may I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that only last summer we had a Land Valuation Bill brought in which did precisely what he now says it is idle to do? It is true that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not in the House at the time, but the Government last summer brought forward their Valuation Bill, and they told us they brought it forward at the end of the summer Session in order that the country might have a full opportunity of considering it during the summer Recess. The character of the proposals in that Bill, I may pause to observe here, in relation to what he last said, differed in many important respects from the character of the present proposals, so that not only have the Government modified their own opinion since last year as to what the tax ought to be, but actually last year they were proposing to do that which the hon. and learned Gentleman now says is idle.
    We object to this proposal, and we have put forward these Amendments for two reasons. In the first place, we object to prejudging the question of whether or not there is to be a tax without having any estimate whatever of revenue. Is it not a very remarkable thing that the Committee should be asked to impose a tax without having had even the faintest attempt to foreshadow what the revenue of the tax is likely to be—nay, more, after having had a statement from the Chancellor of
    848
    the Exchequer that he will positively refuse, as long as he can, to give any forecast whatever of what the revenue is likely to be? That is the first reason for moving the Amendment. Our second reason is that it is inexpedient to impose a tax until you have some knowledge that it will be a practicable tax, and until you have at least some opportunity of ascertaining what the feeling of the taxpayers is in regard to it. It is for that reason that I attach importance to the Amendment of my Noble Friend to postpone the operation of the tax for two years, till 1936.
    I now come to the other part of the Solicitor-General's speech. I think further that those two years will be necessary, because in fact it will be impossible to carry through the valuation before 1936 at the earliest. The hon. and learned Gentleman is always anxious, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, to prevent us from appealing to the experience of 1909. He is a very fair controversialist. I have great hopes of him during the coming Debates, and I am sure that we shall not be disappointed, but I too should like to be quite fair to him. We did give, at an earlier stage, an estimate or a statement that it took about five years to complete the valuation of 1909 and that the cost was about £5,000,000. To that, the Solicitor-General replied, "It is very true that it took five years to complete the valuation, but in fact the cost was only about £2,000,000, because the balance of the £5,000,000 was spent subsequent to 1915, when the valuation was complete."
    I say at once that I accept that correction from the hon. and learned Gentleman, but equally I ask him to accept from me that the statement that the valuation was completed in five years was not strictly accurate, because what was completed in five years was the first office copy of the valuation; that is to say, the office had succeeded in collecting the first valuation in something like 96 per cent. of the hereditaments, or about 11,500,000 of them. But a large proportion of those valuations had never even got to the next stage, of being served on the owners, and after the service the Act of 1909 provided for all the subsequent stages, of discussion between the Department and the owners, of fixing, and of appeal, so that it is certainly not true to say that in 1909, even in five years, had you succeeded

    849
    in completing anything like more than a fraction of the valuations which fell to be completed.
    Nor is it true to say that the valuation under this Bill is likely to be vastly less complicated than the valuation in 1909. A lot of the complications in the 1909 valuation, it is true, arose because, in the course of Debate and in the clash of Debate, various things were pointed out to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon which he and his advisers were so convinced that wrong and injustice were being done, that he had to make alterations in his taxation proposals to meet them. I do not despair of believing that that will be the case with this Bill. I believe that you will be pressed, as indeed is apparent already, further and further as you go along, in the direction of exemption and relief. Already you have six pages of Amendments down to the exemption Clauses, and I believe that you will find that your tax will tend to grow not less but more complicated.
    In addition to that, let me remind the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Committee that here, this time, you have a new valuation which you did not have in 1909. Here for the first time you have cultivation value, and you have the whole procedure of cultivation value, with its right of appeal running strictly parallel to the original land valuation. You have these values running parallel, each with their own rights of appeal and their own stages to be gone through, that you did not have in 1909. Therefore, under these circumstances, I do not think it is safe to assume that the process will be vastly less complicated than was the process in 1909.
    One word more. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that it is calculated that an extra cost of £1,500,000 will be involved by the employment of 2,000 extra officials. That appears to me to be a remarkable under-estimate. I believe it is a wholly fallacious estimate, and I will tell the Committee why. It is very difficult to say how many hereditaments there are in the country at the present moment, but certainly the number is vastly in excess of that which it was in 1909. Everybody knows that that is true. As I said on an earlier occasion, I am told that half the land of the country has changed hands since the War. It is certain that the number of
    850
    different owners has multiplied enormously, and if you say that probably something like 12,000,000 hereditaments have to be dealt with, you are certainly not over the mark.
    Now you have 2,000 extra officials who are to deal with these 12,000,000 hereditaments, and remember that when I say "to deal with" them, in each case the valuer has to make a cadastral survey of the ground. He has to be so intimately acquainted with the ground that he has actually to know the location of the hedges, fields and trees, and all the rest. Let us suppose that half these 2,000 extra officials whom the Solicitor-General is to employ will be expert valuers, and that' is a large assumption, because it is a large thing to say that only 1,000 will be purely clerical labour. But let us assume that there are 1,000 expert valuers. They are to value 12,000,000 hereditaments under these conditions, and they are to value them, we are told, by the complete process in 18 months.
    A little "rule of three" sum may be useful. That means that there are 12,000,000 hereditaments to be dealt with in 18 months, or, shall we say, 16 months, which means about 8,000,000 hereditaments in a year; that means that each expert valuer is to do 8,000 hereditaments in the course of a year; and that means to say that he will have to complete the valuation of 26 hereditaments per day; in other words, that he is to do something like the valuation of three hereditaments every hour. If you reduce it to terms like that—and that is the only way of tackling this question—you perceive that the suggestion that you can possibly get this valuation through by employing 2,000 extra officials, of whom, say, 1,000 are expert valuers, is really to insult the intelligence of the Committee. In these circumstances, I certainly join heartily with my hon. Friends in supporting this Amendment, and I hope the Committee will carry it.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: I am bound to say that I do not quite follow the reasons given by the Solicitor-General for resisting this very modest Amendment. Consider for a moment what this Bill is doing. It is setting up a method of valuation, and then proceeding to the quite extraordinary step of devising a tax which is not to take effect until two years from now. That is a very extraordinary and

    851
    unusual step, and one which, if not without precedent, is almost without precedent in the financial history of this country. There is one very illuminating matter that deserves attention, and that is that the case for this tax has never been put by anyone from the Government side. No one, since these proposals have been printed, has ever attempted to make the case for them. In the course of a few desultory remarks on the Second Reading the Solicitor-General did answer a few observations addressed to him from this side——
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must call the hon. and learned Member's attention to the fact that we are not discussing the tax, but the date on which the tax is to be applied.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: No. I assure you, Mr. Dunnico, that, although I quite understand your impatience, I was strictly in order, because I was going to point out—I do not question your Ruling—that we ought really to consider, in connection with the question whether the tax should be applied two years hence or whether it should be applied after a further Resolution of the House, the reasons why the House is asked to pass this tax at all. The House of Commons is not asked to vote a tax for fun; it is asked to vote it, if at all, for two rational purposes—either to raise revenue or to carry out some social function. As regards the raising of revenue, you do not raise revenue for fun. We cannot know now what the financial needs of the country will be two years hence, or whether it will be necessary to squeeze a further sum of money out of the taxpayer, or, indeed, whether it will be possible to impose upon him an additional burden; so that, if this tax is intended to raise revenue, the proper thing would be to wait until a later period, that is to say, until after the valuation has been made, before deciding whether or not it will be necessary in that year to raise this revenue. The second point is that we have not the faintest conception of what kind of amount of revenue we may expect the tax to yield. Therefore, both from the point of view of the financial needs of the country and from the point of view of the yield of the tax, we ought obviously to wait for a further period before deciding, if revenue is the
    852
    consideration, whether or not the tax ought to be imposed on or after a future date.
    Then there is the second possibility, that this tax may be being Imposed because of some social need, in order to bring land into the market. That is the only credible explanation that has ever been given; the others savour of a kind of malevolence that one does not like to attribute to the Front Government bench. In that case there is an additional reason why we should wait for two years, because we do not know at the present moment what the land demands of the country will be. But is not there another reason, which the Solicitor-General has not given, and which, perhaps, has not been given to him, namely, that it is possible that, if no definite date were harnessed to this Clause, the Clause would make the Bill look still less like a money Bill, and, therefore, the Government would not be able to dragoon and guillotine the House into passing it without further discussion in another place.
    If these two reasons which I have given—namely, the sweetening of the revenue or the achievement of some social function—are the reasons why this proposal has been brought forward, I can understand why the Government desire to fix the date in the Bill itself. It is because it is inspired and controlled and achieved by a third reason, which does not vary, and that is the reason of malice and spite, which will be the same two years hence as it is to-day. [Interruption.]
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: I must say I was amazed when I heard——
    Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. May I call your attention, Mr. Dunnico, to the remark made by the hon. and gallant Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan)? He used the words "You impertinent dog," to my hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down, and I ask that his words be taken down.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. and gallant Member made use of that expression, I must ask him to withdraw it.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I will withdraw it. One could not refrain,

    853
    having regard to the history of the hon. Member, from making use of the expression, but I am very sorry I did so.
    HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood that the hon. and gallant Member did withdraw.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I did, Sir.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I call your attention to the fact that the hon. and gallant Member, in professing to withdraw his remark, said that he could not refrain from making it in view of the history of the hon. Member? Surely, the hon. and gallant Member is not to be permitted to make a statement of that kind without withdrawing that statement also?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood that the hon. and gallant Member absolutely and unconditionally withdrew the statement that he made.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I did so, Sir.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: The hon. and gallant Member referred to the history of my hon. and learned Friend, and said it was impossible to refrain from making attacks upon him, having regard to his history. Has he yet withdrawn that, and will he now withdraw it?
    Sir W. BRASS: I must say that, when I was listening to the speech of the Solicitor-General, I was amazed to hear his remark that this Land Tax was before the country at the last General Election. I remember quite well the sort of Land Tax that was proposed at the last General Election, and, as has been pointed out by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), it bears absolutely no resemblance to the proposal which is now made by the Government. I can quite understand why the Solicitor-General said it was very important that this tax should be levied at the earliest possible moment, after what has happened to-day at Gateshead. I think the reason why the hon. and learned Gentleman is so anxious that this tax should be imposed at the earliest possible moment is that he fears that between now and 1934, when it is proposed to bring this tax into opera-
    854
    tion, there might be a General Election, and that the result in other constituencies would probably be the same as at Gateshead, where the Socialist majority has dropped by 15,000 odd.
    I do not understand why the Solicitor-General says that this valuation will be much easier than that under the Act of 1909. As has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson), the number of hereditaments to be valued is considerably higher to-day than it was under the Act of 1909, and there are other complications which have to be taken into account, and which possibly the Solicitor-General may not have realised. Not only have you to value the site under this Bill, but you have also to take into account the various interests in that site. You have to take into account the actual owner of the site; you have to take into account the leaseholder under Clause 15; and you have also to take into account the mortgagees under Clause 16. They all have opportunities under this Bill, and they are all brought into it.
    The real trouble in bringing this Measure forward is this: Why should the Government of to-day presume to know what the financial position of this country will be in 1934? Why should the Government come here and say, "We are going to value the land; we do not know in the least what that valuation is going to be; we have not the foggiest idea of how much revenue a 1d. tax will produce; but we are going to say that in 1934 this tax is going to be applied." Is not that unfairness itself? They do not know whom they are going to tax; they do not know the amount of money they are going to take from them; and yet they are asking the House of Commons to pass a Measure which is going to tax, to the amount of 1d. in the £, a certain number of people in 1934. If they want a valuation, let them have a valuation, but let them wait until the time when the valuation is finished, and let the Government of that day say whether it is necessary to impose a tax of 1d. or 2d. or 1s., as was suggested by some hon. Members opposite, on the site value of the land.
    In the City of London there is bound to be a very large number of appeals. I do not want to ask any catch questions of the Solicitor-General, because I know

    855
    that usually he is not able to answer them, but in the City of London there are many complications in connection with the valuation. It would be out of order for me to go into that question now, and I only want to point out that in the City those complications will occur in connection with the value of sites, the shape of the sites, the heights of the buildings that can be put on the sites, and so on. I think that, when the Solicitor-General assumes that this valuation is going to be easier than the valuation under the Act of 1929, he is not correct, but that he will find that the valuation under this Measure, with the larger number of hereditaments that will have to be valued and the complications that are bound to ensue, will take very much longer, and that even by 1934 it will not be anywhere near completion.
    Colonel LANE FOX: I think that the real cause for anxiety in regard to the Government's refusal to consider any later date for the bringing of this tax into operation is the proof that it gives that they are intending to hustle through the valuation, which will mean very great injustice to those who will have to pay the tax. This tax is going to affect my constituency very considerably. Above all, it is essential that time should be given for a thorough and complete valuation which will be fair to all the various interests concerned. I know it is said by the Solicitor-General and others that agricultural land is not going to be taxed. I cannot, of course, develop that point now, but it is perfectly clear that the valuation of land which is to all intents and purposes agricultural is going to be a very difficult process anywhere in the neighbourhood of big towns, as in the greater part of my constituency.
    The point has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken that the Solicitor-General has said that this tax has been fully discussed, and, therefore, will not require any particular understanding, and will not come as a surprise to anyone. Many things have been said in the past about the taxation of land values, but I can only say that I have never seen this particular scheme suggested. I have heard a great deal about the increment value of land, about the sharks who are speculating in land,
    856
    and so on, but this particular tax has never been discussed or understood; and the best proof of that is the enormous number of objections which come to us almost every day from bodies who are certainly not dukes or wealthy landowners, but who represent large sections of the population who are deeply surprised and very much disturbed by the prospect of such a tax. The Solicitor-General has told us that he is going to get the valuations in two years' time. To say that valuations of this complexity can possibly be carried through in that time and completed, leaving time for the objections and appeals which will be necessary, is surely flying in the face of obvious facts.
    The valuation is not going to be by any means the simple thing that the Solicitor-General suggests. The question of cultivation value in a constituency like mine is going to be very difficult. I know nothing about valuation in towns, but I know a good deal about the value of land in the country. To talk about valuations at the rate of three in an hour is to make a suggestion that is ridiculous. It cannot be done. The question of valuation to me is by far the most important thing. It is possible that no tax may result from it, and it is possible that the many objections and exemptions which will have to be made may make it a comparatively small thing, but, if the valuation, which may have far-reaching effects and cause a very serious position for many people, is going to be unfair and to be hustled through unduly, it is a strong argument against the process that the Government are trying to pursue. Whatever else may happen, let us have a fair valuation, and let the people of the country be fairly treated. Many hon. Members opposite have very little knowledge of country conditions and of this land question. To think that these things can be hustled through at the rate suggested is to suggest a thing which is beyond the limits of possible fact and which may result in very great injustice being done to many of the citizens of the country.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: May I reply to the right hon. Gentleman's point with regard to the delusion under which he said I was labouring concerning the time that the valuation would take. He has completely omitted in his calculations

    857
    the existing staff who will be able to be put upon this valuation. A great many of them will be able to use for the purpose of the Land Value Tax the valuation that they are now making. Secondly, the exemptions will cut out a large number of the 12,000,000 hereditaments. It is true that no one will value three agricultural hereditaments in an hour. On the other hand, many valuers in towns will value many times more than that. 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. It has been done for rating purposes at a similar speed. The right hon. Gentleman will remember the amount of revaluation which had to be done under the recent Eating Act. It had to be carried out in a little over a year. It amounted to the revaluation of the whole country for rating purposes. It was carried through in spite of the fact that rating surveyors are supposed to be specially highly skilled men and that there was said to be a shortage of them. There is a further point. A great deal of the information with regard to areas under the 1909–10 valuation is, of course, still available. The subject matter with which the right hon. Gentleman was dealing as to the measurement of the fields is available already to the extent of 96 per cent. in the offices of the Inland Revenue, and it will be very useful for the purpose of the new valuation.
    Earl WINTERTON: Do I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that it is proposed to make use of the old 1910 valuation? I hope he will make it clear that that is not so. He seems to suggest that it would be correct as regards the size of the fields and things of that kind. He can have very little acquaintance with the changing conditions of agriculture. In the part of the world in which I live, fields have entitrely altered, hedges have been grubbed up, and land has been laid down to grass which was formerly arable land. I have no hesitation in saying that, if a valuer who valued the agricultural land in my constituency in 1910 returned there to-day, he would find his valuation entirely valueless for any purpose whatever. We take the greatest possible objection to any idea that that valuation could be used in any way.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I did not suggest that anyone would use the valuation of 1909–10 at the present date. That would be perfectly impossible. But over large parts of the country where I live we have stone walls which have not been moved and the fields are exactly the same. There have been a few small alterations, but, as regards hundreds of thousands of acres, the particulars that were given in 1909–10 as regards the size of the fields will be able to be used.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 276.

    Division No. 286.]

    AYES.

    [5.40 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colanel

    Broadbent, Colonel J.

    Colfox, Major William Phllip

    Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

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

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Albery, Irving James

    Buchan, John

    Colville, Major D. J.

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

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Cooper, A. Duff

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

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

    Butler, R. A.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Astor, Viscountess

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Atholl, Ducness of

    Campbell, E. T.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

    Atkinson, C.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

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

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Balniel, Lord

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

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

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

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

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

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

    Chapman, Sir S.

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

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Christie. J. A.

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    Boyce, Leslie

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Eden. Captain Anthony

    Bracken, B.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    England, Colonel A.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

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

    Everard, W. Lindsay

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

    Salmon, Major I.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Ferguson, Sir John

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High peak)

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Fermoy, Lord

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

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

    Flelden, E. B.

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Savery, S. S.

    Flson, F. G. Clavering

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lockwood, Captain J. H.

    Smith, Louis W, (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Lymington, Viscount

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

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Smithers, Waldron

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

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Somerset, Thomas

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Marjorlbanks, Edward

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Meller, R. J.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Grace, John

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Millar, J. D.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

    Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

    Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Thompson, Luke

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

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

    Thomson, Sir F.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

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

    Hanbury, C.

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

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Peake, Capt. Osbert

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

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

    Penny, Sir George

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

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

    Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Preston, Sir Walter Rueben

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Withers, Sir John James

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Reid, David D, (County Down)

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Remer, Jonn R.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Inskip, Sir Thomas

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Captain Margesson and Captain Wallace.

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

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    NOES.

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

    Burgess, F. G.

    Gibbins, Joseph

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

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

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr, Christopher

    Caine, Hall-, Derwent

    Gill, T. H.

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    Cameron, A. G.

    Glassey, A. E.

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

    Cape, Thomas

    Gossling, A. G.

    Alpass, J. H.

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

    Gould, F.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Charleton, H. C.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Chater, Daniel

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

    Arnott, John

    Church, Major A. G.

    Gray, Milner

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Cluse, W. S.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Ayles, Walter

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Compton, Joseph

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Cove. William G.

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Barr, James

    Daggar, George

    Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Batey, Joseph

    Dallas, George

    Hall, J. H (Whitechapel)

    Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

    Dalton, Hugh

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

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

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Benson, G.

    Day, Harry

    Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Bondfieid, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Duncan, Charles

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Bowen, J. W.

    Ede, James Chuter

    Haycock, A. W.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Egan, W. H.

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

    Bromfield, William

    Elmley, Viscount

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Brooke, W.

    Foot, Isaac

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

    Brothers, M.

    Freeman, Peter

    Herriotts, J.

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

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

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

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

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

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Buchanan, G.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Hoffman, P. C.

    860

    861

    Hollins, A.

    Middleton, G.

    Slmmans, C. J.

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Mills, J. E.

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

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Milner, Major J.

    Slnkinson, George

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Montague, Frederick

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Isaacs, George

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Morley, Ralph

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

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

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

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

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

    Mort, D. L.

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Muff, G.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Murnin, Hugh

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

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

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Sorensen, R.

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Noel-Buxton, Baronets (Norfolk, N.)

    Strauss, G. R.

    Kinley, J.

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Sullivan, J.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Knight, Holford

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

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Lang, Gordon

    Palin, John Henry

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

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Palmer, E. T.

    Thorne, W, (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Perry, S. F.

    Toole, Joseph

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Tout, W. J.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Phillips, Dr. Marlon

    Townend, A. E.

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Leach, W.

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Turner, Sir Ben

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Potts, John S.

    Vaughan, David

    Lees, J.

    Price, M. P.

    Viant, S. P.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Pybus, Percy John

    Walker, J.

    Lloyd, C. Eills

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Waiters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Watkins, F. C.

    Longden, F.

    Raynes, W. R.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Richards, R.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Lunn, William

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Wellock, Wlitred

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

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

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Ritson, J

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    McElwee, A.

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

    West, F. R.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Romeril, H. G.

    Westwood, Joseph

    McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    White, H. G.

    McKinlay, A.

    Rowson, Guy

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    McShane, John James

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

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

    Sanders, W. S.

    Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Sandham, E.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Manning, E. L.

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Mansfield, W.

    Scurr, John

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    March, S.

    Sexton, Sir James

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

    Marcus, M.

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Wise, E. F.

    Markham, S. F.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Marley, J.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Young, H. S. (Islington, North)

    Marshall, Fred

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Mathers, George

    Shield, George William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Matters, L. W.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.

    Maxton, James

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Messer, Fred

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Earl WINTERTON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 41, to leave out the word "thirty-four," and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty-six."
    Question put, "That the word 'thirty-four' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 210.

    Division No. 287.]

    AYES.

    [5.50 p.m.

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

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Broad, Francis Alfred

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

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Barr, James

    Bromfield, William

    Altchlson. Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

    Batey, Joseph

    Brooke, W.

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

    Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

    Brothers, M.

    Alpass, J. H.

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

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

    Ammon, Charles George

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Benson. G.

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

    Arnott, John

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Buchanan, G.

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Burgess, F. G.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Bondfield, Ht. Hon. Margaret

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

    Ayles, Walter

    Bowen, J. W.

    Caine, Hall-, Derwent

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Cameron, A. G.

    Cape, Thomas

    Kirkwood, D.

    Ritson. J.

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

    Knight, Holford

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

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lang, Gordon

    Romerll, H. G.

    Chater, Daniel

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Church, Major A. G.

    Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

    Rothschild, J. de

    Cluse, W. S.

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Rowson, Guy

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Waiter

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Lawrence, Susan

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Compton, Joseph

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Cove, William G.

    Leach, W.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Sandham, E.

    Daggar, George

    Lees, J.

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Dallas, George

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Scurr, John

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Sexton, Sir James

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Lloyd, C. Eills

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Day, Harry

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Longden, F.

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Shield, George William

    Duncan, Charles

    Lunn, William

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Ede, James Chuter

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Edmunds, J. E.

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

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Simmons, C. J.

    Egan, W. H.

    McElwee, A.

    Sinkinson, George

    Elmley, Viscount

    McEntee, V. L.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Foot, Isaac

    McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shottleston)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Freeman, Peter

    McKinlay, A.

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

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

    MacLaren, Andrew

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

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

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Smith, Rennle (Penistone)

    George. Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    McShane, John James

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Gibson, H. M. (Lanes. Mossley)

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

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Gill. T. H.

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Glassey, A. E.

    Manning, E. L.

    Sorensen. R.

    Gossling, A. G.

    Mansfield, W.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Gould, F.

    March, S.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Marcus, M.

    Strauss, G. R.

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

    Markham, S. F.

    Sullivan, J.

    Gray, Milner

    Marley, J.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    Marshall, Fred

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Mathers, George

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

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Matters, L. W.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Maxton, James

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Messer, Fred

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Middleton, G.

    Toole, Joseph

    Hail, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Mills, J. E.

    Tout, W. J.

    Hall, J. H (Whitechapel)

    Milner, Major J.

    Townend, A. E.

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

    Montague, Frederick

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Turner, Sir Ben

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Money, Ralph

    Vaughan, David

    Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

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

    Viant, S. P.

    Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

    Morrison. Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Walker. J.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Mort, D. L.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Muff, G.

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

    Haycock, A. W.

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Murnin, Hugh

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

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

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Wellock, Wilfred

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

    Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

    Welsh, James (Palsley)

    Herriotts, J.

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

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

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    West, F. R.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

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

    Westwood, Joseph

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Palln, John Henry

    White. H. G.

    Hollins, A.

    Palmer, E. T.

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Whiteley. William (Blaydon)

    Hudson, James H. (Hudderafield)

    Perry, S. F.

    Wilkinson, Elien C.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Isaacs, George

    Phillips, Dr. Marlon

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Plcton-Turbervill, Edith

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Potts, John S.

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Price, M. P.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

    Pybus, Percy John

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

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Wise, E. F.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

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

    Raynes, W. R.

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Richards, R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Kelly, W. T.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Kinley, J.

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

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Everard, W. Lindsay

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

    Albery, Irving James

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

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

    Ferguson, Sir John

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

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

    Fermoy, Lord

    O'Connor, T. J.

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

    Flelden, E. B.

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Astor, Viscountess

    Flson, F. G. Clavering

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Atkinson, C.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Penny, Sir George

    Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Perkins, W. R. D.

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

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Balniel, Lord

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

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T P. H.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Preston, Sir Walter Rueben

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Grace, John

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Bird, Ernest Rov

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Held, David D. (County Down)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Remer, John R.

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

    Boyce, Leslie

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Bracken, B.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

    Braes, Captain Sir William

    Gulnnees, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Gunsten, Captain D. W.

    Rots, Ronald D.

    Broadbent, Colonel J.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Buchan, John

    Hanbury, C.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Hartington, Marquess of

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

    Butler, R. A.

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

    Savery, S. S.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)

    Campbell, E. T.

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

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

    Cattle Stewart, Earl of

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Somerset, Thomas

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

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Horne. Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

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

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

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

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

    Christie, J. A.

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Inskip, Sir Thomas

    Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F.

    Cockerill, Brig-General Sir Geerge

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

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

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

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

    Thompson, Luke

    Colfox, Major William Philip

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

    Thomson, Sir F.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

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

    Colville, Major D. J.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Caurtauld, Major J. S.

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

    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.

    Lymington, Viscount

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Marjorlbanks, Edward

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Meller, R. J.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Withers, Sir John James

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

    Millar, J. D.

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

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

    Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

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

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hllton

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    England, Colonel A.

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

    Captain Margesson and Captain Wallace.

    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment that I call stands in the name of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto)—in page 5, line 2, to leave out the word "penny," and to insert instead thereof the word "shilling."
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of Order. It is well that we should understand clearly the Ruling of the Chair on this part of the Debate. I understand that on the terms of the Amendment which you have called there will be a

    867
    general discussion allowed. If that be so, we should not have a repetition of the discussion on the Amendment to leave out Clause 7. There is, however, one Amendment before that.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): The understanding is that there will be a discussion on wide lines on the first Amendment, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, and that the remainder of the time will be devoted to the Amendment dealing with the agricultural question. That is an understanding that is entirely satisfactory so far as we are concerned.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood at the outset that on this Amendment the question would be discussed generally so far as this Clause is concerned, and that afterwards we should proceed to the agricultural Amendment. When we come to the Question, "That the Clause stand part," there will be no discussion.
    Sir BASIL PETO: I beg to move, in page 5, line 2, to leave out the word "penny," and to insert instead thereof the word "shilling."
    This Amendment is connected with the two following Amendments which stand in my name—in line 2, to leave out the word "land," and to insert instead thereof the word "annual," and in line 3, at the end, to add the words, "calculated at five per cent. on the land value." The Clause, as amended by the three Amendments which stand in my name, would read, reading from the last line on page 4:
    "a tax (to be called 'land value tax' and hereinafter in this part of this Act referred to as 'the tax') at the rate of one shilling for each pound of the annual value of every land unit, calculated at five per cent. on the land value."
    Although it has been arranged that on this Amendment a fairly wide discussion of the whole question of the land tax is to be taken, I consider it to be my duty to confine myself a little more closely to the Amendment itself, and to leave to other abler speakers the wider discretion of dealing on more general lines with the merits of the tax. I will point out what my Amendment does and what it does not do. The first thing that it does is to base an annual tax upon the basis of an annual value. That
    868
    seems to me to be a sounder proposal than the Government's proposal, which is to base an annual tax upon an arbitrarily ascertain capital or, as it is called, land value. That does not make it into a tax upon the annual income received. Hon. Members will notice that it is to be calculated on the basis of five per cent. on the land value, so that even if my Amendment were carried it would still be the case that people would be called upon to pay this annual tax when they have received no income from which to pay the tax, in many cases.
    The second thing that the Amendment would do would be to reduce a tax which is now masquerading as only a tax of one penny in the pound from what, in the case of a capital value of £100, is a tax of 8s. 4d. annually, to a tax of 5s. That would very nearly halve the amount of the tax proposed. I wish to give a good many reasons why I think a smaller tax than that proposed by the Government, if we are to have such a tax, would be a more reasonable proposal for the Committee to accept. My first reason is, that I should be following a good precedent. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when he introduced his undeveloped land duty fixed it at one halfpenny in the pound, and called it a tax only of the smallest copper. But that would not be my only reason. If we are to experiment in this very novel manner at an unknown date, certainly not nearer than three years hence, without the slightest knowledge of what the condition of the country will be or what the capacity of the taxpayer on that date will be, a more modest tax than that proposed by the Government would be wise. We have no estimate of what the Government expect to derive from the tax. Therefore an argument based on the fact that there is a necessity for a certain revenue, and that the Government are budgeting for a certain revenue to be derived three years hence, would carry no weight whatever.
    What is the reason that the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts forward for this uniform tax upon land, whether developed to the highest pitch or not, was that it was desirable to be based on a degree of simplicity. He said that he had made it a simple tax, because he wished to avoid the complexity which had wrecked the

    869
    earlier proposals of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. That may be all very well, but I would remind the Committee, as is stated very pertinently in a leading article in the "Times" to-day, that the Government keep their proposal simply by insisting that it should be unjust. I propose to show, if I can, that while simplicity is no doubt a very charming virtue, a vice masquerading in the white robe of simplicity is a thing which all detest. I want, as far as I can, to strip the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal of its specious white robe of simplicity and to expose it in all its naked vice.
    What are the other reasons, or some of them, which induce me to say that not only is it better that the public who will have to pay this tax—which is not one penny in the pound but 1s. 8d. in the pound on an annual land value calculated at 5 per cent., should not be taxed in the way proposed by the Government? This tax was put before the House on the Second Reading of the Budget Resolutions by arguments which were directed towards urging the necessity for a tax on increment value. That is exactly what this tax is not. It does not tax the land speculator but it taxes the man, whether he be an industrialist or a householder, who has to buy his piece of land for his industry or his house from the land speculator. The land speculator gets away with it, but the householder or the industrialist is left to pay annually, and the higher the price he has been charged the more he will have to pay every year. While it does not tax increment values, it taxes every industry in the country. It taxes every householder if the land on which his house is built has a capital value of more than £120. It taxes the investment of the friendly societies and building societies. One friendly society, the Hearts of Oak, have pointed out that it will cost them £5,000 a year, and to that extent reduce the benefit that they are able to pay to their members.
    It taxes the universities; hence, it is a direct tax on, knowledge and learning. I am informed that one of the smaller universities, the University of Bristol, with which I am connected as a West Country Member, will have to pay £300 a year. They have no income from which to pay the £300. They are not benefiting in any way but, on the contrary, they will have £300 less from their endowments,
    870
    which are already far too meagre for the educational and industrial purposes for which the university was founded. It will tax the schools and open spaces. It is therefore a tax upon free air, green fields and trees. Whenever anyone wants to keep a piece of land open for the amenity of the public he will be taxed on the basis that he ought to have covered the land with industrial or residential property of the most appropriate value for the neighbourhood.
    It taxes three-fourths of the allotments in the country. We ascertained yesterday at Question Time from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that, from the latest returns, the number of allotments on land owned by local authorities on the 31st December of last year was 207,000, while the number of allotments on land owned by private persons was 729,000, so that out of every nine allotments seven are to be taxed simply because, although the allotment holders know nothing about it, the allotments happen to be on privately-owned land and not on land owned by public authorities. It taxes also the market gardens. It taxes the milk supplies to our great towns, because that milk happens to be produced in dairies which are situated more or less in the neighbourhood where the industrial population has accumulated. Therefore, it is a tax upon fresh milk and vegetables. It is a tax imposed upon everything that ought not to be taxed, and a tax which lets off that which it pretends to tax.
    What is the basis of this proposal? The Chancellor of the Exchequer made no bones about it in his speech when he talked about the Creator who had given the land to the people. This proposal is based on the assumption that the ownership of land is in itself a crime and should be penalised. If that is true, what justification is there for taxing urban or semi-urban land and not taxing agricultural or rural land? Why is it less of a crime to own a farm than to own a building estate or a factory? Even if we accept the basis on which the tax is to be levied, it is most arbitrary and unjust in its incidence. Take the ease of a brickfield or a shipyard, both on which industries obviously require a great horizontal space of land for their business, as it is impossible to carry on the business in a building built floor upon floor. They will be charged an enormous

    871
    amount of tax in proportion to other industries such as the manufacture of gramophones and gramophone records, where you can carry on the' industry in a building eight or ten storeys high and occupying comparatively little land, but yet capable of earning enormous profits. The tax put upon them will be only a tithe of the amount on these other suffering industries.
    Take another extraordinary fallacy. In the case of leasehold land the leaseholder is entitled to hand on the land tax to the extent of one-twelfth of the ground rent. Suppose there are two industries, two factories, one is on leasehold land and the other on freehold land; there is no other difference between them. The land in each case is worth £20,000. Land value tax at 1d. in the £ is £83. On the leasehold land the ground rent is £1,000 a year. One-twelfth of £1,000 is approximately £83, which will be the charge on the freeholder, so that we have this position, that in the case of two industries, on land of exactly similar value but one happening to be on leasehold and the other on freehold land, the industrial owner of the factory is charged with the land tax while in the other case he escapes it altogether, and it is the owner of the land who is taxed. What sense is there in such an arbitrary proposal, even if you say that it is right to put an additional tax upon industry?
    Another basis of the tax which, however, is not carried out in the Government's proposals, is that certain classes of works like railways, docks, electricity, water and other public works, in the nature of things increase the value of surrounding land and, therefore, should be exempt. They are supposed to be works of such a nature that they create land value. Is not that true of every factory? Why should it not be recognised that industry under private enterprise is just as well capable of creating increased land value on surrounding property as other industries like railways or docks which are owned by public authorities, or industries like electric light and other public works. The most extraordinary argument in all the strange arguments used in support of this tax, most of them inappropriate to the tax itself, was when the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
    872
    "De-rating has added to the urgency of this question. We have had to provide, in this time of national crisis, about £35,000,000 a year to subsidise to local rates."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1931; col. 50, Vol. 252.]
    That £35,000,000 a year, if looked at as a subsidy to local rates, is equally the removal of that amount of burden from industry. Almost the last thing the Conservative Government did during their term of office was to see what they could do to help the flagging industries of this country to find employment for the people, and that if any additional burden was put on the taxpayer a corresponding burden should be removed from that section of the ratepayers engaged directly in productive industry. The present Government actually propose to justify their proposal to tax land by saying that because the Conservative party came to the assistance of the flagging industries of this country it is therefore their duty and their policy to put back again on to industry, under the guise of a land tax, a new tax which has never been asked for, and which takes away the benefit conferred upon industry by the last Government.
    I hold that the arguments I have put forward show that if we are to have this tax at all on this universal basis, this unjust basis, if we are to have this tax which is masquerading as simple while it is really vicious, we at least should not go further than was proposed by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in his abortive experiment in 1909. I can see no reason why the tax should be at double the rate proposed 20 years ago. Industry is far less able to bear a tax now than it was then. Therefore, not only on the ground that it is most desirable that the people should know what this tax means as an annual tax in amount, but also on the ground that if we are to have it at all—this thoroughly vicious, bad and unjust thing—then the less we have of it the better, and a tax of ½d. is half as good or half as bad as that which the Government propose. I commend the Amendment to the consideration of the Committee.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I desire to associate myself very warmly with the Amendment that has been moved by my hon. Friend in such an admirable and powerful speech. He has done good service in suggesting a change of this tax upon the capital value of land into a tax

    873
    upon the annual value, if only for the reason that it is desirable that the public should understand exactly what it is that the tax proposes to do in its present form. Spoken of as only one penny in the pound, it is calculated to mislead public opinion and to give an entirely wrong idea of its weight and severity. The fact is that the character of this tax is emphasised and exaggerated by the attitude of Government Members towards their own proposal. We are now at the operative Clause of the Bill, and, although no doubt there will be additions later on to the list of exemptions which appear in Clause 19, we must take the Bill as we find it to-day and discuss it.
    In the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in explaining this proposal, and in the speeches of the Solicitor-General, notably in the one this afternoon, there is what I can only describe as a deliberate attempt to confuse the mind of the public as to the real nature of this tax. The Solicitor-General said that this proposal had been in the mind of the party below the Gangway and his own party for 40 years past, but it has been shown convincingly by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) that this proposal bears no relation whatever in fact to the proposals which were formerly put forward by the Liberal party; and the fact is that the arguments which are adduced in support of this taxation are entirely and totally irrelevant to the tax itself. The picture which it is sought to impress on the mind of the public is that this is a tax to redress what is Called a social wrong, namely, the acquisition of value in land which has been created not by any efforts or expenditure on the part of the owner, but by the expenditure and, in some cases, the mere presence of the community. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite say, "Hear, hear!" Do they suggest that this tax is directed to the removal of that so-called social wrong? That is what I fear they are trying to make the people of this country believe, but we are determined that the country shall understand that that is not the case, and in discussing the proposals in Part III of this Bill we shall take care to let the public understand that they have no relation to a tax on unearned increment but that they are taxes of an entirely novel character.
    874
    The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) has pointed out quite clearly that not only is the person who has obtained the unearned increment going to escape from the tax, but that it is the person who has paid the unearned increment who is going to pay the tax upon it. That is the curious result of a tax which is alleged to be imposed to right a great social wrong. The fact is that this tax, if justified at all, is merely justified on the ground that any person, except certain exceptions specified in the Bill, has committed a penal offence in owning land at all. The Members of the Government speak of this offence in terms which might well be applied to some crime. The Solicitor-General, for instance, told us some time ago that universities or colleges which had "chosen to invest their money" in this form of property must take the consequences. Those are words of the sort which you might apply to a man who drank more than he ought to drink. The President of the Board of Trade, speaking I think in Scotland, a few days ago, and alluding to the fact that where the tax payable would not be more than 10s. it would be remitted altogether, said that this provision would cause all working men to escape "penalisation" under the Bill. "Penalisation" therefore was the right hon. Gentleman's description of the effect of the tax as applied to other classes. No doubt audiences who are not going very carefully into the facts and are told that the rich, or the people who have acquired land are to be penalised, while they themselves are to pay nothing, may think that these are very good proposals.
    Now that we have come to the operative Clause of this part of the Bill, it is well that we should pause and consider on whom this tax is going to fall and what are likely to be some of the results of its imposition. I take the cases of various bodies or sections of the community which must be affected by the penalisation which they are to suffer under this Clause. I ask the Committee first to remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, some time before introducing the Budget, said that a further tax on industry would be the last straw. What is this but a further tax on industry and a tax of a peculiarly vicious character for industry? I remember several Debates in the House of Com-

    875
    mons regarding the burdens upon industry imposed respectively by taxes and by rates. I remember declarations from all parts of the House to the same effect, namely, that rates were always more burdensome than taxes, because taxes were imposed upon profits but rates had to be paid by industry whether profits were made or not. In that respect the tax proposed here is in precisely the same position as rates. It has to be paid by industry whether there are profits or not. Therefore not only is it a burden on industry but it is an even more onerous burden in that respect than an increase in the Income Tax.
    The majority of factories and industrial concerns in this country are, of course, freehold and the full weight of the tax will fall, therefore, upon the proprietors of such works and factories and warehouses. I do not wish to spend too much time on any particular instance, but I would call attention to the fact that in the past the proprietors of prosperous or expanding businesses have had to look round from time to time, to see where they could obtain land to be used for extensions when the necessity arose. A prudent firm did not wait until it was obliged to expand. It bought the land beforehand and had it ready when it was wanted. In future, such firms will have to take into account the fact that if they "chose to invest their money" in extensions for the purpose of carrying on their work, they will have to pay a fine for the offence thus committed.
    One of the features of industrial life characteristic of the last 20 years has been the new interest taken by managers and proprietors of factories, employing large numbers of people in the recreation of their employés. Many firms have purchased land for the provision of sports grounds and recreation grounds for their employés. Naturally, those grounds are not situated many miles away, in the heart of the country, but somewhere near the towns, where they are easily accessible to the people who are to use them. I know many cases in my own experience where such grounds have been provided and they have, I believe, added a great deal to the general good feeling between managers and employés in the works concerned, but in future businesses which are struggling, as many of them are now, to keep their heads above water and look-
    876
    ing round to see where they can make savings even of a few pounds, will have to consider seriously whether they can afford to keep recreation grounds upon which they will be liable to tax or whether they will be able to pass on to the employés themselves the payment of the tax by asking those employés to make some special contribution. That is only one of many examples which show how this tax—represented by hon. Members opposite as falling upon a few rich people—is going to work, how its real effects will come down to the working people of this country and how it will affect, probably every able-bodied man from one end of the land to the other.
    I leave industry for the moment and come to hospitals. This is a very serious matter for the voluntary hospitals, which have been passing through an extremely difficult time. While they have, to their great credit, been able for the most part to keep up with their maintenance costs, yet in practically all cases they have been limited as to extensions, which would otherwise have been carried out, by the increasing difficulty of finding the necessary contributions. Just now it is probably more difficult than it has ever been at any time in our memory to keep up subscriptions to voluntary institutions. Yet I see that St. Bartholomew's Hospital calculate that the tax which they will have to pay, if this Clause is imposed, is upwards of £5,000 a year. Where in the world are they going to find another £5,000 a year? Even if they succeed in finding it, it can only be at the expense of equipment which otherwise would be provided for carrying on their work.
    As regards the universities, again there is going to be penalisation of those great educational establishments, which are already in receipt of substantial grants from the State. Those grants, surely, will have to be increased if this tax is levied upon them. Take the case of the Oxford University and colleges. I observed a letter in the Press a few days ago in which it was stated that the margin between income and expenditure, after taking into account the State grant of £120,000 a year, was only £10,000. As the Solicitor-General would say, they have "chosen to invest" in estates—although in fact they had no choice in the matter because the estates owned by them were left to them or given to them

    877
    under special deeds—and they are to pay the new tax. What that tax will be in the case of Oxford University and colleges I do not at present know, but I do know that they have no margin with which to find extra taxation of this kind and the only result will be that the Government will have to hand out with one hand what they are withdrawing with the other.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple gave the illustration of Bristol. Let me give the illustration of Birmingham which is apparently much worse hit than Bristol. I may say that 60 per cent. of the students of Birmingham University come from secondary schools and 50 per cent. of them began their education in the elementary schools. That university owns a great deal of property, practically all of which was given to it by various munificent donors, and upon that property, if this tax is imposed, it is said that they will have to pay an annual sum of £1,833. That is a sum which is not at their disposal. There, again, it seems ridiculous to try to impose a tax upon a body of this kind while at the same time you are handing out large sums of money to them to enable them to give the education which they are trying to give to the great masses of the middle classes of our country.
    When we come to the schools we find the same sort of thing. The non-provided schools, the secondary schools, the training colleges for teachers which are at present maintained by the various denominations, are all affected by this tax. Orphanages, the Bluecoat School, charitable trusts are all apparently affected. I have here a communication from the representatives of some dozen orphanages who say that they are dependent for their support year by year upon public benevolence and that the provision which they are now making for the care and maintenance of poor children, is seriously threatened by the proposals of the Bill. I have also a communication from the National Conference of Friendly Societies. Hon. Members are aware that they represent upwards of 8,000,000 members in all parts of the Kingdom. They state that they have heavy investments in ground rents and other land holdings, and that one constituent society has investments in ground rents alone to the extent of £2,000,000. What do they think
    878
    will be the effect of this tax upon their finances? It is characteristic of the sort of welcome which, as the Solicitor-General told us a little time ago, has been so heartily accorded to his proposals. They say that the proposed tax will:
    "diminish the resources now available for the payment of sickness benefit, benefit during old age, and payments on members' deaths, and would have the effect of endangering the financial basis of many friendly societies."
    Those are words which remind one in their tenor of the grave words addressed to the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance about the nation's finances. It appears therefore that the Government not content with wrecking the nation's finances, now wishes to ruin the finances of the friendly societies as well. The Hearts of Oak Benefit Society has already been mentioned. They tell us that these proposals will
    "have the effect of endangering the solidity of the financial basis which secures the due fulfilment of the society's obligations to its members."
    What is going to be the effect of these proposals upon housing? We remember the effect of the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and how they imposed a serious check upon house building. There is every reason to imagine that these proposals, which are going to frighten off the small investor in house property, and make it more difficult for builders to obtain financial accommodation from the banks, and which, generally, will create an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion about all transactions in connection with land, are going to have precisely the same effect upon private enterprise in building as the previous proposals. I ask the Committee to remember that during the last three years private enterprise has been responsible for building over 350,000 houses, against something over 150,000 built by local authorities. If you are going to jeopardise the operation of private enterprise you are going to strike at the most effective means which has yet been produced for providing accommodation for the working classes. I am informed that already the introduction of these proposals has had an effect in checking the operations of the speculative builder, who is the man now engaged in providing houses by private

    879
    enterprise. I mentioned to the House before that the plan on which these builders work involves their purchasing land several years before they think they may want to use it, and this land is used as the security on which they borrow money from the banks. Now, it is proposed to inflict a charge which begins at one penny in the £ on the capital value, but no one knows where it will end, and it will destroy the value of that security and make it more difficult for builders to carry on their operations.
    Then there is the case of allotments and smallholdings. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to an interruption of his speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), said, no doubt inadvertently, that the majority of allotments were owned by the local authorities. We had figures yesterday which completely shattered that statement. We now know that something over 700,000 allotment holders are in danger owing to the imposition of the tax which is proposed in this Clause. The idea that people engaged in agriculture are going to turn their grazing fields into allotments in order to increase their cultivation value is fantastic, but the one thing that is probable is that where allotments have a building value, the owners of them, rather than pay the Land Tax, will give notice to the allotment holders and turn them out in order to get the benefit of the building value of the land. Forcing land into development is not necessarily a good thing. It may frequently be a bad thing to force into development land which would otherwise remain as an amenity in one respect or another for the people in the neighbourhood.
    Last of all, I would mention the householder and the shopkeeper. Anyone who owns his own freehold which is worth more than £6 a year will come under the operation of this tax. That ultimately will be passed on to the consumer and, through the agency of the shopkeeper, every person will feel the effect of the tax. I submit that what I have said is accumulative evidence of the widespread damage and injury that will be brought about by the imposition of this tax, and I would like to conclude with a quotation from a report which was recently made
    880
    upon the effect of taxes of this kind in another country. Referring to the effect of the land taxes in New York, where they are not national taxes but local taxes, but where the effect is just the same, the report says:
    "Again, the tax has led to the most undesirable congestion of building in central areas. There only people of great wealth can afford to have houses with gardens. The tax on gardens is really prohibitive. The private landlord is therefore unable to make any contribution to the preservation of open spaces, and any which exist have to be publicly acquired. Moreover, in suburban areas land is made so dear that only flat dwellings can be erected at a profit. When flats are built in a district the value of their site becomes the basis of the value of adjacent land whether used for small houses or vacant. Thus the tax encourages undesirable density of building in suburban areas also. The tax, in fact, militates against gardens, residential estates, nurseries, playing fields and farms within a wide area around cities. In one city two years ago 10,000 lots were advertised as being for sale to meet unpaid taxes. This shows that the value of the property to the owners had been destroyed."
    An HON. MEMBER: What is the source of that?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a report which was published in the "Times" of the 3rd of this month. I ask the Committee to consider whether a tax which will have the effect I have described can properly be described as a tax to right a great social wrong, and whether it is not rather to be described as a tax which will be a perpetual burden and irritation, and a menace to the prosperity of this country?
    Sir JOHN SIMON: It is exactly three weeks since the Second Reading of the Finance Bill was taken——[Interruption.] I am very happy indeed to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer able to come into the Committee. Now that the Debate on Second Reading has taken place, and public discussion has fully begun, it must be plain to most Members of the Committee that objections are raised to the tax which this Clause proposes from a great number of very responsible quarters. That, of course, is not in itself any reason at all why the tax, if it be a just tax, should not be imposed, for all taxes are unpopular and no doubt many people are alarmed at proposals which, actually in working out, are not found to do so much damage as they feared. At any rate, this is the moment

    881
    in which to ascertain with precision what is the nature of the tax which the Committee are asked to affirm in principle. It is plain that, apart from agricultural land, and with very limited exceptions, this new duty will be imposed on the owners of land merely because it is land which they own. It is nothing to the point to inquire how the owner became the owner; how the land is being used; whether it is fully developed or whether its value has grown or declined; whether the profits on the land or the use of the land are devoted to benevolent purposes or to selfish objects; whether the individual is wealthy or poor, prosperous or struggling with adversity.
    Whatever else that shows, it explains why there has been a wide range of anxious inquiry in the last few weeks. I endeavoured three weeks ago to show—and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree with me—that the principle of the present proposal is very different from the scheme of taxes of 20 years ago. Some people may think it better on that account, and others worse, but I think that it is not disputed by anybody who understands the subject that the scheme is quite different. Like the hon. Baronet who opened the Debate and the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I should like to occupy a short time in asking the Members of the Committee to consider a few simple, illustrative instances. I deliberately choose instances which are not such as can call for special exemption, but such as are inherent in this proposal as it stands, and such as everyone who votes for this Clause must be prepared to justify to his constituents.
    Take, first, the shopkeeper who has recently purchased his premises. That is an instance which you get all over the country. He may have purchased his premises because his lease was running out, and because he desired to maintain his connection and preserve his goodwill, but whatever the reason, he will have paid good hard money to the former owner of his premises, both for the land and the bricks and mortar. At the time this Bill comes in, therefore, he is the owner of his premises. You would have thought that, if the circumstances were such as would justify a special tax being exacted in respect of that piece of ground, because it has a
    882
    value which the community has helped to make, the demand would have been made on the person who had been paid for the ground and gone off with the money. This is a Bill, however—and must be if you are going to frame it in the way in which it is framed—in which you proceed to get the tax from the shopkeeper who has paid, because the Bill is based on the principle that it is more blessed to have received than to have given. Such a shopkeeper—and he exists in nearly every constituency—will want to know from hon. Members why they think it proper that this imposition should be put on him.
    I want to point out what the circumstances really would be. This special tax is to be put on that shopkeeper as he has become the owner of his shop, without any regard to the question of whether he is making a profit or not. He has to pay because he was so misguided, before ever this Bill was introduced as to exercise the ordinary rights of an Englishman and to pay hard cash for a piece of land. This shopkeeper, if he makes a profit, has to pay Income Tax upon it. When he dies, his property is subject to Estate Duty. If he transfers his business to a company, the company has to pay tax according to the capital. If he conveys his property, whether by sale or even by gift, the conveyance has to bear a stamp. If he sub-lets his property, the lease has to make its contribution to the revenue. The question which occurs to me is why is it that a man who, before ever this law was suggested at all, has acquired for hard cash the shop and premises in which he carries on his business as well as he can, should be, without any regard to any other circumstances, exposed to this special duty? It was to avoid this manifest and palpable injustice that 20 years ago, when land taxes were proposed by the then Liberal Government, we found it necessary to draw a datum line and to begin at the present time and impose the tax in respect of future transactions. A good many members of this Committee will be required to explain to shopkeepers why they think that this is a just proposal.
    7.0 p.m.
    Take the case of a factory, or mill, or shipyard and so on, where it has been very difficult to avoid closing down, but where, none the less, the place has been

    883
    kept going and efforts have been made to keep some people at work, even if not on full time. Take, in particular, the case of the premises for heavy industries where often the amount of land occupied is very considerable. Let hon. Gentlemen who represent seaports and shipbuilding towns consider the cost of the premises of the shipbuilding firms. Land undoubtedly has a special value, because it has to be close to the water's edge and close to deep water. It has been common for such firms to try to secure a piece of land round about in case they want to extend. Let the Committee observe what this Bill proposes. It proposes to demand a special tax from that factory, or mill, or shipyard or whatever it is, and it demands it notwithstanding that the enterprise is making no profits at all. Observe, further, that in valuing the site for the purpose of the tax, it will be no answer to say that that particular enterprise is not profitable, for the revenue is to be entitled to the value of the site by reference to adjoining properties, conducted for other purposes, which may show a high value. I find it very difficult, indeed, to understand how hon. Members are going to justify that in the constituencies where these cases will arise. It may be said that, after all, it is only like rates. It was the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, on a famous occasion, expounded the doctrine that "rates are not in themselves a burden at all." I think my quotation is right. Perhaps he thinks this will be no burden either. As a matter of fact, I do not think it has been everywhere observed that the burden which this new Land Duty constitutes will put, in such a case, a hardship greater than the present law of rating, bad as it is, will impose. If you are dealing with the law of rating, it is possible for the factory or mill to obtain a reduction of the rateable value, and therefore a reduction in the amount which has to be paid in rates, when the trade or manufacture is in such a depressed state that the profit-earning capacity of the premises is seriously diminished.
    At this very moment in hard-pressed Lancashire and Yorkshire and in other places there are assessments which have
    884
    been revised and reduced for rating purposes precisely because the premises, fitted as they are for particular purposes, could not in the circumstances be used by the tenant profitably for carrying on business. That is the condition of the law, but is that the condition under the Chancellor's new tax? Not at all. Under the law of rating, the hard-pressed factory or mill may not only apply to have the assessment reduced, but may have it reduced in respect of the current rates that are demanded. Under this Bill we are to wait for five years. You have to pay the tax and in five years' time there will be a re-assessment. When the re-assessment takes place, it will not be in respect of the use of the particular premises which you occupy, which might not be put to profitable use, but will depend on the consideration of what might be paid for land in the neighbourhood. You have this further position, which seems to me to cause a very great hardship not in the least met by present proposals. The man carrying on the factory, mill or yard, though he is doing his best to carry on his industry in very depressing circumstances, is bound by moral obligation to do it if he can, for the sake of his own men if for nothing else, and he is to be taxed under the Bill as if he were a wealthy man holding up and refusing to allow the land to be used. It passes my comprehension how anybody who really considers the contrast between these two cases can possibly justify the proposal that in the name of simplicity you should tax them both in exactly the same measure.
    There is a further difference. If it is a case of the burden of rates, the owner-occupier of premises may find himself forced to close his premises and to empty them of his chattels, and, if he does, the rates have not to be paid. He may empty his premises, but under this tax it will not make any difference to the Chancellor's demands. The shopkeeper who is not making good business may shut down his extension. Even if he were to leave in it the plant of his trade, he would have the rates reduced, because, after all, his extension would be merely a warehouse for keeping them in. Not so under this Bill. It is going to demand the tax on that same land whether he is able to carry on his business or not, and if the land is in occupation or not,

    885
    because it is not a tax which is avoided by ceasing to occupy. It is a tax on the owner. That is so, and staring in the face of the Law Officers of the Government is Schedule A, which though it is called in the Income Tax Act a Land Tax, does not result in the tax under Schedule A having to be paid when the land is unoccupied.
    That is the nature of this new tax, and I think there will be many hon. Members who will be required to explain to employers and to workmen, too, why it is so. Then comes the excuse—which, to do the right hon. Gentleman justice, he has not put forward himself, though it has come from other quarters—that, after all, this is only one penny in the pound. There are two observations which might be made upon that. In the first place, if you are making these calculations in the form of a proportion sum, it is just as well to compare like with like. If you say that the rates in a particular case are so many pence, or shillings in the pound, you are comparing an annual charge with an annual value, which is intelligible and simple, but here you are comparing an annual charge with a capital value. If anyone really wants to understand the nature of this new impost, whether good or bad, it is necessary either to capitalise the penny, as an hon. Member behind me has done, or else to express the whole thing on both sides in annual terms. You may call it a tax of 1s. 8d. in the pound or a penny in the shilling; whichever it is, that is the present proposal.
    The second observation is this: Where is the guarantee that this is going to stop at one penny? I remember, and I think the Chancellor will remember, the howl that went up in 1909 when a Supertax was proposed at the monstrous figure of 6d. in the £. You could have heard the howl across the Thames. In the whole of Mr. Gladstone's life the Income Tax, even in time of war, was never more than 1s. 2d. If there is anybody who is going to console himself by the reflection that this is only 1d. in the £, I would most respectfully suggest he had better consider what is likely to occur if this system is approved by our votes on the present occasion.
    Next I would like to refer to one or two eases which, I agree, have been put forward rather as though they were cases
    886
    for exception or exemption. I do not regard them as such, but as an illustration, and a very plain one, of the absurdity of the present proposal. It is far more important that we should consider the practical effect of the tax on the ordinary citizen, whether engaged in commerce or industry or in private life, than spend all our time on considering special exceptions. After all, special eases can organise and protest and they always do, but the really important case to consider is the case of the general body of citizens. They cannot organise a protest, and can only look to the Members of this House to consider really seriously whether this tax can be justified.
    Let me refer to two cases, which are regarded in some quarters as of exceptional seriousness, and they are undoubtedly glaring cases. May I remind the Committee, though hon. Members will know it quite well, that Schedule A of the Income Tax does not apply, and as far as I know, has never applied for the purpose of exacting any tax on land vested in trustees and held by them for charitable purposes. It is a perfectly well established principle of our law of taxation, and it is for that reason that public schools and colleges, hospitals and charitable enterprises of all sorts, escape the burden of Income Tax or whatever it may be which is put upon the generalities of citizens. That does not merely mean that under Schedule A these colleges and schools, hospitals and other institutions of a charitable sort do not pay Schedule A tax on the actual premises and on the hospital buildings or schools or whatever it may be; it also means that they do not bear taxation in respect of land which they hold on trust in order that the proceeds of it may be devoted to charitable purposes. I have never, until this particular Bill, heard anybody challenge that proposition as a sound canon of taxation.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): Mr. Gladstone did.
    Sir J. SIMON: He may have done but notwithstanding that, his degenerate successors in all parties have continued that practice. Now for the first time there is the proposal of this new Land Tax, which does not make any difference. You are to exact this tax just

    887
    the same both from the land upon which these education and charitable buildings stand, and upon the land which is their endowment for the purpose of carrying on their charitable and educational work. Consider what that really means. I take an interest in my own university, and anybody can give an illustration from his own. Is it seriously considered, for example, that Tom Quad, Christ Church, Oxford, or Great Court at Trinity, is to be valued by asking the question how much would a person give for it for the purpose of setting up a motor factory or how much would an American give for it in order that he might have the privilege of erecting his own house in the middle of it? Is it seriously suggested that you are to put that sort of value upon the quadrangles and courts, to say nothing of the land upon which these colleges stand, and proceed to exact this tax upon it? That is what the Bill says. According to the right hon. Gentleman, it is all based on the great name of Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone would be much surprised to learn that that was the fate to which Christ Church was exposed.
    The real absurdity of supposing that that can be really done is increased by this fact. Every year the Chancellor of the Exchequer provides out of public revenue money which the Board of Education grants under various supervisory rules to these universities because the Government recognises that they are discharging a great national work and cannot discharge it solely out of their own resources. The Board of Education does this every year, and now down comes the Treasury and says it has a grand new plan, namely, to tax the resources of the schools, colleges, hospitals and charitable institutions because, of course, they will then have to pay like everybody else. It does appear to me that absurdity can hardly be carried further. The only answer that I have heard hitherto is the answer which was given by the Solicitor-General, who was pleased to observe that these people have "chosen to invest their money in land," and so they must pay the penalty. Yes, Sir, but may I point out that these are institutions which, to a large extent, hold land because it was an ancient endowment or an ancient benefaction, and that they apply the proceeds to educate—
    888
    [HON. MEMBERS: "The poor!"] I hope that whatever happens in this Debate we shall not conduct it on a level, which I should have thought a degrading level, of pretending that these great institutions of learning are not applying the greater part of their resources for the assistance of those who otherwise would not be able to go there. [Interruption.] I hear an hon. Member say, "Why not all?" Because there is no reason why a man of reasonable competence or a rich man should not be educated at Oxford or Cambridge—[HON. MEMBERS: "And pay for it!"] I had the advantage of serving on the Royal Commission on Oxford and Cambridge Universities, and I venture to think I know something about it.
    Let me take a second illustration, the case of land which has been deliberately marked down, according to a longsighted and public-spirited policy, for purposes which prevent it being built upon. Does anybody seriously want to have the Temple Garden or Gray's Inn Garden or Lincoln's Inn Garden built over? Does anybody really desire that these areas should be penalised because they are not built over? I should have thought that to be a perfectly ridiculous proposition. I should have thought that those trustees who, not for their own personal advantage, but for the purposes of the public, have thought that care should be taken to maintain these places in the crowded parts of the Metropolis were, as a matter of fact, administering the funds in their hands for the public good. And how is it going to be done? Walk down the Embankment and look at the Temple Garden. It is to be valued, I suppose, at so much per foot frontage on the Embankment, and the question will be, "How much would a speculative builder pay for this place if there was a prospect of erecting on it the Grand Babylon Hotel?" I cannot help thinking that those who have framed this Bill have never considered this point. Gray's Inn Garden, which is made available for the poor children in the neighbourhood, which is one of the areas to which these people, many of them quite poor, go for their refreshment and recreation, is to be taxed I do not know how many hundreds or thousands of pounds. Why? Because the Benchers of Gray's Inn are holding it up against its most profitable use! A Bencher of Gray's Inn who had some-

    889
    thing to do with laying out the garden, Francis Bacon, wrote an essay on the subject. This is what he said:
    "Indeed, it is the purest of human pleasures. It is the greatest refreshment to the spirits of man, without which buildings and palates are but gross handyworks."
    And this Government, the special patron of the arts, with its high-souled attachment to the things of the spirit, is actually authorising the putting forward of a Bill which is to tax open spaces, which are now enjoyed by the poor, thousands and thousands a year!
    Mr. MARLEY: Why is it that the London County Council have passed a Bill insisting that compensation should be paid to owners of London spaces in order that they may not be built upon?
    Sir J. SIMON: I cannot answer the question, because I do not know. The instance I have just given is only part of a wider question. Even 20 years ago, when the Liberal land taxes were under discussion, it was necessary to take careful steps—and they were taken—to prevent Undeveloped Land Duty interfering unfairly with all schemes of orderly land development, and there was a Section in the Bill for that very purpose. There is nothing of that sort in this Bill. Since then the garden city movement and the town planning movement have, over large parts of the country, made land which is adjacent to certain buildings valuable just because it has been marked down as an open space to be reserved as such. This land, which has been deliberately marked down by the thrift and good sense of the people concerned in order not to crowd up houses miserably upon a little area, this land, which gets a large part of its value from the very fact that it is in a garden city, is to be valued just like everything else, and taxed accordingly. I should have thought we could not have a more obvious example of the Government, in its Treasury Department, throwing an obstacle in the way of the town planning with which the Ministry of Health is concerned.
    Lastly—and this affects an enormous number of people—there is the case of ground rents. In the case of any ground rent now in existence which arises out of a lease of more than 50 years the burden is ultimately to be brought down, in part, to the holder of the ground rent. Ground rents have been the security in which the
    890
    insurance companies, friendly societies, trade unions, all the beat forms of collective enterprise, have deliberately made investment for the purpose of keeping capital safe, and this Bill, quite deliberately, sets to work to reduce the value of every ground rent by one-twelfth—quite deliberately! The owner of the ground rent cannot control what happens to the land. If the land is put to its best use and becomes much more valuable, the owner of the ground rent does not get the advantage. A more astonishing example of putting a penalty upon the owner of land whose value does not depend upon him, and who can do nothing to avoid it, has surely never been seen; and I would respectfully ask hon. Members to consider what answer they are to give to people, many of them in humble circumstances, who have been provided for by ground rents, and from whom it is thought just to take away at a blow one-twelfth of their income. It may be said "Oh, after all, ground rents come to an end, the leases fall in, and then the ground landlord can strike a new bargain." That is true, and that is why I had no objection 20 years ago to one of the proposals in the then Liberal Budget which dealt with that sort of case.
    Let us pass for a moment to Scotland. I do not claim to speak for Scotland, but hon. Members who voted for the timetable were of opinion that three hours would be quite enough to consider the application of this Bill to Scotland. That is their affair, and not mine. Let me point out what I understand to be the position. The common way of developing a building estate in Scotland, a way greatly to the advantage of the public, is by the owner of the land, the fee simple owner, the superior, as I think he is called, granting, not a lease for years, but a perpetual lease, a lease for ever, to the feuar, as he is called. He is paid only a fixed feu duty, like a ground rent, which goes on for ever. That is all the superior has to do with it. Under this wonderful Bill, if in the future anybody attempts to develop building land in Scotland by the process of feuing, the burden of this tax is to fall upon the superior in part or in whole. Does anybody suppose that the shrewd Scotsman will in future take the risk of increases of a duty of this sort when he can do nothing, after having once granted a lease, but sit there taking the fixed feu duty and paying the tax, whatever it may be?

    891
    There are many in this House who know this subject much better than I do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I hope I have not seriously mis-stated it. No doubt the hon. Gentlemen who know it better than I do will be in a position to explain why it is just to do anything of the sort; and unless it is really desired by this Bill to put obstacles in the way of the established system of feuing land in Scotland it is difficult to understand what is the reason. May it be observed that the plan in Scotland has this great advantage, that it is possible even for a man with small resources to undertake the business of providing houses, because he has not to put down a capital sum, but pays this feu duty, which is really in the nature of an instalment, going on for ever, of what, capitalised, would be the purchase price. I really do not understand what the Government are about in imagining that proposals of this sort can possibly commend themselves to the constituents of Scottish Members, in whatever part of the House they sit. I have taken a number of illustrations which occur to me, not as unusual or exceptional cases, but as being part and parcel of the fabric of this Bill. It has no more to do with the scheme of land taxes proposed 20 years ago than with the man in the moon.
    Let us consider whether after three weeks of existence this Bill is in a very happy condition. During those three weeks the Prime Minister has sent four messages to candidates at by-elections, following a well-established precedent. He has, of course, endeavoured to lay stress upon all the most attractive items in the Government's programme. He sent one to the candidate at Ogmore, one to the candidate at Stroud, one to the candidate at Rutherglen and one to the candidate at Gateshead. Really, it almost looks as though the surprising earthquake of the other day, which was supposed to be under the North Sea, has spread westward and exhibited some of its cracks on dry land. In not one of those four epistles does the Prime Minister think it good to say one single word about this famous land tax, and the real truth is that it is becoming quite obvious to everybody that it is getting very difficult to
    "recapture the first fine careless rapture,"
    892
    in which a number of people said, "Hooray! Here are the land taxes at last!" The period has now come when that feeling has been followed by
    "Curses, not loud, but deep."
    We must not suppose that the cursing comes only from the critics, who might be thought to be naturally opposed to this system of taxation. I hold in my hand a communication from the Scottish League for the Taxation of Land Values. I read it with interest, because we know that if one could look anywhere for the pure milk of the word on this subject it would be to the Scottish League for the Taxation of Land Values. This is what it says:
    "The present proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will penalise the landowners who are putting their land to the best possible use just as much as it punishes the owners who are holding land idle, or making a partial use of it. This in itself condemns the present proposals, and marks the scheme as a political stunt "—
    That is the view of the Scottish League for the Taxation of Land Values, and they go on to say:
    "with little or no relationship to sound schemes for the taxation of land values, and is only associated with such schemas in name."
    What is the justification for these preposterous proposals? The justification is that they do not want to make a more complicated plan which might break down, and therefore we must have simplicity. O sancta simplicitas. I quite agree that there is an alternative before the Committee, and it is this: You may either try, in devising taxation on this subject, to do what is just and fair, in which case you will be obliged to alter this whole scheme and prevent much intolerable mischief; or else you may seek to get a larger revenue by not caring whether what you are doing is just or not.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The speech which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) has just delivered belies all his past on this question. It is wonderful how association with strange bedfellows alters a man's political economy. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted an expression of opinion by the Scottish League for the Taxation of Land Values, and he knows well enough that in the protest issued by that League they touch upon two points in this Bill which

    893
    do not go as far as they expected. I agree entirely with the Scottish League on those points. I think this Bill would have been much better if it had included agricultural land and minerals, but surely the right hon. Gentleman knows well enough that on all these great questions it is necessary to go slowly and with caution, and if the, principle is right the ultimate results will be right also. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman misled the Committee on the question of feu dues. Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that the imposition of this tax will induce the owners of land in Scotland to refuse their land to the building trade because they see that if they feu the land they will be liable to this tax? May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that they will be liable to this tax if they do not feu the land.
    Sir J. SIMON: But not if they sell it to the builder instead of feuing it.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: But would they be able to get the price that they can get at the present time before the tax is imposed? The whole point about this tax is that here for the first time you say to those owners of land, who are keeping land out of the market on the ground that it is not yet ripe for building, "Every year you keep that land from people who want to work on it you are to pay a tax to the State," the ordinary, necessary, and economic effect of that is bound to be that the owner will be more ready to part with his land than he is at the present time either to sell or to feu. The more the owner is induced to part with his land the easier it will be for those in the building trade to get the land by feuing, or in any other way.
    How can it be pretended that this tax is something new, something original, that has never been thought of before, or that it is a wicked device of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer? The right hon. Gentleman has told us that this is a new theory, but may I point out that this is the only form of taxation of land values that has been adopted in any part of the world. It is the form of tax which is in force in Australia. [Interruption.] At any rate, there it is in a British Dominion. It is the only form of taxation known in Canada, and it is a local tax in Canada. It is the only
    894
    form of taxation in South Africa, and again it is a local tax. In Germany it is known as the Zu-wachs Steuer. In Denmark it is the only form of tax; and the increment duty is now being advocated for the first time by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley.
    Sir J. SIMON: I was a supporter of the Government that introduced the increment tax.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: That scheme included a tax on undeveloped land, and I would like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley if he is in favour of that now?
    Sir J. SIMON: My right hon. Friend was suggesting that I had not previously approved of an increment duty. I replied that I was a supporter, and afterwards a member, of the Government which introduced it.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I remember that when the late Prime Minister was arranging for his taxation on land values that scheme was diverted at the last moment. It was diverted by Mr. McKenna into an increment duty, instead of a straight tax on land values. It was diverted precisely for the reason which I have given, and it was then a new tax. The old scheme was well known before, and it was the scheme outlined and described in detail by the late Henry George. The principal supporters of that scheme in the past come from Birmingham, and hon. Members will remember Mr. T. F. Walker in this connection. This was the only scheme ever advocated by the Nettlefolds, and it was the only scheme advocated by his uncle, Mr. Arthur Chamberlain, a more profound thinker if not even as lovable a man as the right hon. Gentleman's father. This was the only scheme ever put forward, excepting the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), whose hands were forced by the Midland Bank.
    The reason why all these people in the past have advocated this form of tax, as opposed to the proposal now supported so strenuously and unanimously on the Opposition benches, is that this tax is not a burden upon industry, and cannot be passed on to the consumer while the increment duty can be and is passed on to the consumer. Does anybody doubt

    895
    that still? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] We all realise now that this is a burden upon the landowner. But can the tax be really passed on to the consumer? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Apparently there are some hon. Members who still think that this tax can be passed on to the consumer. Take the case of a manufacturer who owns the land and a competing manufacturer who has his land on lease and does not own it. The man who leases the land pays nothing but the man who owns it has to pay. Those two manufacturers are in competition and therefore the price of the article produced by those manufacturers will be regulated by the one who leases.
    Mr. BEAUMONT: When the lease falls in surely the man who has held the lease will find a marked increase in his rent?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Under the existing system landlords are getting for their leases the highest possible figure they can. If when the lease falls in the man will have the choice of leasing that piece of land or some other land, and he will find much more land in the market suitable for his purposes at a smaller price, he will be able to renew his lease on better terms. So long as you prevent the landlord having any incentive to allow his land to be used he will be able to have the consumer of land at his mercy; but once you make it clear that the owner will have to pay the tax whether the land is used or not he will be far more ready to meet the consumer half way and allow him to get the land at an easier price. Many hon. Members of this House are owners of land, and every one of them must have calculated exactly what this tax is going to cost. Agricultural land has been unfortunately exempted, but elsewhere the owners know perfectly well by now that the value of their land will be reduced by the imposition of this tax to the extent of a capitalised value of 1d. in the £ on the value of their land. People who wish to use that land will be able to get it cheaper and if that is the case production will be benefited and not hindered.
    I will take, as an example, the case of china clay, in which I have a particular interest. China clay is in the hands of a ring and the price is fixed by that ring. China clay is the raw material of a great industry. It is to
    896
    be found in large quantities in Cornwall and under this Bill it is not subject to the tax. If an Amendment which I hope to get the Government to accept is accepted, china clay will be liable to the tax. What will be the effect. Obviously all those fields of china clay which are held up from use will be forced into the market. The owners will be induced to lease their clay fields at cheaper prices to people who will go into that business of getting the china clay, and the ring that keeps up the price will be broken. Industry, far from being penalised, will be enormously stimulated. You will find a cheaper raw material; you will find more people employed in the getting of china clay; you will find cheaper cups and saucers on your tea table. That is the way in which the taxation of land values, properly applied, benefits industry, provides employment and enables people to produce cheaper goods. Cheaper raw materials—there is not an hon. Member opposite who does not know that for a recovery of industry cheap capital is necessary. The cheaper capital is, the easier it is for the producers to produce goods. A low bank rate tends to a recovery of industry. Why, if hon. Members accept the advantages to industry of cheap capital, do they not recognise the advantages to industry of cheap land and cheap raw material? The right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) is not an industrialist.
    Earl WINTERTON: In Canada this taxation has not led to more buildings. All that it has led to is that the Government have seized a large amount of land on which the owners cannot pay the tax, and the land is useless to-day.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Noble Lord may be sure that I know perfectly well what has happened in Canada. Land on which the tax was due has not paid the tax. There was a slump, and the owners said they could not pay. The Government took the land in forfeit. Where the land had been sold to the Government or where the Government have taken over the land——
    Sir ROBERT HORNE: It was surrendered to the Grovenment, not sold.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I should be very glad if the land of this country were surrendered to the Government. Nothing

    897
    would be better. Then the people of this country might be allowed to use that land.
    Sir R. HORNE: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman forgets that the Canadian Government were paying people to come and occupy the land.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not think we should find it necessary to pay people to occupy the land. When you have 2,500,000 people unemployed in this country, you might possibly open to them an opportunity of using the land.
    Sir R. HORNE: It is the last place to which they want to go.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: If 10 per cent. of the miners who are out of work could get an acre or three acres of land for themselves, with security of tenure, it would be much better for them and for the community that they should employ themselves on that land than that they should stand at the street corners eating their hearts out. I am surprised at the courage of right hon. and hon. Members opposite in bringing forward this question of the absence of any shortage of land in this country. In my district of North Staffordshire, mine after mine has been shut down. Directly a mine is shut down there are no more rates and no more taxes to pay. The minerals are there, and the miners are there, begging for the opportunity of working that coal, but they are not allowed to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is a quota."] Yes, all sorts of unsound dodges have been undertaken on the advice of hon. Members opposite. There is what is called rationalisation, but what is really the building up of a monopoly, whereas, as everyone knows at the bottom of his heart, the right thing to do is to allow people an opportunity for using nature and producing from nature the goods that we all want at the cheapest possible price. [HON. MEMBERS: "Russia."] In Russia they have compulsory employment, I understand.
    The CHAIRMAN (Sir Robert Young): All these interjections about other countries are out of order.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I was led away, and I apologise. It is astounding that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite
    898
    should talk of this tax as though it was a novelty. It is the oldest form of political propaganda in this country. Being an old man, I remember a Royal Commission sitting in 1886 on this question, and that the Prince of Wales was a member of that Commission. I remember about a dozen Royal Commissions and Select Committees that have sat since then. It is the oldest question. A straight tax on the value of land has been supported throughout, and it has been proved conclusively in the reports of every one of these Commissions that a tax or rate on land values cannot settle anywhere except upon the landlord, that it cannot be passed on to industry, that it must make land cheaper, that increasing the supply of land in the market will bring down the price of land by more even than the capitalised amount of the tax, and that if you are to deal with the unemployment problem on sound lines and allow unemployed men to use unemployed land, the only way to do it is to break land monopoly in this country and force the landlords' hand by a tax on their land values and their mineral values, whether they allow them to be used to-day or not.
    Sir R. HORNE: The House and the Committee always listen with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, upon this particular topic. He is an enthusiastic advocate of the taxation of land values. We have heard from him many eloquent speeches on this subject in the past, and undoubtedly if he cannot commend such a proposal to the people of this country, there is no one else who can. I would like to examine for a few moments some of the views to which the right hon. Gentleman has given expression. He has stated that the proposition before the Committee is no novel proposition. I agree that the taxation of land values is no novel theory. All of us who have taken any interest in political questions have known something about Henry George and his theories. Most of us have grown up with that knowledge. Some of us began by believing that there was something in Henry George's theories, but most of us have discarded them. The right hon. Gentleman is one of the few who has remained faithful to his early teachings.
    It is true that the taxation of land values is no novel idea, but it is equally

    899
    true that the theory has never been presented in such a novel way as in this Finance Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has said that this form of taxation is practised in many other parts of the world, but can he mention any other part of the world where you not only put a tax on the capital value but a tax upon the annual value of land. The novelty and the monstrosity of the proposals here is that you not only put a penny in the £ on the capital value of the land, but you also tax the land by taking under Schedule A an Income Tax on the annual value. That sort of system does not operate in any other part of the world. The Scottish League for the Taxation of Land Values take exception to this Bill and say that it is a political stunt. Let my right hon. Friend read their circular again and he will see that what they have put forward is that the capital value tax on land is meant to be a substitute for other taxes, but that this is not; it is an addition. That is one of the things to which this document takes exception.
    Let me refer to the question of Scottish feu duties, of which I have some knowledge. Several hon. Members have seemed to suggest that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) was not acquainted with that branch of the law; but no one could have given a cleaver account of what the Scottish law on the subject is. The system in Scotland is derived from the ancient Romans. It is a perpetual grant of the ground upon the basis of an annual payment. That payment never ceases and never increases. No system has ever been found that is better for the development of landed property. Take the case of the north side of Edinburgh. The whole of that portion of a beautiful city has been let out upon the feu system. The landlords at one time found the greatest possible difficulty in inducing people to come and invest their money on that side of the city. The feu duties are very low in amount. I myself occupied a house which was of considerable value, but all the feu duty that I had to pay was £6 a year. The builders were tempted by low feu duties to build their good houses and great terraces and circuses all over the north side of Edinburgh. See what it did. It induced a large capital investment in the building
    900
    of houses in a city which undoubtedly has been beautifully built.
    The right hon. Gentleman entirely mistakes the effect of this Bill. What will take place immediately upon its passage is that the Scottish landowner will no longer let off his land upon a feu duty if he is to be taxed upon what he receives. He will insist upon cash, and the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that he will take less cash because the Land Tax has been imposed. The builder who wants to build will have to borrow the money from someone else, since he has to find money in order to pay the landlord, and he will have to pay far more for the borrowed money than for the feu duties. These feus have always been low in amount for the reason that they afford such a good security, but when the builder goes to a bank or someone else willing to lend him money in order to purchase the land instead of feuing it, undoubtedly it will be a much more expensive business for him than the present system.
    I am led to pursue this matter of feu duties a little further. I do not profess to be able to add anything to what has been said, in principle, upon this matter, but I beg the Committee to observe that once a feu has been granted the feu duty becomes an investment which is saleable, as saleable in Scotland as Consols or local loans or any other form of investment. These feu duties have been regarded from time immemorial as by far the most secure and safe investment that anyone can pub money into, with the result that all the great trusts and charitable institutions and educational organisations, and even the trade unions and friendly societies have made their chief investments in the feu duties of Scotland. Before the War feu duties in Scotland were selling at as much as 38 years' purchase, and even under the present system, with the threat of taxation, they are selling at 16 to 18 years' purchase on the average.
    8.0 p.m.
    Why should you make an attack upon these investments, and by what right are you going to say that this is a form of investment of which you will take away a twelfth from the people who have taken it up? It is obvious that protests are coming in, not merely from people interested in these matters on this side,

    901
    but from friendly societies and from trade unions. Are the Government going to be deaf to what the trade unions say, or will they buckle at the knees as usual? And if the trade unions are to be regarded with favour, on what ground should anybody else be ruled out? Under our Scottish legislation trustees are encouraged to invest in these feu duties. Under the Trust Acts, it is one of the investments in regard to which the trustees are immune from trouble if they adopt it.
    Let me give an even more extreme example. The Church of Scotland have invested £2,000,000 in the feu duties of Scotland, and the way in which they have come to do it is this: As the Committee knows, great differences have occurred in the growth of population, and not all parish boundaries suit the needs of growing communities. The result is that they started a system in Scotland, many years ago, of setting up parishes whose boundaries were defined for sacred purposes, and they built churches within those new areas and endowed them, but they were not allowed under Act of Parliament to set: them up unless they could provide a certain endowment, which has risen from £120 in a year, as it was at one time, to £160, as it is now. But who had to provide these endowments? They were provided by the people. They were got together by the collection of the pennies of the people in the churches, mounting up until a sufficient sum was obtained to endow these parishes, and when enough was got, application had to be made to the court, and the court would appoint a man of business to inquire into the condition of the parish and as to whether a sufficient amount of money had been got together to endow it. Then the law said that the only way in which these moneys, collected from the parishioners of Scotland, could be invested was in the feu duties of Scotland. Are you now going to tell the Church that this £2,000,000, collected from the people for this sacred purpose, and so invested, is to be denuded by the fact that they have put their money into the only investment which the law has compelled them to make? Nothing so monstrous could ever have been suggested in this House. It seems to me very much as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been caught in the porch of a church robbing the collecting box; and once the House of
    902
    Commons commits itself to a principle like this, all possibility of confidence, on the part of anybody in the country, in the methods of Parliament must be gone.
    I do not propose to develop that matter further, beyond saying this: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken said he entirely agreed with the report of the Scottish League for the Taxation of Land Values. Here is what they say about the trade unions in this matter:
    "Trade unionists who have attacked landlordism make themselves ridiculous by claiming exemption. Such exemptions, by penalising one section and favouring another, can only have the effect of bringing a sound principle into contempt."
    Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell that to his trade union colleagues? My right hon. Friend has referred to the case of industry. Here we are in this country at the present time with our industries in a more depressed condition than has been known for a very long period of time, and certainly in a condition which menaces the welfare of our people, with a vast number of people unemployed, who are struggling to find means of employment, and with the Government trying to find money to set up schemes by which employment may be afforded. Trade facilities are suggested by which employers may be encouraged to get orders, and here we are, at this distressing period, putting, by this Bill, an additional burden on the very industries of the country which are hardest hit. And these are all additional burdens. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman's principle may be, there is no country in the world where it is operated as this Bill does it. Here we are with great shipyards, great engineering yards, great factories, such as my right hon. Friend described, which are going to be penalised because of the mere fact that they are compelled to have extensive premises in which to do their work. A shipbuilding yard may be even working at a loss, when a small office in the City, which is making a large profit, requires nothing more than a small portion of land on which to conduct its business, and escapes this taxation; but the shipyard, employing a vast number of people and compelled by the nature of its work to occupy a large territory, has a new imposition put upon it at a time when its burdens are already greater than

    903
    it can bear. Take the case of a shipyard which I know, contiguous to my own constituency. The tax which would be imposed on this shipyard under the present Bill would be £600 in the year. I happen to know about this shipyard. The value of its land has not been created by anybody but the shipyard people. It was they who came there first, established themselves, laid the shipyard out, and brought the community to work there. Everything that is there, so far as human contribution is concerned, was created by the shipbuilders, but now, because they have a piece of land which has value—because it is necessary fur their purposes and has a large frontage on the River Clyde—they will have to pay an additional £600 in the year. It may not seem a tremendous burden, but as everybody knows shipyards are not having an easy time. Shipyards have sometimes to raise money. The existence of this tax just makes a difference of £12,000 to the shipyard if it comes to a question of raising money by debentures. It appreciates it by 20 years' purchase of the amount of the tax, and reduces the capital value of the shipyard by £12,000. If it comes to borrowing money, by debenture or otherwise, to that extent their security is decreased. That is the kind of thing which will occur all over the country. I cannot believe that this House of business people can give any countenance to such a Bill when its Members begin to understand what the results really are. It is true, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley said, that these are not merely cases of exemption. These cases go to the very root of the principle of the Bill and I protest against the absurdity that in this period of depression we should be wasting the time of this House in passing a Measure which can only be of the greatest possible damage to the real interests of this country.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I do not propose to follow the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) into the special Scottish illustrations which he gave in the earlier part of his speech, but, with regard to his later remarks, I think I can deal with them in referring to the speech of the right hon.
    904
    and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). The right hon. and learned Member displayed his great forensic ability in decrying the proposals of my right hon. Friend. He showed that it was a new tax, and he showed how the additional burden of that new tax would affect various sections of the community. When he was speaking, for my part, I was thinking how I should have liked to hear him bringing that same great power of exposition, of analysis, and of criticism to bear on the rating system of this country. Supposing at the present time we had had in existence a system of taxation of land values, and supposing it was proposed to introduce a system of rating, I am quite sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman could have made a very much more powerful attack upon that than he has made upon the taxation of land values, and I am quite sure that ho would have done it in words far better than I could possibly choose.
    I can imagine him drawing attention to the inequality of the burden as between one locality and another; I can imagine him drawing attention to the wide latitude given to local authorities, who would be able to put up the burden, it may be, by 6d. or 1s. in a single year upon the assessment values and for purposes of no value to the individual ratepayer who has to bear the burden; and I can imagine him telling us, in ringing tones, how injurious it was to industry that this burden should be placed, not only upon the land, but upon the buildings and all the work that that industry was carrying on. But, as a matter of fact, we have this rating system. We have had it for many years, and in spite of its inequalities, in spite of its injustices, in spite of the burdens that it imposes upon industry, we put up with it; and we do not hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman coming down to this House to denounce it on all sorts of occasions.
    Sir J. SIMON: Would it have been in order?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No, but no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman could have taken opportunities for bringing in proposals, and there are many occasions when, I am quite sure, the question could be raised if the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought it desir-

    905
    able to do so. Of course, he could not do it on this Bill; I am not suggesting that for a moment. It is simply because this is a new proposal that the right hon. and learned Gentleman finds in it much to attack. Every form of new taxation is, of course, liable to attack, but what hon. Members, I think, forget is that when we have the heavy burdens that we have at the present time, not only of taxation, but of rates, it is of very high importance that new sources of revenue should be found which are free from some of the disadvantages of the existing burdens. [Interruption.] The fact remains that the proceeds of this taxation will be of use in substitution for burdens that are either already in existence or would otherwise have to be imposed.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley said that this was a tax on land because it was land. That is perfectly true. Every specific tax that is imposed is imposed upon something because it fulfils the definition in the law imposing the tax. A rate, however, is a burden on enterprise, but a land tax is a tax on the monopoly value of the land. The right hon. Gentleman opposite made great play with the idea that this was penal taxation. It is nothing of the kind. Other Members have attempted to attack this proposal because it is not an increment tax, but it does not pretend to be an increment tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Certainly: it is a tax on land value, and the reason for it is perfectly clear, namely, that land, owing to its monopoly position differs in a peculiar way from other things connected with the activities of the community. The community allows the owner of land to benefit by the work that the community does, and it is now proposed that part of that benefit which accrues owing to the action of the community should be taken in the form of a tax.
    When our ancestors developed the whole system of raising the revenue of the country many years ago, they divided the burden into two types, local and national. They decided to have certain local burdens because they saw that there were some expenses that were due to local decisions of policy, and also expenses which benefited individual localities. What the community is beginning to see more and more is that it is neces-
    906
    sary to have a local burden which shall not press upon the buildings and other improvements made by the individual, and, therefore, there have been from many local authorities requests for a site valuation, which would enable them to place part of the annual burden, not on the buildings and improvements made by individuals, but on the site value of the land within their area.
    It may be said that that might be all very well if this were a proposal for the rating of site values, but this is a proposal for the taxation of site values. Do hon. Members not realise, however, that the line which divides the uses of taxation and rates is very much blurred? We are constantly imposing upon local authorities expenses which, in other circumstances, might be regarded as national. We are, on the other hand, constantly relieving local authorities of burdens which could legitimately be considered to be local, and we have recently relieved them of local burdens, by the Derating Act, to an amount which will probably continue to increase. Therefore, any impost which we put on land value goes, in effect, to the relief of other burdens which people have to bear. Even though it takes the shape of taxation, and not rating, of land values, it is in effect in substitution for the rates which are being borne on the whole value, including buildings and other improvements made by the individual. Thus, the questions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley and the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) are very largely answered.
    It may be true that, if you isolate this land tax, you see in it nothing but a burden, and it has been said that it is a burden which the unfortunate taxpayer will have to bear above what he bears at the present time. I venture to think, however, that that is an incorrect way of looking at the matter. This burden is in substitution for some other burden which the individual might otherwise have to bear, either as a ratepayer or as a taxpayer, and I venture to think that large numbers of those in whose interest the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley was speaking, will, in fact, find that they are much better off under the proposed taxation of land values than they are

    907
    while they are bearing the burdens which fall upon the rates.
    Sir R. HORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us which burdens are mitigated in compensation?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: At the present time we have to find money to cover a deficiency on the derating proposals. I am not a prophet, and cannot tell how the situation will be in three years' time, when this proposal fructifies and we raise money from the impost that we are now making. We have not passed the Bill yet, and, until we see in what shape it emerges from this House, it is quite impracticable to foretell what will happen. In any case, however, it will relieve other burdens to that extent, and for that reason I say that people will gain from the relief, while they will lose, of course, on account of the burdens that are to be put upon them. [Interruption.] Every form of taxation, isolated from all other forms of burdens and from the expenditure which it is called upon to meet, is, of course, an increase; no one can deny that; but, when taxation is imposed, it is imposed in order that the proceeds may be available to the community, and that fact must be borne in mind when we are considering the effect of the imposition of this burden.
    The Debate that we have had on this Amendment, according to the understanding and arrangement, has, quite rightly and properly, ranged over a very large number of subjects, and, although I do not in the least complain of that, I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not expect me to attempt to cover all the points that have been raised from different parts of the Committee, and particularly by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), who moved this Amendment, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain). Their speeches dealt mostly with points that will come up at a later stage of the Bill, more particularly on Clause 19, because they were directed to showing that there were certain pieces of land which, owing to their ownership, ought to have exemption, and which do not have exemption under the Bill in its present form.
    Sir R. HORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman allow us to deal with all these
    908
    exemptions raised on Clause 19 or shall we be guillotined?
    The CHAIRMAN: The decision will rest with me, and the Chairman must protect the Committee in his decision. I do not think it is permissible to criticise what is the decision of the House regarding the Guillotine arrangement.
    Sir R. HORNE: The hon. Gentleman is putting it forward as an excuse for not going into these matters now that they will be raised on the Clause when the exemptions are being considered. Shall we have an opportunity of dealing with them then?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether at the same time we shall get a guarantee that we shall be able to debate the deletion of some of the exemptions?
    The CHAIRMAN: The matter does not lie with the Minister at all. The representatives of the Opposition up to now have indicated to me what they consider to be the most important Amendments, and I have made ray selection accordingly.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Clearly, a large number of Amendments will be discussed and considered when we come to Clause 19. It depends very largely on the Opposition how many. No doubt, when we come to that Clause, the whole of the Amendments on the Paper will be considered most carefully by ray right hon. Friend, and he will be able to deal with the points when they come up. Although it is quite correct that they should have been raised to-day, it would be unsuitable for me to attempt to deal with them, but there are two or three points that I should like to refer to. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston claimed that a statement made by my right hon. Friend had been entirely discredited. He seemed to have wholly ignored this very important consideration, that a very large proportion of the allotments that are in private ownership will be exempt under this Bill because they are purely agricultural land. The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple asked why we put a tax of 1d. when the tax of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) on undeveloped land was only a halfpenny. But that was only one of the forms of taxation. The tax on undeveloped land was combined with other forms of taxa-

    909
    tion, whereas this tax stands alone. The hon. Baronet drew a harrowing picture of the vast taxation that would fall on brickfields. I can only suppose that he imagined a brickfield situated on land which had great building value. That is illustrative of the kind of mistakes which hon. Members who oppose these proposals make, and which it is impossible to answer seriatim, because they cover such a large number of questions. As a matter of fact, the sites of brickfields generally have a very low building value and the tax, if any, will undoubtedly be small.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston made one of his greatest points with regard to speculative building. He said the speculative builder was the mainstay of the building of houses, and that the effect of the tax upon the speculative builder would be to reduce very much the output of houses. Really hon. Members opposite must make their choice. When they are out to prove that this is going to be injurious to the housing of the working people, they tell us that the activities of the speculative builder will be terribly reduced and, instead of largely increasing the number of houses that will be built, it will be cut down by a large percentage. When they want to prove how injurious this will be to the open spaces of all kind's that exist at present, they tell us that the effect of the Bill will be to expand the activities of the speculative builder, that we shall have ribbon development going on at an accelerated pace, that we shall have all the outskirts of our cities built over, and that there will be no more playing fields. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They must choose which of these alternatives they are going to adopt. I believe both are wrong. I do not think it will have the effect of cheeking the activities of the speculative builders in reducing the number of houses nor do I think it will bring about the kind of ugly and injurious form of building which hon. Members profess to think it will. At any rate, for the purpose of consistency they must choose one or other of these two legs to stand upon. They cannot stand on both, because they are mutually inconsistent.
    Mr. CADOGAN: I apologise to the Financial Secretary if I did not hear the whole of his speech, but I came in in time to hear him say that one of the
    910
    chief reasons for the imposition of the tax was that land was in a peculiar position and was different from other forms of property. I have often heard that statement made but I have never heard it very well explained. There is an old saying that land cannot run away. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman meant that. We have heard that land cannot elude the clutches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, unlike the profiteering owner of land. But I am not so much' concerned with what the Financial Secretary said as with what the Solicitor-General has not said. He has not explained why he and his party have so grossly misled the electorate on the subject of these taxes. I share the surprise of other hon. Members that he has not given some better explanation. I also share the anxiety that the electorate should be well informed on the matter. On the other hand, we have the consolation that I do not think the electorate is quite so ill-informed as the Government suppose, if we are to judge by the figures of the Gateshead election. The very inadequate remarks of the Chancellor as to the purpose, the operation and the effect of the tax are well calculated to mislead. Only a day or two ago I had a letter from a constituent to the effect that the tax on unearned increment was not a grave injustice.
    There have been two gross mis-statements made on the subject of this tax. The first was that it redresses a grievance which is supposed to be nursed by the community against owners of land. We now learn that it is merely a flat rate charge on a particular type of property. The second mis-statement resembles one view with which we were familiar many years ago when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was on the warpath against the landowner, namely, that it was only a penny in the £. That point has boon very well dealt with by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). On examining the figures, we discover that 12d. in the £ on the capital value is equal to a complete confiscation of the annual rental. Is that the set purpose of the Government? Is that the solution they desire? Is that what the Prime Minister is aiming at, or is he going once again to quote Cardinal Newman, as he did on a celebrated occasion

    911
    in the Albert Hall when he first assumed office:
    "One step enough for me"?
    The imposition of such a tax affords a typical instance of the difficulties and embarrassments which beset the Chancellor of the Exchequer as soon as he sets out to impose a tax for purposes other than that of revenue. I should have thought that the classical example set by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs would have been a warning to him. This variety of tax aimed at a particular class is confessedly vindictive and punitive. Surely the only preoccupation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be to acquire revenue, and the basic principles which should guide him in the quest should be that the revenue should be adequate for his purposes, that the distribution of the burden should be as equitable as possible, and that the evil effects should be circumscribed as much as possible, so that it should have no detrimental repercussions upon industry. He has run roughshod over those basic principles. He freely confesses that revenue considerations do not afford the only reason for the institution of land value taxation. Surely it is not the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to use the power of his high office to get his own back upon some section of the community against which he imagines himself to he aggrieved. It is against the traditions of his high office. The most objectionable feature of vindictive legislation is that, while you may succeed in inflicting pains and penalties upon those who merit your strictures, you inflict immeasurable hardship upon a far wider section of the community. Here is a case in point. Ever since the suggestion that this tax should be imposed, every hon. Member has been inundated with protests from philanthropic institutions, educational institutions, curative institutions and the like whose admirable work will be irremediably prejudiced by the imposition of this tax.
    The peculiar characteristic of those who indulge in this particular form of vindictive legislation is that they all seem to be more solicitous to injure their opponents than to help
    912
    those whose cause they are supposed to be championing. That is not the only objection to this tax, obviously. When the Government first assumed control of the affairs of this country they said that they were going to indulge in some thinking. They do not seem to have done very much of it in connection with the taxation of site values. They have left out of reckoning all recent legislation and even legislation now on the stocks but which is due shortly to be launched. Surely the Rent Restrictions Act, the Agricultural Holdings Act, the Acquisition of Land Act and the Town and Country Planning Acts, all those successive Acts, certainly clear away any obstacles there may be to the community enjoying all the increment due to the action of the community.
    Years ago when I went in for my Bar examination I learnt that the derogation of absolute ownership was ownership which was indefinite in user, unrestricted in disposition and unlimited in duration. We have travelled a very long way from that definition of absolute ownership. The Acts to which I have referred cut right across this tax and render it superfluous. It is not by any means its redundancy which I consider to be the chief objection. I think it is based on an absolutely fundamental fallacy, and that it is impossible in the majority of cases to ascertain with any precision who creates the value. There are many cases where, I agree, you can. There is the case of the man who suddenly discovers that the Metropolitan Railway is coming within a few yards of his own door. In cases of that character it is easy enough, but in the majority of cases it surely is the combination of the enterprise of the owner and the enterprise of the community reacting upon one another. The prudence, foresight, and initiative of the one is quite useless without the prudence, foresight and initiative of the other. It is impossible to measure the respective contributions of the community and the owner to any increment there may be. At any rate, it is obviously quite inequitable that you should not take into consideration every effort on the part of the owner to develop his land in assessing his liability for tax. You include in taxable value certain value the owner creates by his act, and that surely is inequitable.

    913
    Perhaps the most vicious feature of the tax is that it is not levied upon receipts which are clearly ascertainable. It is not levied upon earned or unearned increment but levied irrespective, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) pointed out, of profits or losses. It is assessed also very likely, as we were told, by someone, a jack in office, who has had absolutely no experience of land or the valuation of land. It is a tax upon the character of the land and not upon the definite profit, nor indeed on the capacity to pay. It contravenes the considered judgment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself who only a few weeks ago delivered a most solemn pronouncement that industry is not capable of bearing any further burdens. It; certainly will require all the resources of the ingenuity of the Government to convince the country that this tax is appropriate. It would be far better for them to conserve their energies and ingenuity to be applied to the problem which dominates all others and demands their immediate decision.
    Mr. MacLAREN: I congratulate the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan). I think it is the second time he has had an opportunity of addressing himself to the question, and it is with difficulty that I have been able to get on to my feet now. After listening all the afternoon to the speeches which have so far been delivered, the most dangerous speech was the one delivered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). I wish he were now in his place. I would have endeavoured to get him to reply to me, and now that he has gone I am sorry. But I will proceed to do the best I can to deal with the points which he raised. It was an attack at once subtle and significant which raised points which seemed to have substance in them, and I am quite sure that the opponents of the project behind the tax were simply entranced and impressed beyond all measure upon what seemed to them to be an inevitable part. To be quite frank, the speech from beginning to end was nothing but a farrago of nonsense. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, and I will show you why. It is no good putting on kid gloves in regard to this matter. We have to be brutally frank. So far, this
    914
    fight has been carried on as if there was nothing involved. There is a very big principle involved, and the sooner it is made known the better.
    The right hon. and learned Member went on to say that the original sin of the promoter of this proposal is the belief that it is wrong to have private ownership in land. I should like everyone who opposes this proposal to note that that is exactly what we do believe. There is a moral principle involved which mankind has ignored far too long. There is a moral principle involved which we must adumbrate and bring before the minds of men. We on this side promote this proposal to tax the value of land because we believe that the land was made by no man, and that all men have equal rights to its use. I would welcome the next hon. Member who rises on the opposing side who could deny the proposition that men have equal rights to the uses of this earth. Deny it if you dare. If you can support your denial you will be entertaining, certainly if you can support it by any substantial arguments that will stand the test of common sense.
    Believing that the land of this country is the common heritage of the people of this country, we say that those who wish to use any part of it shall render rental in respect of the value of it, either to the State or to the local community. If any man can prove to me that a man has created one single acre or one single inch of land, then I would defend that man's right to the ownership of that land, but as no man can ever prove before the tribunal of common sense or reason that any man ever made an inch of land, we to-night behind this proposal are challenging the idea that has pervaded the mind of man far too long that you can have private property in anything which no man has made. I hear hon. and right hon. Members opposite denouncing the Bolsheviks, because they say that they appropriate the belongings of other people. If hon. Members opposite deny the common right of man to the land and to the use of the land, they are doing what the Bolsheviks are doing in another way. They are appropriating that which is the common heritage of the people of the country, and saying that it is private property. That is the cardinal difference between the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley, learned

    915
    in the law by the way, and those who support the proposed land tax. I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, that never in law has it been recognised that there is any absolute right to private property in land. True, the lawyers have made out that, in practice, land is private property.
    Mr. CADOGAN: It belongs to the King.
    Mr. MacLAREN: Yes, it belongs to the King, but he does not collect rent.
    Mr. CADOGAN: What a quibble!
    Mr. MacLAREN: The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley got the applause and attention of the Committee because he is deemed to be a subtle and clever lawyer, but I put it to him and to any lawyer that never in law has absolute private ownership in land been admitted. True, as the hon. Member opposite has interjected, the King is the owner of the land, but the King does not collect rent on the Monday morning. It is the private owners who do that. Therefore, let there be no dubiety or suspicion on the part of hon. Members opposite that there is something in this Snowden proposal, as they call it, that they do not appreciate. A few of us, long ago, maintained that if ever the opportunity came the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would do what he is doing to-day. He has the solid support of every man on these benches, and until recently I thought that he had the solid support of every hon. and right hon. Member below the Gangway opposite. It is because we believe that the private appropriation of rent is a moral and original crime against society that we are here to-night advocating the beginning of a system of putting taxes on to rent. I hope that I have settled that matter and that there will be no dubiety.
    Mr. CADOGAN: Will the hon. Member explain how land differs from other property? We brought nothing into this world, and we shall take nothing out of it.
    Mr. MacLAREN: I have been asked a question, and there is no Member of this House who more delights in answering that question. How does land differ from property in other things? That
    916
    may seem a far cry from our discussion to-night, but it is very essential to clear up the point. What is property? It is not a thing, but a claim to a thing. If I go into a court and there is a contest going on as to whether a table or a chair or a coat belongs to me or to the other fellow, the judge is not concerned with the thing that is called a coat, a table or a chair but with who has the right claim to the thing; whose property is it? What is it that establishes a property claim in anything? First, that I produce the thing by my own labour or that I produced something in exchange of the thing that I now claim.
    Mr. CADOGAN: You improve it by your own labour.
    Mr. MacLAREN: I have been asked a question and I will answer it. First of all, my property claim is based upon the fact that I produced the thing by my own labour, or that I have exchanged something that I produced for the thing that I am now claiming, or that it has been bequeathed to me by someone who either produced it by their own labour or exchanged it for something that they produced, the cardinal, rock bottom principle being that property cannot be established unless there is the title deed of labour establishing it. The distinguishing feature between other forms of property and land is this, that while other things which are deemed to be property have labour added to them to establish a property claim in proportion to the labour expended upon them, land never was produced by any man——
    Mr. CADOGAN: The material of your coat was not produced by man.
    Mr. MacLAREN: I will not pursue such a silly point. I have tried to meet the point that was put to me, and which I thought was clear to any man who runs and reads, that private property in things is determined by the amount of labour expended in their production. That is the point which establishes the difference between hon. Members on this side of the House who are behind the proposal in the Finance Bill, and those who are against it. We do not believe and never shall believe that that which no man produces can ever become any man's private property. I have here a quotation which may be interesting to the hon. Member who has been interrupt-

    917
    ing me. They are the words not of a Member of the Labour party, not of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. P. Snowden), but the words of a good Member of the Conservative party, and they are pertinent to our argument:
    "Equity does not permit property in land. The assumption that land can be held as property involves that the whole globe may become the private domain of a part of its inhabitants and that the rest of the population are trespassers thereon. It can never be pretended that the existing titles to such property, are legitimate. Should anyone think so let him look in the Chronicles. Violence, fraud, the prerogative of force, the claims of superior cunning—these are the sources to which those titles may be traced. The original deeds were written with the sword rather than the pen; not lawyers but soldiers were the conveyancers: blows the current coins given in payment; and for seals blood was used in preference to wax, Could valid claims be thus constituted?"
    Those are the words of Herbert Spencer in the 9th chapter of his "Social Statics," which afterwards he desired to delete when he joined the Athenaeum Club. Having made it quite clear that we are not timid in the demand we are making, I want to say that it is astonishing to me that the people of this country do not seem to be fully attuned to the immensity of the light that is now going on. If ever we were at the beginning of a revolutionary movement it is now, because this is the beginning of a challenge to an historic and vested interest which during the last 400 to 500 years has constantly sought, through the Measures which have been passed through this House, to disinherit the mass of the people and the bedrock of aristocracy in another place has been constantly set as a barrier against every attempt to bring forward any measure of reform. The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley says, "What about the poor shopkeeper who has purchased his premises? He has paid all, and someone else has gone off with the swag." If I were the Chancellor of the Exchequer I would take the Opposition at their word. They are astonished that the simple penny is not getting at the increment value. If I were the Chancellor of the Exchequer I would add to that simple penny a chunk on to increment value. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in any way tempted to introduce an increment value tax we should hear none of that nonsense.
    918
    9.0 p.m.
    The fact that hon. Members opposite admit that the penny tax does not in any way affect the vast fortunes of the landowner who has got away with the increment value on the sale of his estate, is not a reflection upon us so much as it is a reflection upon the system which has prevailed up to the present. The man who has bought his shop, his little shop, who has paid a price—the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley says that we come along and put a penny tax upon this poor fellow without any regard to the fact that the Noble Lord has run away with the increment value. What is it that the man who buys his shop, or the man who buys a piece of land, really buys? When a man buys a piece of land what is it that he really purchases? Is it land? No. What he buys is this, he buys the right from another man to charge rent against his fellows when they try to use the piece of land he now has. All that is bought from a landowner is the right of exemption from his charges and to become clothed with the same power to charge rent on anyone else who comes along and desires to use the land. As a matter of fact, there is nothing in the idea that you can buy land.
    Look at the case of a man who buys a shop and who feels that the landowner is taking advantage of the development of the premises to increase his rental. The shopkeeper, anxious to get rid of the parasitical growth of landlordism, attempts to commute the power of the landowner by buying him out. When he has bought the landlord out he is now in the position of a landowner, and he would be a stupid business man if, after having bought a hereditament at a capitalised value, he did not in his bookkeeping set aside a certain amount as rental charge in respect of his land. He must. The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley said to-night, "Oh, but you are coming along and putting this penny tax on without regard as to whether the man is making a profit out of his shop or not. The taxation of land value is not a tax on land, as I have heard constantly insisted upon in this House; it is not a tax upon the land but a tax upon the land value or a tax upon rent.
    When hon. Members opposite endeavour to show that a tax upon land value will

    919
    tend to depress industry they are up against this proposition. Is there any hon. Member who opposes the taxation of land value who will dare to say that rent taken by the landowner has had a detrimental effect on the industries of the country? I ask any critic opposite who has the courage to rise and say that the constant collection of rentals by private landlords has been detrimental to the trade of this country. What is it that we are proposing here? All that we are proposing is that when the landlord collects his rent we should collect a little from Mm on the road home. All this blether about the depression of agriculture and the small shopkeeper, that a tax upon land value will break down securities and shake confidence in the State is so much arrant nonsense. All that we are proposing to do is to take a little from the landowners of what they have been taking in the form of rental for years. We are told that we should not put a 1d. tax upon the small shopkeeper. We are to send a valuer down to see how he is geting on. If he is selling plenty of ham, eggs, and greens, he will pay the tax; but if he is not, then he will not pay the tax. [An HON. MEMBER: "He does not pay the tax!"] That is what I am coming to. I wish my brilliant colleagues would not anticipate me.
    They are asking us by these pious, mealy-mouthed shibboleths to abrogate our right as a taxing power in this country to refrain from taxing where there is duress upon the little man in the little shop. But the landowners have never done that. The private landowner collects the rent whether you are doing good business or bad business. If you cannot pay, he does not very much mind how you are getting on with your accounts or how trade is going; he simply distrains upon you and chucks you out. That is why, in the country of my forefathers, they shot more landowners than in any other country on God's earth, because you in England in that case put them into castles and called them gentlemen. Now you put them into the House of Lords. My grandfather who was my first schoolmaster used to say to me that the priest in the church told him that God had made the land for the people, but he noticed that it was not God who called for the rent. It is
    920
    because we are determined to stop this constant hemorrhage called rental that we are attempting to-night, for the first time, through this Finance Bill to take taxation off industry and put it on ground values.
    I have listened to the speeches made this afternoon and I say now what I have said before, that I cannot understand why Members opposite never correlate their ideas. They never correlate one Debate with another. What is the historic fact? This Committee to-night is under the shadow of the report of the Commission which has inquired into unemployment benefit. I think that all of us, both those who are against the Government and those who are for it, are apprehensive as to what ought to be done in regard to that matter. Here we have this army of unemployed and we know that unless they had been getting food and shelter, there would have been danger to the realm before now. Yet we are coming to the point of asking ourselves—are we going to economise financially and perhaps threaten an outbreak in the country? What is the relation of that subject to the question which we are discussing to-night? It is an undeniable fact that it was the rapacity of men in the past in enclosing the common land of England and making it private property which began our unemployment problem. If you will not feed the poor, if you will not give "doles" to the poor, if you will not give them and their dependants 30s. a week, if you will not maintain them out of State funds, then the challenge will come home to you, as sure as you are here tonight. If you will not feed them with State grants, then you must open the land of England to them and allow them to feed themselves. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh. How they can laugh on this subject, I do not know, but I repeat that either you have to open the land of England to the use of the unemployed of England, or go on with the land closed, and in the grip of a monopoly, and open wide the Employment Exchanges to drain the taxpayers' pockets.
    I support this proposal because I believe that it is the beginning of the opening of the land of England by making the private ownership of land and the withholding of land from use a bad paying proposition to the landowner. I

    921
    support it because I believe that if we continue to tax industry much more than we are doing, there will be serious results to social relations in this country. In the past, the most potent force in bringing about bloody revolutions has been the vicious mishandling of taxation. Bad taxation brought about the French Revolution. It was resentment at taxation imposed by this country which caused the United States to break away from us. It was the mishandling of taxation which caused the Bolsheviks to became supreme in Petrograd; and I support this Measure to-night because I fear the results of this constant heavy pressure on the industry of this country with the opposite threatening power of unemployment in this country. Having regard to the circumstances which I find around me, I am proud to be in this Committee to-night to defend, if indeed defence be necessary, the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    This Bill is not the Bill that I would have introduced if I had had the power. It exempts agricultural laud, a thing which I should not have done. Probably it will give certain exemptions to charity, and here let me say a word in passing to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley. He seems to think that because a thing is called a charitable institution, it should not be subject to taxation. Would to God that men would see that much that passes for charity in our time is nothing but the make-shift casualty ward rendered necessary by a vicious and unjust economic system. How often do we see the person who in order to gain a little public applause will give five guineas or 10 guineas to the local hospital and will vote Tory and work like the devil night, noon and morning in the interests of reaction? Such people will never use their brains to seek to remove the causes which necessitate such institutions. These institutions having been foisted upon us, we are told that we must exempt them from the operation of the ordinary taxation of this country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also said that universities were likely to be subject to the tax. I assure him that in certain respects that will not be so. He went into what I considered to be an extremity in illustration which was not warranted from a man like himself, when he said
    922
    that a Yankee could come to Christ Church College and build his house in the quadrangle.
    Sir WALTER GREAVES - LORD: Really, the hon. Member must know that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was this—that notwithstanding the fact that this country would never stand a Yankee building his house in the quadrangle of the college, these taxes were to be paid as though the quadrangle were put up for auction among American millionaires.
    Mr. MacLAREN: Having heard that interjection, I ask the Committee what is the difference between it and what I said——[HON. MEMBERS: "All the difference!"] No, the picture which the right hon. and learned Gentleman wished to convey to our minds was that of a vulgar Yankee villa in the middle of Christ Church quadrangle and whether the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) is right or I am right as to the actual words, that was the illustration given. The colleges of Oxford were originally established and land was granted to them in order that they might educate the poor. To a large extent they have become the perquisites of the rich. I am not going into that question now, but if there are colleges and charitable institutions drawing rent from land in this country, I would have had no compunction in making them subject to the tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, no doubt will have to make many exemptions. The Bill, as I say, is not the Bill that I would have introduced. It has exemptions to which I would not, in other circumstances assent, but I have to recognise how few men you can carry with you in a full measure of justice, and also the power of vested interests both behind and in front. Every Member of this Committee has had his postbag overladen with every kind of appeal for exemption from this taxation. The moment you threaten to tax land values, there is an avalanche of applications for exemption, but the landowners could go on imposing their tax with never a word about it.
    I know that I have not brought hon. Members opposite any nearer to us on this question to-night, but I hope I have done one thing. I hope I have made it clear and inevitable that the tax on the

    923
    value of land, even if it be only a penny in the £, should be on the capital value. Why should it be regarded as a discovery which has only recently been made? Of course, no man in his senses has proposed anything else. The Lloyd George Budget of 1909–10 was a tax on the capital value. I have yet to learn that the landowner will part with his land on the annual value; he always sells it on capital value, and what is wrong with the State calling for a tax on the capital value? I have made it clear that we are determined that this is but the beginning, in spite of the exemptions, in spite of the handicap at the start, in spite of the long time for the valuation and the circumstances that may arise. Who knows how easily the public will be gulled by The Parliamentary quacks——[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I know what that cheer means, but God forbid that I should ever be called a politician; I have always been a single-taxer. Politicians may get on the public platform and talk of the hungry world and of the virtues of Protection, and we may go out of office.
    As a testimony to the power of land values taxation, and also as a warranty of the fact that many hon. Gentlemen opposite know more about it than they would seem to have us believe, immediately they get into power they will rend the valuation to pieces, because they do not wish the Domesday Book to be revised and the common people of England and (Scotland to know the value of the great heritage which, by the will of God, should have been their common right. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home), who has a nasty habit of coming into the House to make a speech and then running away in case you answer it, that (Scotland is going to be maltreated. He pointed out that the feu was to be subject to tax and that the superior landlord in Scotland would be called upon to pay a contribution to the tax. Certainly, why not? The feu is a tribute payable by the land user to the superior landlord, who, in order to realise the feu, can enter upon the land. It is a first charge on the land. More than that, when the superior enters in to secure the feu, he can claim the feu immediately afterwards. I was surprised that the right hon. and learned
    924
    Member for Spen Valley tried to suggest that the superior in Scotland was getting nothing more than deferred interest on money invested.
    I will not quote the late Lord Strathclyde, but I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to compel the superior in Scotland to pay one-twelfth part of his tribute back to the State in the form of taxation. I have spoken longer than I intended, but I wish to make it plain that this is definitely a challenge to those who claim that private property in land is either just or can be established on the grounds of equity. We challenge the right of any man to take advantage of the progress of society by becoming wealthy, and we are determined, as far as lies in our power, to remove taxation from the necessaries of the people and remove the rates that fall upon the houses of the people, and to call upon the natural foundation of tribute for a penny on the land which was created by the people. That land being a communal creation, ought in justice to be appropriated by the people, and although this tax is but a penny, I hope it will be, to use the words of the late Lord Rosebery when he was speaking on the Land Valuation Bill in the House of Lords in 1909, like a dumdum bullet which, once it gets in, will spread.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I am sure the Committee listened, with enthusiasm in some passages, and with sympathy in others, to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren). At any rate, we all know that he is sincere, and it is, or should be, extremely interesting to deal with a sincere person, because you know you are not dealing with a sham and are not wasting your time. The arguments of the hon. Gentleman remind me of a strange religious sect, which still survives. They believe that the earth is flat, and they have a hymn, "God in Heaven made it ever flat," which was immortalised by Mr. Rudyard Kipling in one of his short stories. There is another religious sect which believes that the saviours of the world were two obscure Cromwellian soldiers of 1650. One cannot mock at religions, even religions like that, and one should never mock at a religious service, even though it be a long one, nor can one mock at the hon. Gentleman, but we would

    925
    hardly think that we were discussing practical affairs when we listen to such a speech as his. He is informed by such tremendous learning, that his speech was like a river in spate.
    We prefer his enthusiasm, however, to the enthusiasm of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he has not always been such an enthusiast for these taxes as he is at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman is not present to-night, and he was not present the last time that I spoke on this subject—[HON. MEMBERS: "Send for him!"] By a strange coincidence, he was not present on either occasion. He made a speech in 1910 in which he said that it was quite useless to indulge in taxation of this kind, and that the only solution was nationalisation. The State, he said, must then resume ownership, and you will have settled for all time the question of future increment, for it will accrue to the community, not 20 per cent. of it, but 100 per cent. of it. That was the sincere expression of his view then, and what we ask is, whether that is still his opinion? Is the purpose of his taxation to bring about nationalisation, or is it a sincere attempt by scientific taxation to raise revenue? We have never been informed by him which is his view. Again, in 1913, on an Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who proposed that certain poorer classes should be exempt from the tax, he said:
    "What we are going to say now is that it is not wrong for a man to steal from the community provided his income is not more than£3 a week, but the moment he gets beyond that point he is a thief. What is the moral of all this? That the Chancellor of the Exchequer has found his land taxation proposals to be an utter failure and the machinery set up impracticable."
    That is what the right hon. Gentleman said in 1913. Has he sincerely changed his view since then? That is what we really want to know on this side of the Committee. We want to know whether he believes in land taxation as the hon. Member for Burslem does, or only as a means to the end of nationalisation of land and of all other property. That is what we want to hear him say, and what the country wants to know. The hon. Member for Burslem and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are poles apart in this matter. I understand that the
    926
    only statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer has ever been known to withdraw was the statement he made that the tax on land values was a farce. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Burslem made him withdraw that statement at a large public meeting not, after all, so very long ago in the history of the movement. The hon. Member thinks there is something peculiar in the nature of land which makes possession of it a crime. I suggest that, in all his sincere public utterances before he came into office, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has tried to show that all kinds of property are wrong.
    That is the difference between the hon. Member for Burslem, who is an individualist, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is a Socialist. Here we have a Socialist using the old fallacy of a Land Tax in order to bring about the revolution in property which he has always advocated. That is what we really believe is behind the alliance between the hon. Member for Burslem and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member, and to some extent the Financial Secretary, have reiterated this old idea that there is something peculiar in the possession of land. My right hon. Friend the late Postmaster-General said in his very powerful speech at the beginning of these Debates, that property in land, once acquired, is like all other property, and a man who invests in it is no more deserving of attack than a man who invests in industry, foreign exchanges and so on. That is the correct view as long as you believe in private property at all. The hon. Member for Burslem says that there should be some sort of moral selection which would place investment in land absolutely beyond the pale. That is to deny the reality of the present situation of society and not to acknowledge the fact that all over England there are friendly societies, educational institutions, yes, and trades unions with poor people as well as rich people, who have been advised to invest in land, and who would lose their all if there were such a tax on land.
    The hon. Member for Burslem and, in a feeble way, the Financial Secretary, regard that as the merest nonsense, and seem prepared to let the friendly societies, and even the trade unions, go, and that all those misguided people such as the universities and all other

    927
    individuals who have invested in land should lose their property rather than that those hon. Gentlemen should forego one jot or tittle of their sacred principle. We know that this is now become a matter of religion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer came down here and made a speech to that effect; he did not come to argue, but came with his tomahawk and his scalping knife, and in full warpaint, in order to renew pre-War class politics. It is the old tribal warfare over again. Many hon. Members on this side thought it was a shabby thing to bring into the question the Deity and the dukes almost in the same sentence in order to prove a theory which he had disbelieved so profoundly only a short time before.
    The Chancellor came down and made two very curious statements. He said the land was given by God to the people, and a few sentences afterwards he said we should
    "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's."
    That seemed to me a most flagrant non sequitur, and it was entirely unnecessary to introduce religion or even logic into his fantastic proposals. He would have been more reverent and would have done far better to have fallen back on economics, even on the crazy economics of Henry George. Anybody who has been a Member of the House who reads that speech of the Chancellor in a few years time will be thoroughly ashamed at the way in which this revolution, for revolution it is, in taxation has been initiated. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the dukes, but did not say that the dukes were the one class of people whom perhaps he was not going to attack. Par worse than the dukes are the speculators in land, and those he will not even touch. They have got away with their profits, and he is not going to attack them in any way.
    Arguments Have been brought forward to-day, as before, about America, Canada and the Dominions, which had tried this extraordinary method of taxation. Anyone who inquires into the history of land taxation in the North-Western Provinces of Canada will find a long and gloomy history. There are everywhere tremendous arrears of taxation which were bigger than the annual revenue. The result of land taxation, especially
    928
    in America, has meant, in the case of the suburban owner, the confiscation of property because he cannot pay the taxes which have been assessed by the State, and to the city owner of property it has meant such a degree of development that the population have not enjoyed the ordinary amenities of life. How in the centre of a city can a man afford to put up gardens or even lavatory accommodation for his tenants? So high is the value of land in the centre of a great city that these great apartment houses, the enemy of the real home, are built simply because of this misbegotten land tax.
    I do not know whether hon. Members have really thought out the problem from the point of view of the working classes themselves. Suppose a munificent landlord sets up in a city dwelling houses for the working classes, built and maintained at scarcely any profit at all. Is he to be haunted by the Land Tax? I know of instances near this House where there are big buildings for the working classes with low and scarcely economic rents. Suppose the property were heavily assessed for land taxation according to the present plan. Such places would be far too valuable properties to harbour the working classes, and they would have to be inhabited by more wealthy people. That is the result of land taxation for the working classes. There is another thing which has been shown clearly by the American experience in this matter. It has not been in the slightest degree difficult for the landlord to pass the tax on to the tenants, and the people who ultimately pay the tax are the unfortunate wage-earners of the country, and not the landlords. It hon. Members wish to close their eyes to the experience of other countries, they are entitled to do so, but I suggest that, having regard to the fact that hon. Members opposite claim to represent the working classes, they should consider the repercussion of this tax on the working classes in other lands, and the experience gained from other countries.
    At this point I fear I shall rival the hon. Member for Burslem, because there are so many objections which could be raised to this tax, and so bad is the history of it where it has been tried, that it is difficult to make an end of an argument. But it is perfectly safe to say that such taxes are incredibly expensive to

    929
    levy, and the valuation once made is not valid, because the system of land valuation is like the valuation of any other security. How could you accept the value of securities in 1929 as the static valuation for five years? It would be a bold, bare, unjust thing; for, in the same way, the character and value of the land changes almost as quickly as that of securities. Therefore, to attempt to value land on any permanent basis for five years is like a dog who tries to catch its own tail. There are two purposes of taxation. One is to raise revenue, and the other is to fulfil some social object. There are many injustices which might be adjusted between the landlord and tenant, but not one injustice in which the working classes are really interested is touched by this Land Tax proposal.
    A third objection is that these taxes can only work if they are flagrantly unjust; if they are applied by rule-of-thumb, they can work, but not otherwise. Once we begin to allow exemptions and exceptions the taxes will fail to work; they will be unproductive, as they have been unproductive before. It is no excuse, on the other hand to refuse exemptions, simply because they would make the tax unworkable. No taxation should be allowed if it is unjust. One of the main principles of taxation is that it should be always in the main, just. There is another characteristic of these taxes to which hon. Members have not perhaps paid much attention. They will have a disastrous effect upon the national finances. Every year already enormous sums are raised by Income Tax, Schedule A, in land taxes, based upon the annual value. If this heavy additional taxation is put on land the only result will be that the value of land must depreciate, and the revenue will suffer enormously as the result of the depreciated value of land and the Income Tax assessments based upon it. It is, perhaps, an appropriate thing that at this time we should seek economic salvation in American economics. American influence has not been such a healthy influence upon the life of this country. It has invaded our beautiful language, it has corrupted our music, it has scarred our great capital city with its hideous architecture, and now it is not really inappropriate that we should go back for our economic salvation to an American economist who was profoundly ignorant
    930
    of the history of his own times and whose philosophy is wholly inapplicable to our own.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I agree with a great deal of the stirring and apt eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks), and I intervene for a few moments only in order to continue the examination of where we stand in regard to these proposals, so far as we know them. I say "so far as we know them," because it is a somewhat remarkable thing that during the discussion to-day no one has yet made reference to the fact that there appears on the Order Paper, in the name of distinguished members of the Liberal party, an Amendment to Clause 20 which, if carried, would have the effect of completely recasting this tax and converting it into something quite different. I cannot comment upon the existence of the Guillotine, but I am entitled to point out that it is one of the inconveniences of the Guillotine that Clauses 19 and 20 are brigaded together. Clause 19 is the exemptions Clause, on which there are already many pages of Amendments, and on which we are told there are to be more pages, and it is manifest that in the ordinary course of things we shall never reach the discussion of Clause 20 on the Committee stage. None the less, I hope that at some stage or another a way will be found by which the Liberal party will be enabled to bring to debate, and I hope to a decision, the Amendment which appears in their name. Frankly, I think the Government ought to tell us now, to save time on the discussion of these proposals, what their attitude is going to be towards that Liberal Amendment. What is the good of our spending 10 days in laboriously discussing a series of proposals as we find them in the Bill if all the time the Government have made up their mind that they are going radically to alter and modify those proposals?
    The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) will agree with me that the acceptance of any such Amendment would completely transmogrify the whole position. Why should we go on rolling this stone up the hill all these days if when we get it to the top the Government tell us that it is not the stone which they want? Another remarkable thing which has struck me during this Debate has

    931
    been the comparative emptiness of the Liberal benches, and the fact that, apart from the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), we have not been favoured with the opinion of any Member of the Liberal party. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has given a reply to the speeches delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain), the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for, Spen Valley, and the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) and though I do not want to say anything disrespectful of the hon. Gentleman I think the Committee will agree with me that, on the whole, the reply was rather inadequate. What the hon. Gentleman said in substance was that he could not say what the coat or the yield was going to be, but he could say to the taxpayers that it was quite possible that two years hence they might get off something else in the way of taxation. It was left to the hon. Member for Burslem to come to the defence, and, as one would expect, he did not shrink from the task. He explained, amid the cheers of hon. Members opposite, that the only justification for this tax was the existence of the modern principle which denies the right of property in land. He said they had no dubiety about it. They proposed the tax because they believed rent was a crime, and this was the beginning of a system to destroy it.
    Mr. MacLAREN: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent me. All I said was that the private appropriation of rent was wrong.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I will put it that way, because I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Member. It that be so, I have two questions to put to the Liberal party. The first is, "Do you believe that private property in land ought to be abolished? The Socialist party have no doubt about what the answer is. They say "Yes, private property in land ought to be abolished." But what is the answer of the Liberal party? The second question is, "Is this proposal being introduced and supported because it is the beginning of the process of getting rid of private property in land?" The answer of the hon. Mem-
    932
    ber for Burslem is "Yes, that is why we are introducing it." He says it is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised years ago to introduce. This is the first step in getting rid of private property in land. Do the Liberal party realise where they are going? What have they got to say about that?
    HON. MEMBERS: Ah!
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: The hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) has already told you.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I was not addressing my argument to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but rather to those sheep which are of the other fold in the Liberal party. I have read a good deal of the discussion of this subject in the country by hon. Members opposite—I take pains to inform myself of their speeches there, because there is not much discussion by them in the House—and I find that a great deal of it is wholly irrelevant to the proposals in these Clauses. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to do as the hon. Member for Burslem did. If I may use a useful parallel, I ask them to strip the proposals of all the edifices which their imagination has erected on them and get down to the bare site value of the Bill. In other words, they ought not to comment upon what they were told was going to be in the Bill, or what they hoped would be in the Bill, or believe is in the Bill, but discuss the Bill on the basis of what the all-wise Providence which resides on the Treasury Bench has put in it, that and no more. If they do that, they will find that, although a great many hon. Gentlemen are still talking about the general valuation and the advantages of the general valuation—even the hon. Member for Burslem was talking a moment ago about the new Domesday Book—it is not in the Bill. The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said it ought to be in the Bill, but I do not think there is a good deal to be said for it. It is not in the Bill at present, and that is what we are concerned with at the present moment.
    A great many hon. Members opposite talk about appropriating the income created by public expenditure, but that is not in the Bill. If the Government

    933
    will take away this changling which they are nursing and drown it, and produce a proposal that will define the values produced by public expenditure, and seek for some future contribution from it, that is quite a different matter which I shall be ready to support. I say for the future because that is not what this proposal will do. It is not the man who has made the profit whom you propose to tax. That man has cashed in and gone away with it. You are proposing to tax the man who has paid the full price, who has paid Schedule A Income Tax and rates on the full value, who pays the Income Tax and who when he dies will pay the Death Duties. He is the man whom you are now proposing to tax. The Government call themselves single taxers, but they are double taxers.
    We have been told that this tax is built on the experience of other countries. We have been told that the taxation of land values in other countries is just the same as this. I would like to ask what other countries have proposed taxation upon an obsolescent valuation. What other countries have proposed to place a tax upon owners' improvements? Show me any country which has levied a tax on that basis. There is not one, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to know it. A great many hon. Members still talk as if the basis of the tax was its stripped value, but that is not in the Bill. The injustice is clearly seen in the case of reclaimed land. We have been told that nobody ever made the land, but in the case of reclaimed land although Providence made it it was placed at the bottom of the sea. What you are now proposing to do is to take the man who, by his own efforts made the water recede and the dry land appear, and who reclaimed that land from the bottom of the sea, and tax that man upon the fruits of his industry. That seems to me to be an injustice.
    I do not want to anticipate the discussion on Clause 8, but I would like to point out to the Committee the absurd nature of the imaginative processes which you are providing for the valuers who will have to perform the miracle of valuing the land in 16 months. I have tried to discover what these valuers will have to do in the case of an ordinary farm. The valuer will have to make these assumptions. He will have to assume that certain things do not exist at all and that certain other things continue to exist.
    934
    He will have to assume that the drainage of the house and steading is nonexistent and that the drainage of the land is existent; that the water supply to the house and steading is non-existent and the water supply to the land is existent; that the gates of the farmyard are nonexistent and the gates in the field are existent. He will have to assume that the walls of the steading are non-existent and the walls in the fields are existent. He will have to assume that the highroad has no existence, and that all the farm roads exist just as they are. He will have to assume that the land supplying water to the house is non-existent and that the water supplies to the fields continue to exist. I could multiply those instances, but I think I have given enough to show the imaginative absurdities that have been created in the minds of the unlucky valuer who has to perform this valuation.
    Take the case of a town house. The site has to be valued without the building. There are thousands of cases where the value of the site when cleared is more than the existing value with the house upon it, but it would cost more to pull down the house than the difference between the two values. There are scores of cases like that, and they were discovered by thousands in 1910. You instruct your valuers to tax the value of the site just as if the house had been pulled down. Would any man out of Bedlam dream of doing that? One word more about the application of the tax. I do not want to anticipate Clause 19, but I hope that when we get to that Clause the Government will explain why Clause V is not to operate in the case of institutions for the blind but is to operate in the case of institutions for the deaf and dumb. I want to know why it is not to operate in the case of the aged but is to operate in the case of institutions for infants; why it is to operate in the case of those who are crippled in body but not in mind. Those are a few of the problems which will confront us when we reach that Clause.
    I conclude by saying that we are opposing this Clause, not because we desire to support dukes or landlords, but because at this moment it imposes a fresh tax upon a large number of people in this country. It imposes a fresh tax upon industry and upon a great deal of agricultural land. It is quite a mistake to think that agricultural land is going to

    935
    be exempted. Much agricultural land, land belonging to wholesale and retail tradesmen and private citizens, and land belonging to educational and religious bodies and land belonging to bodies concerned with the saving of the people will be taxed.
    I should just like to give one or two figures to show the sort of extent to which these bodies are interested in land. I have taken out the figures relating to the insurance companies under the Act of 1909 and the last return is for the year 1930. The insurance companies taken as a whole, according to this return, hold land, house property, and ground rent to the extent of £59,248,910 and their mortgages amount to £151,000,000. As a matter of fact the figures for the Prudential Company appeared in the Press this morning. The Prudential hold mortgages for £11,286,691, and lands £12,993,585. The Commercial Union, £4,942,000 mortgages, £3,261,000 land. The Eagle Star, £4,624,000 mortgages, £1,316,000 land. The Norwich Union, £10,242,000 mortgages, £1,944,000 land. Building societies, not by any means composed mainly of dukes, 1,026 societies, hold mortgages of the value of £268,141,456. Industrial and provident societies hold land and buildings of the value of £38,809,786. Land and housing societies hold land and buildings of the value of £10,923,510, and mortgages £3,611,639. From all these people the Government are demanding already, at this moment, the confiscation of a portion, ultimately one-twelfth in some cases, of their investments. The president of the Hearts of Oak writes to the Press this morning that the effect of the Government proposals has been an immediate depreciation in their investments of £100,000 and a drop in income of between £5,000 and £6,000. They own over £2,000,000 in ground rents.
    When hon. Members opposite put forward this proposal it is idle for them to suggest that only the dukes and the rich will be hit. They will find out within a very short space of time how completely wrong they are; they will discover that these proposals, which were conceived as a manoeuvre and are being carried out in injustice, will recoil upon their own heads. We on this side contest them, and will contest them to the end, because we believe that where a tax has to be de-
    936
    fended, as this tax is defended, by the only relevant argument which was ever made for it—that it is no use trying to alter it because this is the only way in which it can be done—it is the equivalent of saying that the only way in which you can carry through the tax is by perpetrating injustice, and that being so we say as strenously as we can that it would be better by far not to have the tax at all.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. O. LEWIS: One disadvantage the Committee is under is the fact that we have several Ministers in charge of the same Bill, with the result that it is very difficult for the Opposition to know what is the true purpose of the Government with regard to this particular legislation. For example the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when his attention was called to the great cost of valuation as opposed to the small probable yield of the tax, led us to undesrstand that he regarded the yield of the tax as of secondary importance, because in his view the really important matter was the valuation. Earlier this afternoon the Solicitor-General told us with the utmost confidence that in his view the tax was the primary object and the valuation only ancillary to it. I do not know whether the President of the Board of Trade proposes to speak later, but if so perhaps he will kindly tell us which of these two entirely contrary views he supports. Obviously there is a great difference between the two. If the main objective is the revenue of the tax, surely the answer is that the cost of collection is so great in comparison with the yield that the tax is not worth making. If, on the other hand, the valuation is the all-important matter, perhaps the President of the Board of Trade can tell us why the Government did not follow out their original intention and proceed at their leisure with a Valuation Bill instead of tacking this Clause on to the Finance Bill.
    I think that at least one thing has emerged from our discussion to-day, and that is that there are two fundamental objections to the proposals for the taxation of land contained in the Bill. The first is that the proposal is in effect a tax upon capital, which it is intended to devote to the purposes of current expenditure. It is to that essential quality that is really due the greater variety of

    937
    exemptions which hon. Members in all quarters of the House are seeking by Amendment to make in the Bill. It is the essential unsoundness of the original proposition that enables Members of all shades of opinion to make out such very convincing cases for so many quite different exemptions. The other thing which stands out in objection to the proposal is that its effect will be directly contrary to that which is at the back of pretty well every town-planning scheme. The effect of this tax upon development must be to make it, not easier, but more difficult to retain open spaces around and among buildings.
    I thought the full pitch of absurdity was reached at Question Time to-day when the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in answer to a question which I put, that even if a piece of land was restricted in perpetuity against buildings, if it was in private hands it would be subject to the tax. I hope that when the Question comes to be put the Committee will refuse to allow this Clause, which has been fairly described as the operative Clause of the Bill, to remain part of the Bill, and so destroy the Bill. I may say without offence that the most eloquent speeches we have heard from hon. Members opposite in support of these proposals have been the speeches in support of something which is not in the Bill at all. We have had the spectacle of hon. Members speaking with obvious conviction in favour of one set of proposals as a justification for voting in favour of something entirely different.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The right hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) threw out an invitation to any Liberal to express his opinion on this Bill, and although I realise that what I am going to say may do me harm in my own party, I cannot be honest with myself without saying that I have followed the course of this discussion with very grave misgivings. I am one of those who had accepted without examining very closely the general principle of the taxation of land values. It was a sort of bottle on which one was brought up, and it is only in very recent months that I have taken the trouble to examine, not only the principles, but the application of those principles; and although I still remain a Liberal, I should like to say that, speaking as a Liberal candidate, I should
    938
    find myself quite unable to justify the application of these principles under modern conditions.
    I can well understand that in an un-built-up country, in a new country like Australia, where you are anxious to embark on an intensive course of development, a tax on site values would promote that end. That has been the effect in Sydney and, I believe, in every other town there where it has been tried, but when you are applying this principle to an absolutely built-up area, totally different considerations come in. I had not prepared my speech until the right hon. Gentleman spoke, but I should like to imagine myself as addressing an audience in my constituency. [An HON. MEMBER: "Of Tories?"] No, I think most of my audiences are made up of working men, working in factories, but a good number of them, let us say, are Free Church Ministers. [Interruption.]
    Let me try to argue on one or two possible questions that might be addressed to me by my constituents, and let me take the case, first, of the Bishop of Norwich, or of any Free Church ministers who might happen to be in the audience. I do not know what argument I could apply to them. Many of these churches and chapels stand on very valuable sites. Many of them are very heavily mortgaged already and are struggling along, especially the Free Churches, under a system of voluntary collections which is both the weakness and the strength of the Free Churches. But I cannot think of any argument that I could adduce to convince the owner of a valuable site in Norwich, working as he does for religious purposes only, that some extra burden should be imposed upon him.
    Dr. MORGAN: Read Clause 19 (1, e).
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The next interrupter, we will say, is a member of the firm of Boulton and Paul, whose works spread over a very considerable number of acres. They have been struggling along making losses, like many other big contractors and heavy industries, and owing to the nature of their work, the burden on them would be very considerable indeed. Yet they are large employers of labour in Norwich. Then there are Colman's, the mustard people, employing a very large number of workpeople and spread over a very large

    939
    acreage. I cannot for the life of me think what argument I could use for citizens like those, who have contributed to such a large amount of employment in Norwich, to convince them that at this time, when reduction of taxation is necessary, that upon them, because they hold a large acreage, this new burden should fall.
    There is another firm that I am thinking of, that has recently bought some large premises from a person who has gone bankrupt. They have paid, to my knowledge, a very considerable price for these premises, and I cannot think of any argument that will satisfy my conscience unless I can say, "He that hath been exploited shall be exploited still." There is no argument that I can adduce that will satisfy a man who has paid far too high a capital charge already. Then there is another man, who, to my knowledge, has done much for housing. He has bought land, he has put some of his capital into roads, and he has spent probably something like £20,000 or £30,000 in opening up housing estates. To my knowledge, not one penny of the capital value of that land has been contributed by the community, but every penny has been contributed by himself from his own savings. The man is a good citizen, but as far as I can see, he is to be penalised for his own beneficent activity in providing houses in the city of Norwich, and I cannot for the life of me think of an argument to convince him that this scheme is just.
    I pass by the question of shopkeepers, and one always hopes that the bulk of the shopkeepers are one's supporters. Certainly they carry on a very valuable work, but I cannot think of an argument to convince them or the purchasers of their commodities that this is going to promote the general exchange and sale of commodities in Norwich. The fact is that for the moment, apart from the general principle of trying to get some part of the value of land back for the State, I cannot think of an argument which I can use on a platform in favour of this tax. That being so, as a back bench Liberal, I should feel a humbug unless I got up in this House and said what I have just said. We are all in this House trying to do something, and that is to get the increment value, and adopting a method which has no relation whatsoever to that object, and I cannot sit
    940
    still and not explain that, very reluctantly, in spite of the record of my party on this question, I shall have to support the Amendment.
    May I say, in conclusion, that I have just thought of an argument, and that argument is this, that I can see some point in a local authority being given the means for an additional revenue and for extending its resources. Therefore, I can see that the value of this scheme may lie along the line of rating, not as an additional burden, but in substitution for the present system of rating; and in so far as an extra burden of rating is imposed on the site value, to a corresponding extent should the present rating be reduced. I can see the value of that, and as the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) still leaves that principle in the Bill, because it puts a small nominal tax on the site value to keep the Bill a Finance Bill and thus free from being thrown out by the House of Lords, and still enables a valuation to take place which at the same time may be used by the local authorities for rating, to that extent there is one argument that I can find in favour of the Bill, and for that very reason I shall support the Amendment.
    Mr. BARR: I should like to make a brief reply to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. He took up, in the first place, the case of the Churches, and particularly the Free Churches. If there is one argument that has been used on the Opposition benches, it is that the result of this proposal will be to depreciate the value of land; that is one of their main objection; What do the Churches more need than cheap sites for the building of their churches? [Interruption.] The hon. Member's second argument was in regard to a firm, and, there again, is it not the case that when a business is looking out for a new place in which to start it looks for cheap land? Therefore, the firm itself is going to be benefited. The hon. Member told us that he could, make no reply to his constituents who would have to pay this tax. I will give him a reply. When I was out in Sydney, I found that, because they had this system of taxation fend rating, there was not a single other rate charged in the whole city of Sydney. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are broke!"] I do not rely on Sydney alone; it applies

    941
    all over the world where this tax is in force, and, therefore, I think that that is an effective reply to those who have doubts on the matter.
    The hon. Member also referred to shops. I could take him to a site in the city of Glasgow, at the corner of Union Street and Argyle Street, where the corporation paid £25,000 for a little strip of land. They paid, for those few yards of land, at the rate of £1,300,000 per acre. They bought it from Boots, the Cash Chemists, and, if Boots charge as much for their medicines as they do for their land, it will be well if the people can keep in good health as long as possible. Why were they able to charge that price? Not because of anything that they had done, but because of what the community and the city of Glasgow had done with their enterprises; and in taking that we are only taking for the community the wealth that the community of Glasgow itself has created. [Interruption.] To bring in a system that will cheapen the sites of shops and warehouses in the city of Glasgow, as this will undoubtedly do, will bring life from death for the city of Glasgow.
    Reference has been made to building societies who complain that they are to be losers. It may be that certain societies or individuals will lose in the interval, but what can be better for the building of houses in and around our cities than the cheapening of land, the bringing to an end of the holding up of land, the spreading out of our cities, and the cheapening of the sites of our cottages?
    Mr. J. JONES: There seems to be an impression among hon. Members opposite that they have a special right to prolong the meetings of the House when it suits their convenience, and to prorogue—that is a very good word—when it suits their situation. To-night we are discussing the question of the taxation of land values held by the people who never made them—the descendants of the people who stole them. In 400 years of Parliamentary history, the lineal ancestors of hon. Members opposite passed 400 Commons Enclosure Acts, taking from the people of the country their rights in the soil. Now they have the contemptible impudence to say we dare not put a penny in the £ on the capital value of the land that has been stolen from the people. There
    942
    is only one time when the workers have any rights in the land, and that is when there is a war on. We do not ask for the land for the people straight off the reel. We are only asking for it by instalments. It was hon. Members opposite, some of whom are now yawning on the Front Bench, who first taught me that the land belongs to the people. Shakespeare—not the hon. Member for Norwich, but the poet—said that the land belonged to the people. He says in "The Merchant of Venice,"
    "You take my life, when you do take the means whereby I live."
    Without it we cannot live, but we can die with it. I am buying it now at 6d. a week to make sure of my grave. About 50 per cent. of the population own two-thirds of the soil of Great Britain. The rest of us own nothing. On the road we are tramps; off the road we are trespassers. I am speaking for my own constituency now. I came to live in the East End of London 32 years ago. Down in the dock district we could buy land then for £40 an acre. It was only marsh land. In recent years we have tried to make improvements. There is a great scheme for a new dock road, and for the land we have to pay £600 an acre. There is a big difference in 32 years between £40 and £600 an acre. It is the local people who have to find it. The people who are taking that money from us do not pay a single penny piece in rates. They do not live in the area. They are absentee landlords. I find my old friends of the Liberal party—[An HON. MEMBER: "'Old' is good."] Yes, my old friends, but I like my newer friends best. I find my old friends are turning me down and saying that we are going to bring in the hospitals and the trade unions. You can have all the land our union possesses. To introduce the friendly societies and all other societies is all eye-wash; it is "all my eye and Betty Martin." You do not mean it. You are really standing out on behalf of Lord Tom Noddy and Sir Ben Noakes from Wigan. How long have hon. and right hon. Members opposite defended the interests of the trade unions? How long have they stood by friendly societies except when they thought they could use them for political purposes? They will be having the widows and orphans coming along from Trafalgar Square and

    943
    Hyde Park to protest against the taxation of 1d. in the £ upon land which they have not got, except in flowerpots.
    I laugh at the arguments put forward by men who call themselves responsible politicians, and who, with their chests spread out like pouter pigeons, go to their constituencies. They talk of the necessity of economy with efficiency and the necessity of reorganising our industries. Here we have a chance of finding a bit of money in the place where it is to be found. You have been trying to rob the unemployed poor; we are going to rob the unemployed rich. You would be willing to pay 1s. in the £ if we let you off the rest. [An HON. MEMBER: "Take the lot!"] Yes, I want the lot for the lot. Who are the lot? The men you call upon to dress in khaki in war-time and to fight your battles in peace-time, and to stand up against their own party and class. After all, you have done very well and you have done us very well. Why cannot you take your gruel like honest men? Be satisfied for the present that the right to value the land is a beginning, with the immediate possibility of 1d. in the £ on capital values. I am sure that that will not hurt you. You cough that up any night in the West End of London or down in the dining room here. But it is not that which troubles you. What troubles you is that we may find out how we, the people, have been robbed. You did not put the Thames in London, did you? Along the banks of this mighty river have grown up huge industries. Who made them? Not the people who bought the land and claim the right to own them, but the great mass of the people. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have!"] I have done my bit, and, as far as you are concerned, you have done nothing and done it very well. You claim the right to monopolise great national resources, the gift of God to man. You claim the right to monopolise it, and when we dare to ask you to pay some tribute to the community, you say that it is spoliation and
    expropriation. I hope the Labour Government will take their courage in both hands. [HON. MEMBEBS: "Dutch courage!"] We leave the Dutch courage to you. You brought the Prince of Orange over here to help you. All that we ask you to do is to take your gruel, and to realise that the land belongs to the people. That is only a small instalment, and the time will come when the people of this country will assert their right to the soil. Then, hon. Members opposite will have to start to work for their living.
    Sir CHARLES OMAN: I should like to say a few words about the extraordinary statement that God gave the land to the people. God, I suppose, gave the land to the original inhabitants of Britain, the Neolithic people. The ancient Britons came along and took the land from the Neolithic people. The Romans next took the land from the ancient Britons, by the sword. The Saxons took the land from the decadent Romano-Britons, by the sword, and the Normans took it from the Saxons, by the sword. Then a number of heterogeneous folks came in—Huguenots, Irish, Scots, immigrants of all kinds. As the descendant of an old Surrey yeoman family, who have held their land from time immemorial, I protest against Irish, Scots, Huguenots and other kinds of immigrants coming in and talking of themselves as the people of England. This folly about God giving the land to the people is well illustrated by the case of Tasmania. God gave Tasmania, i suppose, to a very primitive race of black fellows. A number of white settlers came in, and in the course of 90 years exterminated every one of those black fellows. To whom does Tasmania now belong? How did God give the land to the people who now call themselves the people of England?
    Question put, "That the word 'penny' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 225.

    Division No. 288.]

    AYES.

    [10.34 p.m.

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

    Attlee, Clement Richard

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

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

    Ayles, Walter

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

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

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Benton, G.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Barnet, Alfred John

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Barr, James

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Arnott, John

    Batey, Joseph

    Bowen, J. W.

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Broad, Francis Alfred

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

    Pybus, Percy John

    Brockway, A. Fanner

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leit (Camborne)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Bromfield, William

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Bromley, J.

    Jowett, Rt Hon. F. W.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Brooke, W.

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

    Raynes, W. R.

    Brothers, M.

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Richards, R.

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

    Kelly, W. T.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

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

    Kirley, J.

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

    Buchanan, G.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Ritson, J.

    Burgess, F. G.

    Knight, Holford

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

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Lang, Gordon

    Romeril, H. G.

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

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Caine, Hall-, Derwent

    Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

    Rowson, Guy

    Cameron, A. G.

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cape, Thomas

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

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

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

    Lawrence, Susan

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Chater, Daniel

    Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

    Sanders, W. S.

    Church, Major A. G.

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Sandham, E.

    Clarke, J. S.

    Leach. W.

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Scurr, John

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour.

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Sexton, Sir James

    Compton, Joseph

    Lees, J.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Cove, William G.

    Leonard, W.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Daggar, George

    Lindiey, Fred W.

    Shield, George William

    Dallas, George

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Dalton, Hugh

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Longden, F.

    Sinklnson, George

    Day, Harry

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lunn, William

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Duncan, Charles

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

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Ede, James Chuter

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Edmunds, J. E.

    McElwee, A.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    McEntee, V. L.

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrlngton)

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

    Sorensen, R.

    Egan, W. H.

    McKinlay, A.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Foot, Isaac

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    Freeman, Peter

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Strauss, G. R.

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

    McShane, John James

    Sullivan, J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

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

    Sutton, J. E.

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

    Mander. Geoffrey te M.

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Gill, T. H.

    Manning, E. L.

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

    Gillett, George M.

    Mansfield, W.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Glassey, A. E.

    March, S.

    Tillett, Ben

    Gossling, A. G.

    Marcus, M.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Gould, F.

    Markham, S. F.

    Toole, Joseph

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Marley, J.

    Tout, W. J.

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

    Marshall, Fred

    Townend, A. E.

    Gray, Milner

    Mathers, George

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    Matters, L. W.

    Vaughan, David

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Maxton, James

    Viant, S. P.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Messer, Fred

    Walkden, A. G.

    Griffths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Middleton, G.

    Walker, J.

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Mills, J. E.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Milner, Major J.

    Walkins, F. C.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Montague, Frederick

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Hall, J. H. (whltechapel)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

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

    Morley, Ralph

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

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

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Morrison, Robert C, (Tottenham, N.)

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Harbord, A.

    Mart, D. L.

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

    Muff, G.

    West, F. R.

    Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

    Muggerldge, H. T.

    Westwood, Joseph

    Harris, Percy A.

    Murnin, Hugh

    White, H. G.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Haycock, A. W.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

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

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

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

    Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Herriotts, J.

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

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

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

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Hoilins, A.

    Palmer, E. T.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Winterton, G. E.(Lelecster, Loughh'gh)

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Perry, S. F.

    Wise, E. F.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Isaacs, George

    Phillips, Dr. Marion

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Picton-Turbervili, Edith

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Pole, Major D. G.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Potts, John S.

    Mr. Paling and Mr. Charleton.

    Jones, Llewellyn., F.

    Price, M. P.

    946

    947

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Evarard, W. Lindsay

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

    Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Albery, Irving James

    Ferguson, Sir John

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

    Fermoy, Lord

    O'Neill, Sir H.

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

    Fielden, E. B.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

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

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Peake, Capt. Osbert

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

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Penny, Sir George

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

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Astor, Viscountess

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Atklnson, C.

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

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Bailile-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdlay)

    Grace, John

    Preston, Sir Walter Rueben

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Graham, Fergus (Cumbarland, N.)

    Ramsbotham, H.

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

    Grettan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Bainlel, Lord

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Remer, John R.

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

    Bellairs, Commander Canyon

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

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

    Ross, Ranald D.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)

    Boyce, Leslie

    Hanbury, C.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Bracken, B.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Briscoe, Richard George

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

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

    Broadbent, Colonel J.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Savery, S. S.

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

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

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Buchan, John

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Shepperson. Sir Ernest Whittome

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Simms, Major-General J.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Butler, R. A.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Campbell, E. T.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kino'dlne, C.)

    Carver. Major W. H.

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

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Somerset, Thomas

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Inskip, Sir Thomas

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

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

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Chapman, Sir S.

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

    Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

    Christie, J. A.

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

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

    Colfax. Major William Philip

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

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

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Thompson, Luke

    Colville, Major D. J.

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

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

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Lockwood, Captain J. H.

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Long, Major Hon. Eric

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Cowan, D. M.

    Lymington, Viscount

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

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

    Wallace. Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Marjorlbanks, Edward

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Meller, R. J.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

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

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Milne, Wardlaw., J. S.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl

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

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

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

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

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Muirhead, A. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    England, Colonel A.

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

    Major Sir George Hennessy and

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

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Sir Frederick Thomson.

    Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 3, at the end, to add the words:
    948
    "Provided that the tax shall not be charged in respect of any agricultural land constituting or comprised in a land unit so long as such land continues to be used for agricultural purposes only."

    949
    In introducing this tax, the Chancellor never pretended that some agricultural land would not be liable to the tax, but a great many hon. Members opposite seemed to be under the impression that land used for any agricultural purpose would be completely exempted. The object of the Amendment is to make it clear that land used for agriculture, so long as it continues to be so used, shall not be liable to the tax. A great many reasons can be adduced why agricultural land should be exempted. The only attempt that has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to justify the inclusion of some agricultural land is that land on some of the main arterial roads, which was worth little more than from £20 to £30 an acre, was sold for very large prices after the roads were made. If land is sold for very big prices, it can only be sold for immediate development, and there is nothing in the proposal I am putting forward which will prevent taxation on the increment value so soon as it can be realised.
    The first thing the Government have to consider is whether they are really putting forward a tax on increment value, in which case the increment can only arise after the change of user; or whether they are putting forward a general tax on land, irrespective of the purpose for which it is used and the return from the land? Under this scheme, if the cultivation value of agricultural land is less than the site value, the owner will be liable to tax. Take the case of any main road running through the country. The land on each side of that road is used for agricultural purposes. Under the proposal of the Government, the valuer has to value the land on the assumption that the land surrounding it remains as it is. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite continue to enter into conversation, I shall make my speech a great deal longer than I intended. I would remind hon. Members that until I sit down the Closure cannot be moved, and I can go on for a very long time. I was saying that under the Government proposal, the valuer must value each land unit on the assumption that the surrounding land units continue in their present use. In the case of land on each side of a first-class highroad, he has to value unit A as though units B, C and D remain in their present use and occupation.
    950
    The amount of land which is possible-for building development along a main road at any given moment is limited. If you put the whole of the frontages-among the big main road between two big cities together, it may mean 15 miles, which is far in excess of what anybody requires for building at this moment or for some years to come. If the land could not be developed under existing, conditions, and if you put this class of land on the market on the assumption that it is for sale by a willing vendor, any valuer who honestly does his job is bound to consider that there is a certain hypothetical building value to that land for which a willing purchaser might be quite prepared to give something above the fee simple value for agricultural purposes. It is a speculation, but on the assumption that the remaining land cannot be developed for building, assuming that the purchaser pays a little more for that land, he cannot get a larger income from it than from agricultural land. It seems unquestionable that a great deal of agricultural land along the main roads will of necessity come under this scheme, and will bear a hypothetical site value and one which is rather higher than the cultivation value of land, so that it will be in effect putting a tax on agricultural land.
    Lastly, I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider the case of smallholdings. The land has absolutely no value except cultivation value, and all that the owner can get out of it. He does not wish to sell because his capital is sunk in his stock and buildings and cultivation, and he cannot possibly realise the whole value if he sells at present, for he would require a very great rise in site value to compensate him. At the same time, he is asked to pay the tax on the hypothetical value of the land which he cannot realise without loss to himself, and which he does not desire to realise and which produces no income whatsoever.
    Take the case of a market gardener who is bound by the very nature of his trade to have his land somewhere in the vicinity of a town. That land has, or might have, a prospective building value. I take it there is no valuer who honestly does his job, in considering the land in accordance with the Government scheme, who could say that land in the vicinity of a town, no matter for what purpose

    951
    it is used at present, has not a hypothetical building value. The market gardener wants that land; it has in many cases a fairly high rental because it is convenient and, it also has, for that reason, a high cultivation value. If, however, he gets disturbed by building—and nobody can say that is not possible—the mere fact that a hypothetical building value may exist in the case of one lot of market gardening land will automatically put up the value of every other piece of land. When you say "Value this land on the assumption that this is the only piece of land which is available for the purpose and that all the rest of the land will remain in its present state," any valuer must put a high value upon that land, a value far in excess of what would be the case if all the surrounding property were equally liable to come on the market. On these terms we are passing an unjust and inequitable tax, one which must have the effect, if the land is freehold, of crippling the business, or, if it is land which is let under an annual tenancy, of making the landlord desire to terminate that tenancy and let the land for building purposes merely in order to get rid of the tax.
    Take the case of allotments. We have heard from the Minister of Agriculture that the great majority of allotments do not belong to local authorities but to private individuals. It is not very easy to get land for allotments provided by private individuals in the vicinity of great towns. Where you get it, it generally means that certain individuals or bodies are willing, for various reasons, to make a sacrifice in the rent they get from the land in order to provide allotments. Under these proposals we are to put a tax on that land, and either the tax will fall upon the owner, which will make him unwilling to keep the land under allotments, although they may be of great benefit to everybody in the district and be a real amenity, or else he will be bound to raise rents to the allotment holders to pay for this unjust taxation.
    I submit that so long as the land is used for agricultural purposes, it is a useful purpose, a purpose which everybody admits is to the benefit of the community, and so long as there is no rise in the return from the land this tax should not come into operation. There should be no tax levied until there is a
    952
    change of user and that change of user brings about a change in the value. When a man sells land which has hitherto been agricultural land for building purposes he gets a higher price for it, and, although I should not agree with the argument, I admit that a case could be made out for a tax on the increment when such a sale takes place. But that is not the proposal of the Government. The only way in which we can deal fairly with this subject is by collecting the tax when a change in value takes place, namely, when the sale takes place. So long as the land remains agricultural the owner is getting only an agricultural rent of, possibly, up to £3 or £4 an acre; he is not getting the great sums mentioned by the Chancellor, £500, £600 or £800 an acre. Taxation should not be imposed until the owner gets the benefit of the increased value through a change of user.
    Earl WINTERTON: I rise to support this Amendment because the part of England from which I come and which I represent is particularly affected. There is a great deal of land in the south of England, and, indeed, in all the home counties, of building value, which is genuinely being used for agricultural or horticultural purposes. My own constituency has one of the largest market gardening areas in the country, and much of that land has a distinct building value, though it is now being used for agricultural purposes. If my ton. and gallant Friend's 11.0 p.m. Amendment is not adopted, there will undoubtedly be a number of tenants and owner-occupiers who will be compelled to sell their land and that land will be built over. I put this proposition to the Committee: Do hon. Members think it is desirable that land which is being used for genuine agricultural and horticultural purposes which in these hard times is making a small return to the occupiers should continue to be used for that purpose, or that it should be split up for erecting weekend residences and bungalows?
    I will give cases which have come within my own knowledge. I know of two farms which are occupied by two working farmers. The whole of their interest is centred in the land; their livelihood comes from the land and they work as hard as any of the labourers they employ. Both of those men in recent times

    953
    have bought their farms and have thus snatched the land from the hands of the speculative builders. If they had not done so their farms would have been split up for the erection of bungalows and shacks, and every kind of process which another Bill now under the consideration of Parliament is intended to prevent. These two men have bought their farms, and they are working them in such a way that during these hard times they are making a livelihood. Under this Clause, the men will have to pay a heavy tax because their farms happen to be near the main road. I ask the Solicitor-General how, in those circumstances, he can say that the proposals of this Clause do not constitute a tax upon industry. They constitute a very heavy tax on the industry of both those gentlemen, who are friends of mine, and they will be penalised because they are farming land within a certain radius of London which has a building value.
    Does this Committee wish to see the land used in an economic fashion for agricultural purposes, or does it wish to force the land out of cultivation and see it handed over to the speculative builder? It may be said that, although land is being used in an economic way, there is a great demand for the erection of bungalows and weekend residences. I say that is not so, and I know that there is any amount of land which could be used for this purpose and which is not being used for agricultural purposes. The Amendment deals with land that is being economically used, and I ask the Solicitor-General to deal with the case which I have put and try to rebut the charge I make that this tax places a heavy burden upon one of the most valuable industries in this country.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Let me first deal with the points put by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), and then come to the Noble Lord's questions. The suggestion which is put forward in this Amendment would quite obviously defeat the whole purpose of the Land Value Tax, because, whatever may have been said against the taxation of land values in built-up areas, I think it has been generally agreed that the land which is ripe for development round about towns, but which is not being used for development, can justly be
    954
    charged with a land value tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I quite appreciate that some right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite think that no land should be taxed. Of the land which might be taxed, the view has been expressed from all sides that this class of land is the class of land which could most suitably be taxed. One is assuming that the genuinely agricultural land which was spoken of by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that is land which only has an agricultural value and nothing more, will be excluded under the Bill as it stands. Therefore, this land which it is now proposed to exclude, in addition to the land with only an agricultural value, must be the land on the outskirts of towns which is still used for agricultural purposes but which is ripe for development. [HON. MEMBERS; "No!"] If it is not ripe for development there is no point in the Amendment.
    An hon. and learned Member opposite does not agree, but the land which is not ripe for development and has only an agricultural value is already excluded, because there is provision in the Bill that where the cultivation value of land is as great as, or exceeds, the land value, there is no tax. It is only where the land value of agricultural land is greater than the cultivation value that a tax attaches to the difference between those two values. That is the excess over the purely agricultural value. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford that this is not an increment value tax, and the reason why the purpose to which land is put is not made the criterion of whether it is taxed or not, is that one is considering the site value and the purpose to which the land happens to be put at the moment is not material. Obviously it would be easy for anyone who was holding up land for development to allow it to be used for some agricultural purpose and thereby evade the tax, if such an exclusion were inserted as is proposed in the Amendment.
    But the main argument of the hon. and gallant Member depended upon a point of valuation. His argument was that under the Bill all other land in the vicinity is to be assumed to be devoted to the purpose to which it is devoted, in perpetuity, and that therefore the valuer would have to look upon this one piece of land as being the sole eligible

    955
    piece of land in the market, and it would thereby attain a high and special value. I agree that if that was so in the Bill the effect would be as he states. But it is not what is in the Bill. What the Bill states is that the valuation of a land unit shall be made upon the basis that all land not comprised in the unit, and everything therein and thereon, was in its actual condition at the valuation date. That does not mean that the purpose for which it was being then used shall be assumed to be its purpose for ever. It merely means that if you go along a road and see on either side of the land unit agricultural land, you value that land unit as being one in the middle of agricultural land. It does not mean that you assume that there is something to prevent the other agricultural land from being sold for building purposes if the owners desire. Therefore, the whole of the argument which is based upon that artificial value which the hon. and gallant Member suggested might be given to land, in my submission is entirely fallacious.
    Now I come to the question of the market gardens, which was put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and by the Noble Lord. In the examples which the Noble Lord gave, he made two statements which I find it very hard to reconcile with the arguments which he was putting. First he stated that two occupying farmers had snatched this land from the hands of speculative builders. They must therefore have paid for land for agricultural purposes at least as high a price as a builder was prepared to pay for building purposes, otherwise they would never have succeeded in snatching the land from the builders. If that be so, there is no excess building value of the land over the value for agricultural purposes.
    Earl WINTERTON: It is true that they bought this land. They competed in one case at any rate with a speculative builder, but the value of agricultural land as a result of the agricultural depression has gone down. Therefore the value of their land for agricultural purposes was much less than it was two or three years ago, when the value of land for building purposes was considerably higher.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The Noble Lord did not say the date of the purchase.
    Earl WINTERTON: Two years ago.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: One thing is quite clear, that the difference between the cultivation value of the land and the land value must be a comparatively small sum, because if two years ago they could pay a higher price in the market than the builder could for the land, clearly at the present time there cannot be very much in the difference in value and the tax on that difference in value will be obviously a small sum. But there was another statement of the Noble Lord that there was any amount of land which was not being used for such purposes available in the district. If that be so, then clearly there cannot be any special value attaching to these farms. The Noble Lord did say that. He may not have meant it, but he said it quite clearly.
    Earl WINTERTON: My case still remains watertight. It is true that there is, as I say, other land available in the district, but it does not happen to be so near to the towns as this particular land, which has a greater building value. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, it is a fact. Hon. Members may differ from my view, but I shall be pleased next weekend to take any hon. Member and show him the land in question.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It only shows the difficulty in answering questions which are put. One has only a fragmentary knowledge of the precise circumstances. There was one further point which is even more interesting in what the Noble Lord said, especially having regard to what the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) said earlier. The Noble Lord said there would he only one solution as regards all this large quantity of land in his constituency, namely, that the present owners would be compelled to sell the land at once, and it would all be built over. The right hon. Member for Edgbaston was telling us that one of the inevitable effects of the Land Tax would be that it would put such difficulties in everybody's way that the building of houses would be entirely stopped. I suppose the effect on Birmingham will be different from the effect on Horsham. It seems, in my submission, that when one gets these conflicting theories as regards the effect of the land tax on the

    957
    sale of land for building purposes, one is entitled to say that probably the mean between the two views is the correct one and that that mean is that it will not alter the amount of building, neither will it seriously interfere with town planning and the keeping of open spaces. Building will go on as it has done in the past, and there will be no greater difficulty in preserving open spaces than there has been in the past. For these reasons, I am afraid that the Government cannot accept this Amendment.
    Sir THOMAS INSKIP: The first answer of the Solicitor-General to this proposal was that it would defeat the whole purpose of the tax. We have never been told by the Government what the whole purpose of the tax is. If the whole purpose of the tax is to secure what has been called increment value, of course it is obvious that this proposal would not defeat it, because, when the land ceased to be agricultural land and was used for building purposes, the increment value would be ascertained, it would be taxed, the tax would be collected, and the purpose of the tax would be effected. But if, as the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) indicated, the object of his tax is to confiscate the land, of course a proposal of this sort would defeat the whole purpose, or part of the purpose, of the tax. Therefore, we are to assume from the Solicitor-General's observations that he objects to this proposal because it will defeat the Government's intention by this moans to begin the complete confiscation of the land of this country, to whomsoever it belongs. That is an admission of some little importance, because this is the first occasion upon which we have had an admission from the Government bench that the purpose of this tax is confiscation.
    The next point to which the Solicitor-General referred was one which indicates a somewhat rigid cast of mind, and an inability to appreciate the conditions which exist around our great towns, and particularly around London. He speaks of the land as being capable of being divided into two classes, and as if it all must belong to one of these classes. One class is agricultural land; the other is land that is, as he calls it, ripe for development. He says that if it is not ripe
    958
    for development it will have no value over and above the cultivation value. I speak with respect for the Solicitor-General, but really it is notorious that there are immense tracts, of territory all round London, within 40 or 50 miles of London, which have a value considerably above the cultivation value, but which nobody can say are ripe for development. They have a value above the cultivation value because probably at some time, postponed 10, 15, 20 or 30 years, that land may be suitable for development.
    Really, the Solicitor-General has become the slave of words in this controversy when he speaks about all land which is not agricultural land being ripe for development. I should like him to go to some of that rather dreary land between London and Slough, adjoining that piece of country which was once rich corn land, and which has now been developed. He will find there a number of farmers who are still carrying on a prosperous industry; the land has a great value; but at this particular moment it would be ridiculous to say that it was ripe for development. You would not find a builder in the Kingdom who would go and erect either factories Or houses upon a great portion of that territory. As the Slough development extends, or as London comes to meet it from the other direction, no doubt you will find an increasing number of persons who will treat the land as ripe for development, but what, I should like to know, are the farmers to do until the land actually is ripe for development?
    I should like the Solicitor-General to consider this matter, and treat it in a little less airy way than he has treated it this evening—[Interruption.] I am entitled to say that. Really, the way in which hon. Members resent any sort of criticism, while they themselves use strong language on occasion, merely exposes, not only their touchiness of character, but the weakness of their case. The question I want the Government to consider is this. In taxing agricultural land which has more than a cultivation value and yet is not in any real sense of the word ripe for development, do they mean to penalise the farmers for carrying on an industry which is much better carried on than making derelict and dreary land the only use of which is the erec-

    959
    tion of a notice board that it is for sale and that application may be made to a particular land agent, and are farmers to be penalised because they are unfortunate enough to carry on their industry within a certain distance of London? Is it their misfortune or their advantage that their land, which they wish to occupy as a farm, should be gradually acquiring greater and greater value as London extends? I was always under the impression that hon. Members opposite, and many on this side, regard London as in one sense a great disaster to the health of the community. If we could by any means go back 50 years and create such centres of population as Welwyn and Letchworth, as well as extending this black mass that we call London, we should regard ourselves as most fortunate.
    What the Solicitor-General is doing by declining to exempt agriculture in the neighbourhood of London and great towns is driving this land earlier than it would have come under the power of the builder and compelling the extension of London instead of permitting the use of the land as agricultural land until possibly someone may be able to make a garden city. The Solicitor-General may disguise it as he likes, but he is putting a tax upon a hard-pressed industry. Within 40 or 50 miles of London all the land has a value practically above cultivation value. If you get a little way away from the great centres of population, every single acre of the land, which is admirable agricultural land, has a building value in excess of the cultivation value. You are either going to compel the farmer to pay the tax or you are going to drive him out of his industry. Will the Solicitor-General tell us what is the object of this tax? Is it to add to the burdens of agriculture or is it to prevent agriculture being carried on at all and to compel that land to become derelict until it is ripe for development? We cannot avoid this issue in the airy way in which the Solicitor-General treats it. He may come along here with his phrases but he will not prevent the agricultural population realising that this Government, that promised to make agriculture pay, is putting an individual burden upon a hard-pressed industry.
    Sir R. HORNE: There is a very practical point in regard to this Amendment which I am certain the Committee desires to confront. There is no more seductive dialectician in the House than the Solicitor-General and I very greatly admired his speech, but the fallacy of it was that he divided into two classes things which cannot be so divided. He made a dilemma where there is none. May I give an illustration. I have known my constituency for 45 years.
    Mr. McKINLAY: You do not know it yet.
    Sir R. HORNE: Go and say that in my constituency and take your chance there. When I first went to college a very large part of what is my constituency was then agricultural land, and there is still a portion of it agricultural land. Suppose that the land tax had been brought in 45 years ago, I do not believe there is a single portion that is now covered with bricks and mortar which would not then have been declared ripe for development, to use the phrase of the Solicitor-General. But it has taken all these years to develop, and not because land has been built upon, but because communities only grow by slow progress. Yet for all those 45 years the great bulk of the land would have been taxed as if it were ripe for development, but when in fact it was being used for agricultural purposes. It must have made the farmers' rents much higher, and the agricultural industry much more difficult to carry on.
    It is a practical question. You bring a valuer to decide, let us say, either outside London or outside Glasgow, how much of the land is fit for building purposes. He finds land being used for agriculture along, let us say, a quarter of a mile of the frontage of the road on a farm. Every portion of that quarter of a mile is equally ripe or development, but it is quite certain that every portion of it will not be taken up at the same time. Some portions will be taken up before others, but efforts are now being made to impose a tax as though they were already of that value. It is a practical question, and I agree that land should be taxed upon its real value, but you are assuming a value which is entirely hypothetical. I defy any arbitrator or surveyor to go to a particular countryside and to be able to say with certainty which of the portions of the land are going to be taken

    961
    up for development and which are not. If he could say so, he would become the richest man in the world within three or four weeks, because he would know much more than the speculative builder. No man possesses so much knowledge as to know exactly what particular plots of land are going to be taken up, and which, therefore, are going to have a special value. You have to find some way of doing justice in this matter. Can you find any in this method except that contained in the Amendment, that as long as land is being used for agricultural purposes it shall not be taxed above its agricultural value? That is the only practical way out of the problem. You may take it for certain that people are not going to be so foolish as to keep land in use for agriculture if they can make more out of it by turning it into building land. The Government have recognised the difficulties of the agricultural community in what they have done in this Bill, because they have exempted agricultural land which has no higher valuation than that of agricultural land from the provisions of the Bill.
    God gave the land to the people, but apparently he did not give the agricultural land to the people. I listened to the stories about the land which God gave to the people. I know a great deal of the land which God gave to the people which anyone can have for nothing to-day if only he will clear it. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of land in Canada which anybody can have for the clearing. I imagine that those who cry out about God giving the land to the people are very unwilling to do the job. That is why to-day so much of the land in Canada has been surrendered back to the Government, who would be delighted to find anyone who would come and use it. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Scotland? "] I know of a lot of land in Scotland which you could get if you would only cultivate it. Try the top of Ben Nevis and see what you would make of that. On this Amendment, I put it as a practical point that there is no other way of doing justice than by relieving land which is being used for agricultural purposes. If you try any other scheme, it must hopelessly fail.
    Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: The Solicitor-General in resisting the Amendment gave two principal reasons,
    962
    to which I wish to refer. In one reason he ignored the nature of the tax proposed and brought out the old argument about Increment Value Duty, and the other was a direct denial of a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech, I would remind the Solicitor-General that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in referring to the Clause affecting agricultural land said that agricultural land ripe or ripening for development would be subject to the tax. If the Solicitor-General admits that the tax will apply not only to land ripe for development but to land ripening for development, the bottom of his argument drops out. We can fairly accurately judge the total amount of growth that a community of a given size will make in a year. We may not and we do not know in What direction it will develop, but we do know, approximately, how many acres of land will be required for new buildings each year. There are, however, many hundred times the acreage of land upon which those buildings might be put, all of which have a ripening building value, and to put the proposed tax upon that land will impose an intolerable burden upon the agricultural industry, which is already struggling with the greatest difficulty against adversity. It is notorious that it is difficult to foresee in what direction a great community will spread its development. Take London as an example. For a short or a long period of years it is spreading into Essex. A period comes when the Essex development more or less stops or slows down, and the development of Surrey or Kent speeds up. These valuations will take place, and the ripening development value upon which the tax will be based will be put upon the land in view of the direction of the development of the past few years. That is inevitable. But at any moment the development may stop in a particular direction and switch over into another direction.
    What is to be done? There are no means of adjusting the values. We are likely to have values based upon the assumed expansion of building in Middlesex, values perhaps of £500 to £600 an acre. The development into Middlesex will cease and will take another direction, perhaps into Kent, where land, because the development in the past in that direction has been slower, will have been

    963
    valued at a lower figure. In Middlesex, where there have been high values and where the rate of development has slowed down, you will have this state of things: fanners will be cultivating land worth, for agricultural purposes, £1 to £1 10s. per acre per annum, paying more than the gross rent by this penny in the pound tax. It only requires a value of £240 per acre in excess of cultivation value to wipe out a gross rent of £1 per acre per annum, and you will certainly have values of £500 and £600 per acre and even more. Therefore, this tax may reach a figure far in excess of the gross rent obtainable for the only purpose to which the land can be put at present.
    Let me put another point in regard to the reason why agricultural land should be exempted as long as it is put to agricultural uses. A vast proportion of the agricultural land of this country has passed into the hands of the actual occupiers, the farmers, many of whom purchased their land at a high price, when agricultural land was more prosperous than it is to-day. Nearly the whole of them have mortgages on their land of as large an amount as they were able to obtain when agriculture was more prosperous. The mortgagees are already anxious about the margin of security for the loans which they have made. What are you going to do by creating this uncertainty? [An HON. MEMBER: "Go home!"] Hon. Members may go home as far as I am concerned, but I propose to put my point whether or not hon. Members opposite stop to listen. What will happen if a large amount of mortgages are called in as a result of this tax? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that it was part of the intention of this Bill to bring down the value of land, and if it brings down the value of agricultural land which is already loaded with a heavy mortgage, where the mortgagee is already anxious about his security, he is almost bound to call in his mortgage. It will lead to a tremendous crop of foreclosures. You will have a great area of agricultural land in this country in the hands of mortgagees in possession. Do the Government seriously contemplate producing such a confusion into the whole agricultural industry as such a situation would create? I am
    964
    not overstating the case when I say that this is likely to be the effect of this tax. It will lead to the calling in of a great many mortgages and to a complete breakdown of the whole system of agricultural credit, which not so long ago this House passed legislation to encourage.
    This Debate has proceeded on the assumption that land not ripe, or very nearly ripe for building would be treated as agricultural only—in other words that its cultivation value would be as great as its value for the purposes of this tax. What is the cultivation value? We do not find a definition in the Bill. In days like these, when a considerable number—I do not want to overstate the case—of the farmers of the country are farming at a loss and when the balance of the agricultural community are having great difficulty in making ends meet, what is the cultivation value, if, as we are bound to assume, it means merely the capital value of the land for cultivation purposes only, excluding everything else? I submit that it is infinitesimal. In a great many cases it is nil. But the land has a value in addition to that, and my point is that if these valuations are carried out honestly, in accordance with the Bill as it stands, there will be very little agricultural land in this country which will not be found to have a value in excess of its cultivation value. I believe that there is an excess value which will come under this tax practically everywhere. If I am right in that assumption—and no word has come from the other side during these Debates to suggest; that I am wrong—then I say that you will be placing on practically the whole of the agricultural community another burden which will be utterly intolerable and impossible to bear.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy): I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Captain CROOKSHANK rose——
    Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The Committee proceeded to a Division——
    Captain CROOKSHANK (seated and covered): On a point of Order. Do I understand, Mr. Dunnico, that you have put the Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again"? If so, may I call your attention to the fact that I had risen in order to address the Committee upon it?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The conditions under which the Motion to report Progress is moved to-night differ from and are not identical with those under which it was moved last night. We are now in a "compartment" of the time allotted under the Order of the House of 4th June which started at the beginning of to-day's proceedings and does not end until half-past ten o'clock to-morrow night. Consequently, only the Government can move to report Progress and the Question must be put without discussion.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I understand that in accepting the Motion and putting it without discussion you are relying on the words of the last paragraph of the Order of the House governing the Guillotine procedure:
    "On an allotted day no dilatory Motion with respect to those proceedings nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress … shall be received unless moved by the Gov-
    ernment and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate."
    The words "those proceedings" must refer to something which is dealt with earlier in the Order. I submit that the words "those proceedings" refer to the immediately preceding paragraph which begins:
    "On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order."
    I submit that this is not a day on which any proceedings under the Order of the House had to be brought to a conclusion. Therefore, if the Government move to report Progress, it is debatable.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have listened with great attention to the submission of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and have given considerable thought and consideration to this point. I am quite convinced in my own mind that the Motion to report Progress, moved at this stage, is a Motion that can be moved only by the Government and that it must be put without discussion. I have carefully considered this Ruling and it is my definite and final decision on the point.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: May I then ask——[Interruption].
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 193.

    Division No. 289.]

    AYES.

    [11.43 p.m.

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

    Cape, Thomas

    Glassey, A. E.

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

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

    Gossling, A. G.

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

    Charleton, H. C.

    Gould, F.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Chater, Daniel

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Church, Major A. G.

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

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Clarke, J. S.

    Gray, Milner

    Arnott, John

    Cluse, W. S.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Ayles, Walter

    Compton, Joseph

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)

    Baldwin. Oliver (Dudley)

    Cove, William G.

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Barr, James

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Batey, Joseph

    Daggar, George

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

    Dallas, George

    Hall, J. H (Whitechapel)

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Dalton, Hugh

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

    Benson, G.

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Harbord, A.

    Bowen, J. W.

    Dudgeon. Major C. R.

    Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Duncan, Charles

    Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Ede, James Chuter

    Harris, Percy A.

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Bromfield, William

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Haycock, A. W.

    Brooke, W.

    Egan, W. H.

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

    Brothers, M.

    Elmley, Viscount

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

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

    Foot, Isaac

    Herriotts, J.

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

    Freeman, Peter

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

    Buchanan, G.

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

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Burgess, F. G.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

    Hollins, A.

    Caine, Hall-, Derwent

    Gill, T. H.

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Cameron, A. G.

    Gillett, George M.

    Hudson, James H. (Huddarsfield)

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Marshall, Fred

    Simmons, C. J.

    Isaacs, George

    Mathers, George

    Sinkinson, George

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Matters, L. W.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Maxton, James

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Messer, Fred

    Smith. Rennle (Penistont)

    Jones, Llewellyn., F.

    Middleton, G.

    Smith. Tom (Pontefract)

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

    Milner, Major J.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Montague, Frederick

    Snowden, Thomas (Acorington)

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Sorensen, R.

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

    Morley, Ralph

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Kelly, W. T.

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

    Stephen, Campbell

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Mort, D. L.

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    Kirkwood, D.

    Muff, G.

    Strauss, G. R.

    Lang, Gordon

    Muggerldge, H. T.

    Sullivan, J.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Murnin, Hugh

    Sutton, J. E.

    Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Noel Baker, P. J.

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

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Lawrence, Susan

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Tillett, Ben

    Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

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

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Toole. Joseph

    Leach, W.

    Palln, John Henry

    Tout, W. J.

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Vaughan, David

    Lees, J.

    Phillips, Dr. Marlon

    Viant, S. P.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Potts, John S.

    Walker, J.

    Lindley. Fred W.

    Price, M. P.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Pybus, Percy John

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Wellock, Wllfred

    Longden, F.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Raynes, W. R.

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    Lunn, William

    Richards, R.

    West, F. R.

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Westwood, Joseph

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

    Ritson, J

    White, H. G.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Romerll, H. G.

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    McElwee, A.

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    McEntee, V. L.

    Rowson, Quy

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    McKlnlay, A.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llantlly)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Samuel Rt. Ron. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Sanders, W. S.

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Sandham, E.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    McShane, John James

    Sawyer, G. F.

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

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

    Scurr, John

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Manning, E. L.

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Mansfield, W.

    Shield, George William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Marcus, M.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Wilfrid Paling.

    Markham, S. F.

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Marley, J.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Butler, R. A.

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    Albery, Irving James

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Eden, Captain Anthony

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

    Campbell, E. T.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

    Ersklne, Lord (Somerset, Weston-S.-M.)

    Astor, Viscountess

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Atholl, Duchess of

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

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Atkinson, C.

    Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

    Ferguson, Sir John

    Baillie-Hamilton, Hen. Charles W.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Fielden E. B.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Christie, J. A.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E-

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

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Balniel, Lord

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Colman, N. C. D.

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

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Colville, Major D. J.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Grace, John

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Greene. W. P. Crawford

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Boyce, Leslie

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Bracken, B.

    Crookshank. Capt. H. C.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Broadbent, Colonel J.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Brown, Ergest (Leith)

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

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

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

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

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Buchan, John

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

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Despeneer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Hanbury, C.

    968

    969

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Hartington, Marquess of

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

    Somerville, D. G, (Willesden, East)

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

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Southby, Commander A. R J.

    Haslam, Henry C.

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

    Spendar-Clay, Colonel H.

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

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Cotonel Arthur P.

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Oman, Sir Chartes William C.

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Herne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Peaks, Capt. Osbert

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

    Penny, Sir George

    Sutter Rear-Admiral M. F.

    Hurd, Perey A.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

    Inksip, Sir Thomas

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Thompson, Luke

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

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Thomson, Sir J.

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

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

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Powhall, Sir Assheton

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

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

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

    Remer, John R.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

    Liewellin. Major J. J.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Rodd. Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Warrender, Sir Victor

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

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Lockwood, Captain J. H.

    Rothschild, J. de

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Long, Major Hon. Erle

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Lymington, viscount

    Salmon, Major I.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Savery, S. S.

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Marjorlbanks, Edward

    Shakespeare, Gaoffrey H.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Meller, R. J.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Smith, Louls W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

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

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Moore, Sir Newton J. (Rtchmond)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Major Sir George Hennessy and

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

    Smithers, Waldron

    Sir George Bowyer.

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

    Somerset, Thomas

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Committee accordingly report Progress; to sit again To-morrow,

MAURITIUS LOAN [GUARANTEE].
Resolution reported,
"That it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the Treasury to guarantee the payment of the principal of, and the interest on, a loan to be raised by the Government of Mauritius not exceeding an amount sufficient to raise seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds, and to charge on the Consolidated Fund any moneys required to fulfil any such guarantee; and

(b) to authorise advances out of moneys provided by Parliament for the payment of such part, if any, of the annual charges in respect of the loan for any of the first five years of the currency thereof as, in the opinion of the Treasury and the Secretary of State, the Government of Mauritius are not in a position to meet as and when those charges fall due."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I think it is an abominable proceeding on the part of the Government to bring this very important financial Resolution before the House at this late hour. Throughout the whole proceedings on the Mauritius Loan the Government have not treated
970
the House with any great respect. When we dealt with it last Friday the Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions, although he gave us answers to our questions which were adequate in some respects, quite clearly had not the financial knowledge of the connection between the loan and the Treasury which he should have had. We ought to have been more fully informed about the general finances of Mauritius. We cannot weigh and balance this question properly unless we have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary an explanation of the bearing which this loan of £750,000 has upon the general finances of Mauritius, and for that reason I intend to divide the House against this Resolution. In one sense, as I understand it, this is not an actual loan to Mauritius. I think the position is that we are guaranteeing the interest on the loan for five years and after that period it is to be presumed that the liability of the British taxpayers will cease, but so far as I can see there is no possibility that Mauritius will ever be able to pay off this loan. It will be remembered by those who were present on Friday that Mauritius has been able to pay off previous loans very easily, and no doubt every effort will be made to do so in the future.

971
12.0 m.
The point I wish to make is that, looking at the trade and industry of the country and judging from the speeches we have heard from the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, there is no reason to suppose that our finances are going to improve in the near future. The debt of Mauritius is very much higher than it was a few years ago, and there is a distinct probability that the whole of this loan may eventually fall on the British taxpayer. I am not saying that we ought not to help Mauritius, but I wish to emphasise that the only people we do not help are are own citizens. Every other part of the British Empire is to be helped, and I think it is essential that we should preserve the finances in the heart of the Empire absolutely sound. For this reason, the House ought not to guarantee the interest and the loan in this instance until a first-class case has been made out. It is the duty of the Treasury to dovetail these things in with the position of the British taxpayers. It is highly essential that we should be told the real position of this loan in relation to other loans, because all this money comes out of the industries of the country and interferes with trade. This country affords the best market for Mauritius and it is only by obtaining a good market that Mauritius will be able to pay off her debt to this country. Unless we keep the home market sound, it will be impossible for Mauritius to recover her former financial position. The Under-Secretary told us that there had been a cyclone in Mauritius. That cyclone was almost as devastating in its effect as the Government land tax. We have had a cyclone in this country, and we are in a similar position, because we have a worse Government than we have ever had before. Will the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury inform the House why it is that on all these Financial Resolutions we are never allowed any representative of the Treasury? I have been in three Parliaments before this, but I never knew any time when the House was so grossly neglected by the Treasury. It behoves the House to make a strong protest in the interests of sound finance. I do not wish to deprive Mauritius of its loan, but I must protest against the way in which
972
the Government perpetually treats the House of Commons.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): I am sorry to hear that the hon. Member is not satisfied with my financial exposition, because I gathered from the discussion that those who were present during the fairly full Debate on Friday last had got all the information which they desired from me. I gave a very full description not only of the object of this Resolution and of the Bill—an object with which everyone sympathises—but also of the financial arrangements in connection with it. I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the financial information which I gave was obtained in close co-operation with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; the hon. Member can rely on it accuracy and soundness, and on its being in line with the views of the Treasury. The object of this loan is such that it would be very unfortunate if the hon. Member or anyone else divided against the Resolution. The Bill is a gesture of sympathy with one of our Colonies which has met with a great disaster, and in all parts of the House it is realised that we are doing the least that is possible, and certainly what is desirable, to assist Mauritius at this difficult time. The Second Reading of the Bill which will be introduced as a consequence of this Financial Resolution will, I understand, be taken next Friday, when there will be another opportunity for discussion and for clearing up any points that have not been dealt with fully already. I hope that, in the circumstances, the House will see their way to pass this stage of the Resolution, and that we shall continue in the spirit which was so very well shown on the last occasion when this subject was discussed. I think that the feeling of the House, generally, is one of satisfaction that the Government have taken this method of showing their appreciation of the great difficulties which Mauritius has to contend with at the present time, and that there is a desire to assist the Colony in meeting those difficulties.
Mr. CAMPBELL: On Friday last my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) asked one or two questions upon financial points. He has repeated those questions and I do not

973
think he has had satisfactory replies on the exact details of the matters about which he asked. I am chiefly concerned however with the answer which the hon. Gentleman gave to another question as to whether this loan would be used entirely in the purchase of British goods. The hon. Gentleman said that as far as he knew all Government requirements would be purchased in this country. I should like to know if he has since ascertained whether the rest of the money will also be spent in this country. I think that when we show sympathy with Dominions and Colonies they should reciprocate by purchasing their requirements in this country. We are far too apt—if I may say so, the present Government are far too apt—to think internationally. That, possibly, is a good thing but the first and most important thing is to think nationally and we cannot afford, at a time like the present, merely to consider others, when we have so many people in this country who need the fullest consideration from us. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman if he has gone any further into the question raised on Friday. He was only able to tell us that as far as he knew Government requirements would be purchased here and he surmised that the same would apply to the rest of this expenditure but I think we want something a little more definite. We do not want to put it in black and white before our friends oversea that they will not get the money except on such a condition, but we should like to feel that the Colonial Office are bringing home to them the fact that we would appreciate it very much, if they did something to recompense us to some extent for the loans which they are receiving, by buying goods in this country.
Mr. McSHANE: I assure the House that I am not rising at this hour for any flippant reason. I wish to ask the Under-Secretary for an assurance that the amount of money to be voted under this Financial Resolution will be adequate, in view of a set of circumstances which I do not propose at this late hour to describe. I would ask him on the Second Reading to tell us exactly the conditions by which this loan will be governed. I ask because of the gravity of the state of public health in Mauritius. The last report available gives a picture which it would be well for us to try to envisage. It says:
974
"The Public Health Department is beginning to find a formidable opponent entering the lists in the form of under-nourishment. Increasing numbers of persons are being seen at the dispensaries, whose real illness is not any communicable disease, but the much more insidious condition of defective nutrition. This is an inevitable consequence of the serious economic depression prevalent in the Colony. The rising death rate is largely attributable to this, and there is no sign of the increase slackening; the tendency is towards a further rise."
That is Report No. 1503, Mauritius, 1929.
This is a matter, surely, which one need scarcely apologise for raising in this House, even at this late hour. This increasing death-rate can be attributable to us unless we take some adequate steps to deal with it. This is a Crown Colony, and we here are responsible for that state of affairs. I want to ask the Minister if he can assure the House that every possible step is being taken to prevent such a state of affairs from continuing there, because, if it continues, it will be indeed a scandal in Mauritius and a severe blot upon the name of this House.
Major ELLIOT: There is only one point to which the Under-Secretary did not fully reply last Friday, about the finances of Mauritius. My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) asked whether there would have been a deficit in the revenues of the Island if this disaster had not occurred, and the Under-Secretary said that even if the disaster which has caused the loan had not occurred there would have been a deficit. Then he was asked how much the annual deficit was, and I do not think he was able to give the figure at the time, or any estimate of what it would have been but for this disaster. I think it is desirable, if he has the figure now, that he should give it, or, if he gives it on the Second Reading, we shall be indebted to him.
As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane), there is no doubt as to the possibility that in certain of our Colonies people are suffering from under-nourishment, that is to say, starvation. That is a serious matter, and it is the more serious in that that is not found only in this sugar island, but it is brought out by Lord Olivier in his report that it is a consequence of the present depression in the price of sugar, and is likely to be found

975
in other sugar-producing islands also. The Olivier report said most definitely that there are areas of the Empire, of which the sugar-producing islands are examples, which are entirely dependent on a single crop, and the failure of the crop may lead not merely to depression but to actual starvation amongst the inhabitants. For good or evil, we have assumed considerable responsibility and we are the only source either of markets or of assistance to which these islands can look. The Secretary of State, in reply to the Debate, pointed out that the preference that is given is of substantial assistance to them. He said:
"But I would remind the Committee that there is at present a substantial Preference on sugar, amounting to an average of 3s. or 4s. a cwt. To those who receive this Preference it adds over 50 per cent. on the world price. In respect of Mauritius it means that assistance is given by the British taxpayer to the extent of about £750,000 annually. This Preference has been continued by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in spite of his well-known desire to have a free breakfast table as soon as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1931; col. 560, Vol. 253.]
It is not very encouraging for those who are desirous of developing the industry to know that as soon as possible this preference is going to be knocked off by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the existing deficit thereby continued and extended. Still, the desires of the right hon. Gentleman do not always coincide with his performances.
Mr. BUCHANAN: That is a reflection on his character.
Major ELLIOT: I should think it a great pity if the fact that my desires do not always coincide with my performances was regarded as a reflection on my character. The difficulties of this island are an example of the way in which the ebb and flow of the economic tide may suddenly leave a whole area that is dependent on one staple crop completely stranded. The disquieting thing is not the rate in respect of the hurricane disaster, because on that we should be ready to agree without any discussion at all. One wants to throw a lifebelt to a man struggling in the sea with as little discussion as possible. If it is the case that the revenue has been in deficit for four years, that a considerable amount of public debt has accumu-
976
lated, that it is doubtful whether there will be a surplus of revenue in the near future which will allow it to pay off the loans, the whole position in coming to the House for this loan is no other than that which was presented by previous Governments.
Mr. BUCHANAN: What is the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion? Is he prepared to move an Amendment to cancel past debts and make this a gift and not a loan?
Major ELLIOT: The question is a very pertinent one, and no doubt it would be of great interest to develop the case. I do not think that it would be in order upon the Resolution before the House. But one might say that the preference which has already proved so valuable—and it was referred to by the Under-Secretary of State—could reasonably be very considerably extended. The assistance that that has given—and it is given in the case of the French Island—would be a much more valuable thing than a loan, which in the long run will turn out to be, as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) says, a gift. We shall have done nothing but ladle out some money and in the course of a few years find ourselves and the Island in exactly the same difficulty as now. There is the case of the reconstruction of Austria. Doles, loans and subsidies were made to the country of Austria, and they were inefficacious. The reconstruction of finances was undertaken, and after that, the country was able to live on its own. I do not wish to enter upon the whole question of Colonial Preference.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Should we not be able to assist if we stopped the beet-sugar subsidy here?
Major ELLIOT: I do not know how far I should be allowed, even by way of illustration, to discuss the beet-sugar industry. I do not think that it is contended that the amount of sugar produced in this country seriously infringes upon any market which is available to colonial sugar. An increase of preference would be of great assistance to the Island. It would not be necessary to take the very drastic step of stopping the growth of sugar-beet in this country in order to encourage the growth of sugar in Mauritius, when we consider

977
the large amount of sugar that we import from other countries.
The difficulty of this colony is a running deficit and not a temporary deficit. The hurricane has been piled on the top of another and greater disaster, the disaster of the collapse of the staple crop, which has led to actual deterioration amounting to disease in the case of the natives of the Island. For all those reasons, it is well worth while considering whether a temporary remedy is not in fact a thing which will be of great assistance not merely to Mauritius but to this country, and whether, instead, some alternative remedy should not be provided. I refer to the comments of the Under-Secretary of State as to the great assistance of the sugar preference, and ask whether that preference could not be extended?
Dr. SHIELS: If I may, by the leave of the House, reply to some of the points which have been put forward in the short discussion we have had, I shall be very glad to do so. The hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Campbell) raised a point with which I dealt thoroughly on the last occasion, namely, the question of the use of British materials. As I pointed out, as far as Government work was concerned, the material would, as a matter of course, be purchased through the Crown Agents in this country. I said in regard to the other materials that were to be used that we are not giving the loan but only guaranteeing the loan, and I do not think that it would be wise that it should be a condition of our guarantee that any goods required should be purchased in this country. I said that, from my knowledge of the record of Mauritius, it was practically certain that all that could be purchased in this country would be so purchased, but that the main expenditure was on labour and that therefore it would not be desirable to press the point that all the money spent should be spent in this country.
In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane), I have to say that the amount is the amount that Mauritius asked for after a very careful investigation of the damage done and the reparation required. In regard to his very interesting point about public health, especially in connection with under-nutrition, I am sure
978
that we are all in sympathy with what he said. There is one very interesting point about that, especially in connection with this industry, both in the West Indies and in Mauritius. As the hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) probably knows, in some of the West India islands the sugar industry does not take the form of large plantations but of smallholdings. That to some extent is the case also in Mauritius, and, when you get that, you always find that a certain amount of food supplies are associated with the main crop, and the result is that, whenever there is any suggestion of famine, those who are in these smallholdings are generally secure of the fundamental necessities of life. These subjects are very closely considered in the Colonial Office, where we have a medical adviser constantly in touch with all these matters.
Earl WINTERTON: Has there been any improvement since the lamentable information given by the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane)? Has any more recent information been received?
Dr. SHIELS: I believe there has been an improvement. Of course, I did not know that this subject was going to be raised. I will take a note of it, and on the Second Reading Debate I hope that we shall be able to give information as to the latest aspect of this public health question. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove reminded us that there was only one item that I was not able to give. The sum was £210,000; that is, the estimated deficit at the end of June this year——
Major ELLIOT: On the revenue of £1,000,000?
Dr. SHIELS: Yes, a little over £1,000,000. I might, of course, follow the hon. and gallant Member into the very interesting region of preference, but I do not think it desirable to do at this late hour. Not that there would not be something to say on the other side. I would remind the hon. Member that only one year before we came into office the suggestion was made to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer that one shilling extra preference should be put on, and he did not see his way to do it. There is not, therefore, any very great party advantage in connection with

979
preference for the sugar industry. I would remind the House also that we have in the Colonial Empire many other depressed industries such as rubber, copra, coffee, tea, and so on, and that we have to be careful that we do not appear to be giving help to one industry and neglecting the others. I think I made it clear on the last occasion that the financial position of the loan has been Very carefully gone into, and that we have every reason to believe that this loan will not only be sufficient to tide Mauritius over its difficulties, but that the arrangements made for repayment will be well within the capacity of Mauritius to carry out.
Major COLFOX: The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies has quite deservedly earned for himself the reputation of being both courteous and well-informed. I think that there is no doubt that he and others have made out the need of Mauritius for the loan of this money. But there are other things to consider besides the need of Mauritius, and that, in my judgment, is where the Treasury comes in. I am glad to see that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has been lurking in the corner on your right for some time, has now moved up to a more central position, because I hope that he will give us some information on the financial aspect of this subject. I am sure that the expression on his face is most encouraging at the present time. I am, of course, well aware that the Treasury is not being asked on this occasion to advance this money, but that it is being asked to undertake to guarantee the interest on the loan. Therefore, quite clearly, the Treasury is undertaking—I am glad to see that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is getting some coaching on this subject, about which, no doubt, he knows very little—although the Treasury is not being asked to advance the principal of this loan, yet it is being asked to undertake to guarantee the interest, as and when it falls due, provided that Mauritius is unable to pay itself. Therefore, the Treasury is undertaking a contingent liability, and I should like to know what provision the Treasury is making, if any, to meet this liability if and when it falls upon the Treasury, and, if not, why not?
980
Secondly, I should like to know what effect the raising of this loan in the open market will have upon the available supplies of credit to be used for other purposes, industrial purposes, because we all recognise—all your sensible Members of Parliament Ho, but I do not know if that includes many Members on the opposite benches—that that is one of the reasons why we are suffering to-day from the growth of unemployment. The available supplies of credit and capital are not in the present circumstance sufficient to set the wheels of industry going, and absorb the whole of the unemployed. In considering this loan which is to be spent in the Colony of Mauritius, it is of great importance that we should be informed what effect it must have upon the available resources of credit and capital in this country; Of course, this is a subject upon which it would be possible, nay advisable, to have a long, careful and detailed Debate, but, in view of the lateness of the hour, and of the well-known desire of hon. Members opposite not to work overtime if they can possibly avoid it, out of deference to them, I will bring my remarks to a close in the hope that the Financial Secretary is not quite asleep and will give some answer.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Dr. Shiels and Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.

MAURITIUS LOAN [GUARANTEE].

  MAURITIUS LOAN [GUARANTEE] BILL,
  "to authorise the Treasury to guarantee a loan to be raised by the Government of Mauritius, and the making of advances out of moneys provided by Parliament for the payment of the annual charges in respect of the loan for a limited period," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed.—[Bill 171.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Thirteen Minutes before One o'clock.

  RUSSIA (BRITISH CONSULAR REPRESENTATIVES).
  RUSSIA (BRITISH CONSULAR REPRESENTATIVES).
CENSUS.
  ENGLAND AND WALES.
  ENGLAND AND WALES.
  PROVISIONAL FIGUKES, SCOTLAND.
  PROVISIONAL FIGUKES, SCOTLAND.
  BRITISH HERRING FISHING ASSOCIATION.
  BRITISH HERRING FISHING ASSOCIATION.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  RUSSIA.
  RUSSIA.
  COMPANES ACT, 1929 (AUDITING).
  COMPANES ACT, 1929 (AUDITING).
  TIMBER, FLORIDA (LABOUR CONDITIONS).
  TIMBER, FLORIDA (LABOUR CONDITIONS).
  MEN'S SUITS (PRICES, POLAND).
  MEN'S SUITS (PRICES, POLAND).
BRITISH ARMY.
  CHEMICAL DEFENCE RESEARCH.
  CHEMICAL DEFENCE RESEARCH.
  OFFICERS' RETIRED PAY.
  OFFICERS' RETIRED PAY.
  POST OFFICE (SALE OF PICTURE POSTCARDS).
  POST OFFICE (SALE OF PICTURE POSTCARDS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (PAPER-MAKING INDUSTRY).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (PAPER-MAKING INDUSTRY).
  COAL INDUSTRY (OIL ESTRACTIOX).
  COAL INDUSTRY (OIL ESTRACTIOX).
  POST-VACCINAL ENCEPHALITIS.
  POST-VACCINAL ENCEPHALITIS.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
PROBATION OF OFFENDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
SCOTTISH UNITED INVESTORS LIMITED ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
TAMWORTH CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY AND LOAD LINE CONVENTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, the history of this matter up to the present date enables me to put my points before your Lordships at no undue length. Your Lordships will recollect that in November last the Government introduced a Bill in order to obtain powers to enable them to ratify the Safety at Sea Convention, and that Bill passed a Second Reading. There were,
8
however, certain matters mentioned in connection with it with which I shall have to deal at a little greater length by and by. The Convention started with a document signed by Sir Austen Chamberlain appointing British Plenipotentiaries to attend the Conference which was engaged in before the Convention was passed. It was not unnatural that we should take a leading part in a Convention of that kind, dealing with such questions as passenger shipping, because undoubtedly we have a foremost position in the world in connection with such matters, as regards both responsibility and knowledge.
The subject matter really began as long ago as 1913, and a Convention was nearly arrived at in that year; but the War period followed and the whole question fell for a time into the background, until British delegates were appointed for this specific purpose by Sir Austen Chamberlain in the year 1928. The delegates were appointed in the ordinary form; that is to say they were given powers to sign the Convention if they could get agreement, and as a matter of fact there was unanimous agreement. But, as your Lordships know, the question of ratification is a matter of the Royal Prerogative exercised through the advice to the Crown, and before we can go further in ratification there are certain powers which are necessary in order that we may make the terms of the Convention directly effective. That was the reason for the introduction of the Bill last November. We are rather late with the Bill because we ought to ratify the Convention by July 1 of this year and I am afraid that is rather impossible. There is, however, provision that we can ratify it later, and it comes into operation three months after ratification. It certainly would be a very bad example that we, the great country chiefly interested in matters of passenger shipping, should have initiated a scheme of this kind and yet not have taken what steps we could to bring about its subsequent ratification.
On the occasion of the introduction of the Bill last November two points were raised. I am only now giving the history of the matter. One point was with regard to the helm orders. It was said that the projected change in helm orders might involve risk of collision. Secondly, the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope,

9
representing I think the Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee, desired that the Convention on the safety of passengers at sea should not be proceeded with unless at the same time we proceeded with the Load Line Convention. He satisfied me and the Government that his suggestion was a good one, and the effect of that, of course, was to put off any further dealing with the Bill which had been submitted. There was long negotiation between the representatives of the shipowners, on the one side, and the Government through the Board of Trade, on the other, in order that there should be agreement as regards the terms of the Load Line Convention. Ultimately a satisfactory arrangement was arrived at, and if you have read the Bill your Lordships will know that what we propose is legislation to allow the ratification of the two Conventions. There is no longer any difficulty about one Convention being ratified before the other, and I think shipowners and the Government are now convinced that the proposal of the noble Earl is a fair one, and that the two Conventions should be dealt with together and at the same time.
When the question arose as regards the two Bills being brought into one, the procedure adopted by the noble Earl, not in any antagonism but in order to bring the matter to a proper issue, was this. He deposited one Bill containing both the Conventions. That, of course, was side by side with our Bill, which proposed the ratification of one Convention only, and when we accepted his proposition it was unnecessary, and in fact would not have been right, for us to proceed with our Bill. It was proper to wait until an arrangement had been come to for the ratification of both Conventions at the same time, and that is the purport of the Bill now before the House. When it was a question of introducing the second Convention the noble Earl proposed that when we arrived at the Committee stage the matter should be referred to a Joint Committee of the two Houses.
I want to say two things about that. In the first place the procedure of Committee in your Lordships' House is, as I think, far the best, both as regards the other branch of the Legislature and as regards the advantages that it allows of a quick decision on matters requiring prompt legislation. I recollect, more than once since I have been a member
10
of this House, that the question has been raised of sending some of our Committee questions upstairs—of removing them from the floor of the House, as it is called in another place—but your Lordships have always decided against that by a large preponderance of opinion. I recollect the last time it was suggested by Lord Burnham what was said by Lord Lansdowne, who had great experience of such matters. He said that it would be a reactionary matter altogether and would weaken our real position as revisers of legislation if we allowed the Committee stage, without some special reason, to be dealt with other than on the floor of the House itself.
Seeing that this matter is agreed between the shipowners and the Government, that the two Conventions should be included in the same Bill, if I understand the argument addressed to the House on the last occasion by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, there is no reason for adopting a special procedure as regards the subsequent stages of this Bill. Of course the noble Earl will state his view of this, but it is very important, because no doubt the procedure in Joint Committee means a long period of delay, whereas if the matter is dealt with in this House—I will refer to particular questions in a moment—there is no need of any long or particular delay at all, and the matter could go forward, I hope with our assent, to the other House and before the Prorogation of Parliament the Bill might be passed. That is historically how the position stands, and I shall assume for the rest of my argument that so far as procedure is concerned we shall be able in this instance—and there is no very special complication of procedure at all—to show our power of dealing with public matters of this kind, which have no political significance, in a most effective manner, without delay, and allow the Committee stage to be taken in the ordinary way before the House itself.
On the Load Line Convention itself I have not heard of any objection at all. I understand that its form, its draftsmanship, and its principles are all accepted and agreed, at any rate as between the the Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee and the Board of Trade, as representing the Government. No doubt it has taken some time, because we have now got a long way beyond November of last

11
year, but we shall hope still to be in time if we have the assistance of your Lordships' House.
There is a second point raised, with reference to the change in the helm orders. That is a point of great importance. So far as the Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee are concerned, I understand that they are in favour of the change in the helm orders, and if one were to go by authority, although there is some difference of opinion, there really is an overwhelming weight of opinion among those interested in these matters in favour of the change. I asked that the list of the authorities should be given me, and it is very striking. Let me read out the names of the authorities on the two sides. Those who are in favour of the change in the helm orders are the Honourable Company of Master Mariners—I am told, a very representative and important body—the Officers' (Merchant Navy) Federation, the National Union of Seamen, the United Kingdom Pilots' Association, Trinity House, Lloyds, the Liverpool Underwriters' Association, the Navigators and General Insurance Company, Limited, the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association, the Chamber of Shipping, and the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association. The two authorities last named between them really represent all the shipowning interests in this country. The organisations which are against the change are the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, the Mercantile Marine Service Association, and the British Trawlers Federation. I do not wish in any way to belittle the importance of any of those bodies. But there cannot be a doubt that a very large preponderance of practical opinion is in favour of the change in helm orders, as proposed by the Convention.
But there is another point of very great importance, which I hope your Lordships will have in mind, although I presume the decision will come at a later stage than the Second Reading of the Bill. We are dealing here with a Convention, not with an ordinary case of agreement between two bodies. The result is that at this stage we have to take the Convention as it is, or else all the procedures we have gone through and all the interest we have excited in this question of a greater uniformity and safety of passenger traffic at sea fail. That is surely a very important consideration. I am told that
12
the matter was very thoroughly considered when the Convention was agreed to. Of course, there was a difference of view—I do not deny that—and difference of view in different countries. But the essence of an international convention is that after it has been agreed upon—and there is unanimous agreement upon this point among every delegation to this International Conference—you cannot change an important element of this kind without throwing open the whole terms of the Convention for further and subsequent consideration.
EARL STANHOPE: Hear, hear.
LORD PARMOOR: I am glad that the noble Earl appreciates and understands that; and he knows very well, because he has been the representative of the Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee, who in this matter have been the representatives of the shipowning interests and have dealt with the Board of Trade. If that is true it would be most unfortunate if in a matter of this kind, originated by ourselves, supported by two Governments, with delegations unanimously in favour, a disagreement were allowed at this stage to bring to nought all the work that has been done; it would, in fact, be in the nature of a wrecking Amendment.
I do not overrate the importance of this point, but, after all, it had to be decided by the delegates at the Conference, and they were delegates appointed by Sir Austen Chamberlain. I do not wish to lay stress upon that, because there is no question of politics involved, on one side or on the other. But if all the delegates appointed at the Conference are unanimous, I hope that on the Committee stage your Lordships will not be induced to adopt what really would, if adopted, be in the nature of a wrecking Amendment. I believe myself thoroughly that members of this House, particularly on non-political questions, are just as anxious to promote international arrangements for improvement upon this point as any other political thinkers. It is a very important matter. The original proposal for this Convention started, as I said, in 1913 after the great misfortune of the wreck of the Titanic, and since that time this country has been leading in the direction of improvement in order that the safety of passengers at sea may be further assured. Now all parties representing

13
the different countries have come to a unanimous agreement upon this question of the helm orders.
There is one other point upon which I wish to say a word or two—the only point, in fact, in regard to which, as far as I know, there is any difference of opinion between the shipowners and ourselves. Of course, if a Government, or rather two Governments, supported by the shipowners, cannot carry a Convention of this kind I do not know what difficulty there may be ahead. But the point to which I want to refer is this. These Conventions require legislation before they can be practically adopted. No one would wish that any Government should seek to ratify a Convention unless they knew that they had the power to carry the same into practical application. These Conventions have never in the past, so far as I know, interfered with or touched national rights of legislation. That matter was very much discussed in connection with this Convention, and I know it has been discussed in connection with others. The result is that the power of any nation to legislate in reference to any matter covered by the Convention has never yet—I think I can put the universal negative—been interfered with. That, of course, is an extremely important point.
I should not like to stand here and suggest that at the same time as we adopted the terms of a Convention we deprived ourselves of any possibility of making future improvements. We are the pioneers of improvement in these matters. In the question of safety at sea, for instance, there is a very large number of matters in which we are still and shall be in advance of the terms of the Convention. But all you can do in connection with a Convention to which you have to get the agreement of a number of other Powers is, of course, to obtain agreement to the best terms to which they will give their adherence. That is an extraordinarily important point; it is not a drafting point or anything of that kind, and we must retain our power of legislation over nationals in the national interest, just as other countries claimed to retain that power. I should have thought that would not be questioned and I certainly think it ought not to be questioned. That being the principle, we want to bring everyone up to the highest level in this matter. We cannot bring them all up to the level we have reached
14
but we want to make the level, which is a minimum level from our point of view, as wide as possible, leaving open to ourselves what we have always possessed—the advantage of dealing with these questions by our own legislation as a national matter.
One word as to how these matters are dealt with, as the process may not be familiar to every one of your Lordships. If some new suggestion for securing safety is sought to be imposed upon a British ship, an expert first of all ex, amines the question and the ship. As a rule, there is never any difficulty about the acceptance of his report because in this matter, most fortunately, the Government Department and the shipowners have always worked in perfect amity and understanding. But supposing for the sake of argument a shipowner does not like the report, there is an outside court called the Survey Court to which the matter can be referred. I am told that in the last twenty-eight years or more only one matter has ever been so referred and during that time, of course, a very large number of improvements have been brought about in our passenger service. What we want to ensure in this as in other Conventions is that we shall certainly conform to the same principles as those to which we ask other parties to the Convention to conform and take every opportunity of inducing other Powers to bring it into efficient operation. On the other hand, these Powers are not seeking to curtail our power of going further. I can say the same of other nations. This was considered and no country wished to give up its power regarding its own nationals in its own territory. I hope a principle of that kind will never be adopted because, in the case of such a pioneer country as this, it would have a very large effect in stopping future improvement.
When this question was before your Lordships' House on the last occasion the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, asked me about certain words in the Convention relating to the safety of passengers at sea. This is rather a drafting point but I mention it now. We made a change to meet him by making the crucial word "necessary" and not "expedient." As the matter now stands I think that just the same principle is applied in both Conventions. I know there is some question and the noble Earl shakes his head.

15
I have looked most carefully into it as it struck me as a very important point indeed. I have had a good many consultations with people at the Board of Trade who know much better than I do, and I am satisfied that there is some misapprehension and that the same wide principle that I have enunciated applies to both Conventions. The difference really arises from this: in the Load Line Convention, which deals chiefly with timber and timber ships, the old code is thrown on one side and there is a new code altogether; whereas that could not be done in the Convention regarding the safety of passenger traffic and a very large number of the old powers of the Board of Trade had to be preserved. If they were not preserved we should lose the facilities we now have for bringing about improvements.
I do not wish to discuss this matter further to-day because I agree that it requires very careful consideration in detail. We have tried to give it that consideration and that is the conclusion I have come to. I do not think there is any other matter upon which there is any difference between us. I hope that the question of procedure can be easily settled in the way I have suggested. I presume that on the helm orders there will be a Division in Committee, at any rate a difference of opinion, and I am afraid that the question will have to be argued over again; but it is an extremely important point because if the Amendment was carried and kept in force it would be in the nature of a setback.
With regard to the last question of terms, I do not know of any difference between the noble Earl and myself. There may be a difference between the construction of words; that I admit and I should hope to meet him upon it; but I think there can be no difference on the point that our duty is to see that our ships and all ships that come from other nations to our docks or near our shores shall be subject to the terms of the International Convention. Beyond that, and outside of that, if we as the pioneer country desire to put any further improvement forward in order to ensure greater safety we must be allowed to do that. An essential feature of all these Conventions of every kind, as far as I know, is that that liberty is left.
16
That is all that I have to say in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. I commend it to your Lordships and I hope it will be given a Second Reading. The other matters I leave to a subsequent period. I should just like, however, to quote one passage from the noble Earl's speech. Having pointed out the objections, which I think have been met, he said:
"I think your Lordships will agree that the sooner we can get both Conventions ratified the better it will be for this country."
It is on that ground that I now move that the Bill be read a second time. There is no political issue involved, and I hope your Lordships will allow a Second Reading to be given.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Parmoor.)
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord who leads the House has quoted me so much that I am afraid your Lordships will be more than tired of me before I rise to my feet at all. But I would like to tell your Lordships a little more about the origin of this Bill. The noble and learned Lord was quite frank about it, but naturally he did not point the moral of the tale. Your Lordships will remember that the Government introduced the Bill, as he stated, covering the 1929 Convention only. Your Lordships took the view, which was supported by all shades of opinion in the shipping world, whether owners or builders, masters or men, that the essential thing to do was to put these two Conventions together and form one great charter. That was the view your Lordships took. If it had not been for your Lordships this Bill would not be on the Table to-day. I think perhaps the House even now hardly realises how great a charter this really is. I do not propose to go into all the questions that are raised in this Bill, covering more than two hundred pages and full of technicalities in regard to shipping and many legal questions. Being only a landsman, and also not a lawyer, I feel I am likely to be shot at from all directions if I try to do so; but I might say that the whole idea of safety of life at sea has been not the work of this country since 1912, as the noble Lord opposite stated, but for more like fifty years, and at last, after great efforts, this Bill has been produced, giving all the countries of the world who

17
ratify it—and a very large number, I feel certain, are going to follow our example and do so—a common standard, and a higher standard in most cases than they have already.
I should like to congratulate the officers of the Board of Trade on having produced this Bill. I think congratulations ought to be paid to Sir Norman Hill, who has spent many, many years in bringing this to fruition. I have a feeling that when this Bill, as I believe it will, finds its way on to the Statute Book, the Government will claim great credit for having produced this charter for safety of life at sea. I think they are entitled to do so. They happen to have the good fortune to be in office at the moment. I hope at the same time they will remember that it is due to the action of your Lordships' House that the two Conventions were put into one Bill, and therefore found their way on to the Table of the House.
As regards the question of a Select Committee, on the whole I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it would be best on this occasion to follow the normal procedure, and take the Bill on the floor of the House. There is one thing that can be said in the other direction, and it is that when rather technical questions, such as helm orders, come before a Select Committee, evidence can be given, and I think it would be quite easy to prove, after that evidence was given, that, as the noble Lord said, if you refuse to accept the change in helm orders you might just as well drop the Convention altogether. Under the normal procedure, we cannot call evidence. We get speeches made by noble Lords who know a very great deal about the subject, but we cannot satisfy the outside public in the same way as if the matter came before a Select Committee. On the other side, there is the overwhelming consideration of time. We have really very little time left before we approach the end of the Session, and I think those of your Lordships who feel that this is really an important charter, which should be ratified at the earliest possible moment, will agree that we must not take the risk of failing to get the Bill through both Houses of Parliament by the end of the Session. I see very little hope, if this Bill is referred to a Select Committee, of achieving that object. Your Lordships are already engaged on a large number
18
of Committees, and members of another place, I believe, are even more fully engaged, and if we found that the Select Committee was only to meet once or twice a week any hope of getting the Bill passed into law by the end of July would be out of the question.
I should like to refer to the point which, perhaps, has raised much more controversy and received much more notice than anything else: I mean the change in helm orders. Your Lordships discussed it at considerable length on the last occasion when it, came before the House, and I think some of your Lordships were under the impression that only one or two nations which had a very small mercantile marine had accepted the change, and that the overwhelming body of opinion amongst those who went down to the sea in ships was opposed to it. My information is that both those statements are incorrect. Frankly, I personally regret that the change should have to be made. After all, probably the old helm orders came down from the days of the tiller. When you gave the order "starboard" you pushed the tiller over to starboard and the rudder went to port, and the ship's helm went to port. Then, when the wheel came in, the order remained, and although the wheel was turned to port on getting an order to "starboard," of course the effect On the ship was the same as when the tiller was pushed to starboard.
I am not an internationalist, and I feel considerable pride in the fact that when a pilot comes on board a ship one of the first questions that he asks is: "Do you use the British or take the Continental helm orders?" I like the feeling that a ship of this country goes under one designation, and the ships of other countries go under another, and I regret that that should have to come to an end. If it was only a question of change for the sake of change, I should be speaking in opposition to the noble and learned Lord instead of in his support. I am strongly in his support for this reason. The advantages that we get by having uniformity throughout the world in regard not only to the load line but to such things as radio telegraphy, constant watch on wireless for receiving messages and S.O.S. as well as being able o send them, and in regard to the subdivision of ships, water-tight doors and

19
all the subjects referred to in these Conventions, are really of such importance not only to the owners but to the officers and men who go to sea, that if I cannot get these Conventions without agreeing to the change then I am in favour of the change.
At the last Conference in 1929 there was a unanimous expression of opinion from every country represented, with the exception of Japan, that England should change her helm orders and conform to those of other countries. I do not know how many nations are at present of that opinion, but at any rate it is a very large number. It was then found that this not being a new question, having been brought up at every single discussion between foreign countries whenever safety of life at sea was talked about since 1889, and having been pressed more and more strongly each year that they discussed these matters, it became quite impossible to refuse them again in 1929. I think your Lordships will realise why. The merchant shipping navies of France, of Germany, of Norway, of Italy, of the Netherlands and of Sweden all are now using direct helm orders. Denmark stated clearly at the Conference that whether the Conventions were ratified or not, she intended her ships to use direct helm orders. I have in front of me the orders which have just been issued in Belgium bringing direct helm orders into effect as from midnight, the 30th of June, 1931. Therefore your Lordships will see that the merchant navies of all those great countries have already accepted direct helm orders, or are about to do so. The United States Navy has already accepted such helm orders, and it is proposed that their mercantile marine should follow suit in the same way. Therefore the great nations, with their mercantile marines spread over the seas and visiting British ports not only in this country but throughout the Empire, are every one using direct helm orders. We, on the other hand, are not.
As regards the views of those who go down to the sea in ships, it has been suggested very widely that all masters and a very large number of their crews are absolutely and directly opposed to the change in helm orders, considering it to be dangerous, and that, so far from promoting safety of life at sea, it will do exactly the reverse. I am aware that the
20
Mercantile Marine Service Association and the Imperial Merchant Service Guild have opposed the change. They are not very large bodies. I think one has a membership of something like 3,000, and the other a membership of 2,000. I asked both of those bodies by letter whether they were so opposed to the change in helm orders that they would prefer to see the Conventions dropped rather than that a change should be made. One of them did not answer the question and the other—the Mercantile Marine Service Association—replied that it was unthinkable that the omission of Article 41 should wreck the Safety Convention. It is not unthinkable that it should wreck the Convention; it is absolutely certain, because we know that it was only with great difficulty that some nations were persuaded to agree to the wireless clauses of the Convention, imposing constant watch on ships of anything over 1,600 tons gross register, and other nations were opposed to the changes in the load line.
We imposed rather more severe conditions in regard to load line than some other nations. Therefore, it was with some difficulty that we got them to come up to our standard, we on the other side dropping in regard to timber and oil ships from the position we held before, not because it made ships less safe but because, owing to modern construction, it is possible to modify these rules. Realising that if they did not accept the change in helm orders the Convention would come to an end, the most important bodies in the shipping world are prepared to accept the change in helm orders. They say that on the whole they would rather the change be not made, but realising that if it is not made then the Convention will certainty not come into operation they are prepared to accept it. The noble and learned Lord quoted a very large number of them and I do not propose to go through the list again. He might have added that the Admiralty also agree to make the change. When I was a member of the Board of Admiralty I well remember the discussion going on. The same view was taken there. Members of the Board said they would rather the change were not made, but, if it meant that the Convention would not come into

21
operation unless it were made, they were prepared to come into line with the Mercantile Marine.
Perhaps I may be allowed to read to your Lordships some of the reasons which have been given in support of the change. Here is a letter I have received from the Officers Federation of the Merchant Navy. It is a body—well, your Lordships will be able to judge of it for yourselves. The secretary writes in the course of his letter:
"(1) We have a voluminous correspondence with over 11,000 navigating officers (our total membership, including engineers, is 13,000)"—
the two bodies opposing have a total membership of 5,000—
"and on the average, over 40 officers call at this office daily. During the last three years less than 30 officers have, of their own volition, raised this matter of helm orders, although we are approached on every conceivable matter in which officers are interested.
(2) We have agents and representatives in all the principal ports and they report to us periodically. They are all agreed that little or no interest is taken in this helm order controversy.
(3) We circularise federated officers bi-annually, and have set forth our declared policy in the matter of helm orders in these circulars since 1929.) Had our views not correctly expressed the feelings of the Service, there is no doubt that we should speedily have been advised of their disagreement, and our membership would have been adversely affected. On the contrary, many officers have expressed their full concurrence with our policy on this matter."
Then here is a resolution from the National Union of Seamen. At a meeting of their Management Committee which took place on December 10 and 11, the following resolution was unanimously carried:
"That whilst the National Union of Seamen sympathise with the feeling that change in the traditional British practice of giving helm orders is to be deprecated, they are firmly of opinion:

(1) That there is no reason to anticipate that British sailors cannot carry on under the proposed change efficiently and without danger to life and property.

(2) That as to reject or amend the portion of the Convention relating to helm orders may lead to other reservations by other countries and lessen the great advantages to be gained by international uniformity in matters relative to safety at sea, the provision as to helm orders should be accepted."

I could quote also from the Chamber of Shipping, the Liverpool Steamship
22
Owners' Association and other bodies, but I do not wish to weary your Lordships. I hope that no noble Lord will be under any illusion on this matter. If the change in helm orders is not accepted lie might just as well vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, and if he does so let him understand that he is voting against the considered judgment of those representative bodies which have been quoted by the noble and learned Lord opposite. I am aware that my noble friend the Earl of Inchcape takes a different view, but I think he will agree that a very large body of those with whom he has worked for so many years are not in agreement with him on this one subject at any rate, and that he is rather taking a solitary line and—if I may use the expression in regard to shipping— "ploughing a lonely furrow."
It may be asked, my Lords, why is this Bill not a short Bill merely saying that here are two Conventions which are to be ratified and brought into law? Perhaps I ought to explain very briefly the reason. The Conventions only deal with ships engaged on international voyages, and it is therefore necessary to bring into line with them British ships that are engaged on coastal voyages arid do not go from a port in this country to a port in any other. Secondly, it is necessary to bring into line ships under foreign flags which use our ports. In regard to both these questions amendments of the law are necessary. Further, under the Convention a good deal of discretion is left to the Administration. It is therefore necessary to name some Department which shall act for the Administration—in our case, of course, the Board of Trade—and to give to that Department the powers which are allowed to the Administration, the discretionary powers allowed under the Convention. Further, we had to make it quite clear that in accepting the Convention we intend to give them full force and full ratification, and that a ship which obtains a Board of Trade certificate shall, in effect, be a Convention ship and be so recognised in foreign ports. That is a matter about which I understand there is some little doubt with regard to drafting, but it is a legal point which I hope the noble and learned Lord will deal with at a further stage of the Bill and I do not want to go on with it now.

23
The former Bill, as the noble and learned Lord said, was so drafted that the Board of Trade reserved to itself the right to make such regulations as it considered necessary or expedient. I said earlier in my remarks that the present Bill is not only a better Bill because it contains both Conventions, but it is also a better Bill in other respects, and it is a better Bill in that respect because the words "or expedient" have been left out. I agree that it is necessary. unless we are always going to have to resort to Courts of Law, that somebody shall decide what it is necessary to do to give effect to the Conventions. Therefore, I am not objecting to the Board of Trade having power to make such rules as are considered necessary. The only other way of doing it would he by bringing the matter into Court, which would be expensive to shipowners and to everybody else.
But the Government, unfortunately, have not yet realised the real point of an International Convention. The noble and learned Lord opposite said that he believed it was unknown that we should have a Convention and therefore lose our national powers. That is only partially true because when it comes to such things as treaties—the Naval Treaty for instance—nothing is left to be decided and everything is definitely put into the Treaty. With regard to Conventions there is some difference, and I am prepared to admit it. But there is this very real difference between this Convention and such a Convention as the Washington Hours Convention. Although both of them attempt to do something in the way of obtaining uniformity, the real difficulty is that the Washington Hours Convention deals with something that merely occurs inside the nation with regard to hours of work of people employed in Great Britain. These Conventions impose regulations on ships which go not only between British ports but between British and foreign ports, and they also effect foreign ships.
It is, therefore, an international question, and not only is it necessary to get uniformity from the point of view of safety, but also from the point of view of fair play, or you will have foreign countries becoming extremely doubtful if you use the Conventions merely as a further jumping off place for imposing further conditions on shipping. If
24
your Lordships will turn to Clause 1 and some other clauses of the same kind, you will find that the Board of Trade are given power to make regulations which shall include such requirements as will in the opinion of the Board of Trade secure the provisions of the Safety Convention. That means that the Board of Trade would have the power not only to impose the regulations of the Convention but to go beyond that.
LORD PARMOOR: Only as regards our own national ships.
EARL STANHOPE: Exactly. I am going to come to that point. The present law is that since 1906 we have taken power not only to impose regulations on our own ships but to apply those same regulations to foreign ships in British ports. There has been some difficulty in administration, and that is not an absolutely universal order of things, but speaking generally it is true. Under the Convention this comes to an end, because any ship which obtains a certificate given by the country to which it belongs which satisfies the regulations of the Safety Convention has what is called a Convention certificate, and this country pledges itself to accept that Convention certificate in place of any regulation of the Board of Trade. Therefore you would have British ships with additional regulations imposed on them by the Board of Trade, whereas foreign ships coming into our ports, instead of having the same regulations as is the ease now, would have lesser ones, and would therefore he at an advantage in comparison with our ships. The view of the shipowners is that, if the Government insist on maintaining this position, they are placed in a worse position if this Bill is passed into law than they are in at present, and so seriously do they think of the matter that they are inclined to say that they would prefer that the Convention should be dropped altogether rather than that a provision of that kind should be made in the Bill. It is a Committee point, I admit, but a very big one, and therefore I think it is only right that it should be mentioned now.
Your Lordships will hardly be surprised that the shipowners should take a very strong line in regard to discriminatory burdens being placed on British ships. Let me remind your Lordships of the condition of British ship-

25
ping at this moment. Let me remind you that 2,500,000 tons of British shipping are at this moment laid up, and that even those ships which are running in many cases have only 50 per cent. of their cargo space occupied, and that the numbers of passengers have been very seriously reduced since last year. So serious is the situation in Liverpool that the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association report that owners of ships are finding great difficulty in obtaining accommodation in which to lay up their ships, because so many ships are lying idle in that port. Nor is it necessary that the Board of Trade should be given these additional powers. I do not want to weary your Lordships, but let me be permitted to give you a very few figures in regard to the safety of life at sea, which are very remarkable. In the ten-year period from 1880–1889, for every million net tons on the register of British shipping, the total number of lives lost was 265. Twenty years later, in the decade from 1900–1909, the number had dropped to seventy-nine lives per million net tons, and by 1920–1929 it had fallen to twenty-one. Therefore it was four times as safe to travel at sea between 1920 and 1929 as it was twenty years earlier, and twelve times safer than it was in 1880 to 1889. The average number of deaths at sea by wrecks and casualties in 1920–1929 was the extraordinarily low one of 245, of which 232 were crew and thirteen passengers—and this in spite of the fact that the figures of the "Vestris" disaster are included, and that in that disastrous wreck no fewer than sixty-eight passengers lost their lives. Your Lordships will see that without it the figures of passengers would be reduced to six or seven per annum. Compare that total of 245 lives lost with the deaths from street accidents, which in 1929 were, for Great Britain alone, 6,505, or twenty-six and a-half times as many as all the deaths from wrecks at sea in ships under the Red Ensign. That is a magnificent record.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord that England has always led the way, and I understand his feeling that we should not now crystallise the position and refuse to go further. But we do not propose to crystallise the position, because we do not propose to abolish private enterprise. The shipping companies are always trying the way, the
26
British Mercantile Marine as a whole is going ahead and masters, officers and men are always attempting to make British ships safer year by year. What they do ask is that, where a Convention provides regulations for the safety of life at sea, that Convention should remain the limit to which burdens can legally be imposed by the Board of Trade; that in matters not covered by Conventions, the Board of Trade should continue to have the same power that it has now to impose such regulations as it thinks necessary while Parliament will always retain complete control, as Parliament always must. If the Board of Trade thinks that, on account of some great disaster or through the increase of knowledge or something of that kind, a further advance ought to be made, it should be necessary for the Board of Trade to come to Parliament and receive ad hoc powers from Parliament for that purpose. Then we hope that the Board of Trade will arrange to have further International Conventions, which is not after all a very difficult, matter, and will say: "We all agree that we have now come to the stage when we can make a further step forward. Let us make that step forward together. If we fail to do it, the whole purpose of this Convention, which is equality of opportunity and burden, is thrown overboard and the whole essence and reason of the Convention is destroyed."
I apologise to your Lordships for having to refer to the point, but it is one of very great importance and I feel that, when the Government think the matter over further, they will realise that we are right in saying that we ought not to impose a further burden on an industry which is already so severely hit and make it even more impossible for us to compete with foreign ships than we find it at the present time. I think that is all I have to say to your Lordships at this stage. Personally, as I said at the beginning, I look on this Bill as a great charter for the safety of life at sea, and I hope that, with the amendments which I have suggested to your Lordships, it will rapidly pass into law. I believe that, when it does so, British ships will still continue to lead the way in regard to the safety of life at sea, and it will be recognised that we have done a very great deal, not

27
only for our own ships but for the whole world, in making it safer to travel on that element.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl who has just spoken that those who were responsible and had a chief part in helping to frame these Conventions are to be congratulated on the work which they have accomplished. The Bill now before us deals with the two Conventions. It is unnecessary that we should deal with the separation which was at one time proposed, and I do not intend to take up your Lordships' time by reference to those earlier proceedings. I find myself almost in complete agreement with what has been said in introducing the Bill, and very largely in agreement with what fell from the noble Earl, evidently with very great knowledge and insight into this matter. With regard to the procedure, I am prepared to agree with that proposed by the Leader of the House, and I think that, in the circumstances, it is the wisest course to adopt.
Except on one point, to which I will refer very briefly, I am not going to discuss the general position at this stage. I confess that the conservative instinct in me, which I often have to correct, is so strong that I am inclined to prefer the old-fashioned method with which we are all familiar, since we are a very great shipping community. We have been leaders and we are still leaders, and it is perhaps not exactly unenviable that we should have held this position and should cling to what we have been accustomed to. But I do not regard this as a vital point, and I shall be prepared to change my view and to take direct orders, if I ever find myself at the wheel, rather than cling to that to which we have been accustomed and which I understand, if insisted upon, would really ruin all the prospects of carrying through this Convention. To my mind, speaking with all respect, I cannot but think that that ought to be a complete answer to the point which has been raised. Once we know that if we refuse to pass Article 41 of the Convention we shall lose the enormous benefit of the uniformity which has been introduced, I think we must decide to put up with any inconvenience and gradually get ourselves accustomed to the direct order.
28
There is one thing which gives a little comfort to me, and also perhaps to some not as old as I am, but who nevertheless have had experience of orders which I may call indirect. It is perhaps not as difficult to change as may be imagined. Many of us have been accustomed to driving in foreign countries, where we have to get accustomed to keeping on a different side of the road. There is no such convention as here, but what I am pointing out with regard to it is that it is workable, and where you have at stake the existence of Conventions so important, I confess, for myself, guided as I usually am content to be by my noble friend Lord Inchcape, who knows so much about these matters, and whose word I accept without question on anything to do with shipping—especially when he tells me on which side of the ship I ought to seek my cabin—I cannot on this occasion follow him, because I know that I am imperilling the Convention. I am sure he will forgive me for saying that I am not sure whether, if he thought that by insisting upon an Amendment maintaining our present helm orders he would imperil the Convention—whether, persistent and determined as he is when he has taken a view, he would adhere to it up to the last minute.
I pass to what I consider a very important point raised by the noble Earl. I am not speaking my own opinion in this matter, but I am guided very largely by those who understand these matters, and especially by the British Ship Owners' Parliamentary Committee. As I understand it, the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, was that it is very necessary that we should keep in our own hands the right to change regulations and laws as we may think fit for the preservation of the safety of ships. Of course, no one can dispute that, and, so far as I have understood him, nothing has been said by the noble Earl which would in the slightest degree militate against that argument. Of course, we are not to be bound by the Convention to the extent that we cannot change laws as we think necessary. Having regard to our position as leaders in maritime affairs, we must be the supreme guide in these matters, and therefore I raise no question as to the statement that our right to change regulations and laws must be preserved; but I earnestly

29
ask the Government to consider carefully whether they think it necessary to insist with regard to matters which arise out of the Convention—such questions as would interfere with the agreements embodied in the Convention—that the Board of Trade and the Government should have the right to change any part of the regulations without bringing the matter before Parliament.
That, as I understand it, is the critical point. I think I understood the noble Earl correctly when he spoke, and his view was the same as mine, that in these respects the Board of Trade ought not to have this power. It has its powers to issue and change regulations—we know all that was done after the inquiry into the loss of the "Titanic"—and we want to preserve that position, particularly with regard to the safety of ships. Nevertheless, it is also most essential that you should, where possible, get uniformity. We have after many years, and great difficulties, by this Convention succeeded in getting uniformity with regard to a, great number of ships, which may be called Convention ships, but if a change is to be made in those, in regard to some matter which comes within the Convention, then do let us keep the supremacy of Parliament and do not let us entrust such a matter to a Department. It is necessary, no doubt, that a Department should have these overriding powers, to which the Leader of the House has referred, and with which we are not intending to interfere, but, where it is a question of dealing with matters which come within the Convention, then do let us have an Amendment to the Bill accepted by the Government, which would have this effect, that such a matter must come before Parliament before the change can be made.
You have made Parliament supreme, as it must be, for the purpose of ratifying the Convention. Parliament is now going to enact all the various essentials required, and there is very little more that is necessary, but that very little more is so important, as I understand it, that anxious as the British Ship Owners' Parliamentary Committee are to have the benefit of this Convention and of the uniformity which is introduced, I believe they would rather imperil the Convention than surrender the power entirely to what I may call without offence a bureaucracy, instead of keeping it within the
30
hands of Parliament to determine a question which cannot often arise. When we get to the Committee stage and an Amendment is moved to that effect I would urge the Government to accept it, and so enable us thus to get the proposals of these Conventions placed on the Statute-book with the assent of all Parties.
What is being asked is very reasonable, and, I cannot but think, very modest. It will only interfere with the present powers of the Board of Trade to a very small extent—small in extent, that is, as regards the number of cases on which it would arise, because the matter itself may be of great importance. If the Government can see their way to accept an Amendment of that kind there will be no difficulty. But on the whole and speaking for myself and those whom I have had the opportunity of consulting, I think it is eminently desirable that we should pass the Bill which embodies the results of these Conventions, and that we should make it law as soon as possible.
THE EARL OF INCHCAPE: My Lords, I am not a sailor, but, associated as I have been with shipping for well over sixty years, I would ask your Lordships' permission to say a few words on Clause 29 of the Bill which is now before your Lordships' House, which alters helm orders. I see that it is amongst those headed "Miscellaneous Provisions for furthering Safety of Life at Sea," but how the reversal of helm orders in British ships is going to further safety of life at sea it is quite impossible to imagine. Indeed, common sense would appear to indicate that quite the reverse will be the case. I view with the gravest apprehension the proposal to reverse the existing helm orders and to render officers liable to a penalty which may run up to £50 if a helm order contrary to Clause 29 is given.
The words "starboard" and "port" have been in existence from time immemorial, and are well understood by captains, officers and seamen. When a helm order was given in the days when the rudder was moved by the tiller, before the introduction of the wheel, "starboard" meant that the man at the tiller was to walk over to starboard, bringing the rudder to "port," and when "port" was the order that he was

31
to walk over to "port" and bring the rudder to "starboard." When wheels came to take the place of tillers, the order "starboard" meant that the wheel was to be moved to "port" and the order "port" that it was to be moved to "starboard," following the old custom. This rule has been in operation for generations, all captains, officers and seamen having been brought up with it, and they all understand it. To put it in another way, when an obstruction appears on the "starboard" or right hand, and has to be avoided, the order "starboard" is given, the wheel is turned to "port" and the rudder is brought over to "port," so as to bring the vessel's head away from the danger. The same rule applies if the danger to be avoided is on the "port" or left hand: the order "port" is given, the wheel is turned to "starboard" and the rudder moves to "starboard," and the vessel's head moves to "starboard," away from the danger.
There has been no case of accident, so far as I am aware, with the present arrangement, and this is entirely borne out by several Judges who have had many years experience in the Admiralty Court. Further, I know of no Board of Trade inquiry where a casualty has been attributed to a wrongly given helm order under the helm orders as they at present exist. Mr. Justice Hill, of the Admiralty Court, prior to his retirement, stated that "he had tried something like 800 cases of collision, but he could recall no single case in which it could be proved that the collision was due to any confusion of helm orders. So far, therefore, as his experience went, no change was called for." Lord Merrivale, President of the Admiralty Court, when the first Bill was brought forward for Second Reading not long ago—embodying the Safety of Life at Sea Convention only—spoke very strongly indeed against the proposition contained in the Convention to reverse helm orders in British ships. Lord Atkin, now a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary—who has had great experience in Admiralty cases—especially in the Court of Appeal, denounced in very strong terms the reversal of helm orders in British ships at the annual meeting of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, held on March 11 last. I am afraid the
32
change, if persisted in, may lead to serious consequences. The many thousands of our seafaring men will have to forget what they learnt in their boyhood, and what they have been accustomed to all their lives.
There is another extremely important factor which, so far as I know, seems to be either quite ignored or forgotten. In many British ships, especially those trading permanently abroad—say in Eastern waters—the quartermasters, steersmen, "sea-cunnies," or whatever other name they may be called, are natives, and for the most part British subjects, and their knowledge of the English language is confined to "port" and "starboard" in their existing sense. At present they are skilled and reliable steersmen, but I ask your Lordships to imagine the position which would arise should they be instructed that at midnight on a certain date they must do exactly the opposite to what they have been accustomed during all their seafaring lives. Any such change would be quite beyond their ken, and chaos would prevail.
The proposal has created grave and widespread concern amongst those reponsible for the safe navigation of our merchant marine, whilst a similar feeling exists amongst British pilots. As to the latter, the United Kingdom Pilots' Association voted against the change at the conference at Trinity House, and I understand that other representative bodies of pilots, that is, the London Trinity House River Pilots, and the London Trinity House Channel Pilots have petitioned Parliament not to agree to the change. The Imperial Merchant Service Guild and the Mercantile Marine Service Association, the two recognised representative bodies of captains and officers of the merchant navy, are against the change, and have already presented Petitions to this House and to the House of Commons praying that the Conventions embodied in this Bill be approved subject to the deletion of Clause 29, which seeks to reverse helm orders in British ships. I am also informed that a Petition to Parliament against the proposal has been in course of signature for some time past. It has been organised quite irrespective of any particular nautical organisation or organisations, and I understand that over

33
8,550 fully qualified and competent shipmasters, navigating officers and pilots in active service have signed this Petition. Surely this is striking proof of the feeling of alarm which exists amongst the responsible officers of the merchant navy.
I understand that the object of the change is to ensure uniformity of helm orders in the different maritime countries. But I find that the next biggest maritime country to our own, with a tonnage of 14,045,808, that is America, is still, in her merchant navy, using the "indirect" system of helm orders as it exists in this country. Nothing has as yet been done in America to ratify the London International Convention on Safety of Life at Sea. That part of this Bill which embodies this Convention is, according to Clause 38, to come into operation on the 1st day of July next. I am informed that even consideration of the ratification of the Safety of Life at Sea Convention by the United States is delayed definitely until next December at the earliest. If Clause 29 of this Bill is ratified by the British Parliament, it will amount to a revolution in a time-honoured practice, and I am safe to say it will involve great danger to the safety of ships' cargoes and life at sea.
The late Mr. Thomas Gray, at one time Assistant Secretary of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, penned, many years ago, a formula for our captains and officers which they all know by heart. In it he said:—
"If to your starboard red appear
It is your duty to keep clear
To act as judgment says is proper
To port or starboard, back or stop her
But when upon your port is seen
A steamer's starboard light of green
There's not so much for you to do
For green to port keeps clear of you."
I sincerely hope there may be no change, at any rate for British ships, in the helm orders which have served us so long and so well.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I wish to ask a question. I know nothing about shipping but, as I understand it, from listening to the debate the giving of the helm orders in British ships as they are given now in no way leads to loss of life. If that is correct, I understand that the only reason why we should alter them is that other nations will not confirm the Convention if we do not. Why should we alter because other nations ask us to do so? Why should
34
not other nations come to our method and navigate their ships in the same way that we do? I do not see why we should always give way to other nations. Let us stand up for ourselves for once.
LORD ATKIN: My Lords, might I add a few words to what has been said with very much greater weight by the noble Lord, Lord Incheape? It would be impertinent of me to profess to speak with the authority with which he speaks, but, after all, we are only discussing the question as to whether a Second Reading shall be given to this Bill. I suppose there is nobody in the House who is not prepared to agree that a Second Reading shall be given. I rise for the purpose of letting it be understood that the question of the helm orders will not go by default. On the contrary, there will be the most uncompromising opposition to that clause in the Bill, and for this reason. The Bill is a Bill to promote safety of life at sea. That is the object of the Convention which includes this clause. Nobody can suggest that safety of life at sea is imperilled by the present form of helm orders. The noble Lord, Lord Banbury, asked a very pertinent question in that respect and the answer has been given by those very distinguished Judges who have presided for so many years in the Admiralty Court, that no one's safety has been imperilled by the present orders. After all, what does it matter to foreigners or to anybody else in what language or in what terms helm orders are given in a British ship, so long as that ship takes the course which the navigating officer intends her to take? The whole object of the helm orders is to ensure that the ship goes to the right, to use a landsman's term, when the navigating officer wishes her to go to the right and to the left when he wishes her to go to the left. That is secured efficiently, accurately and promptly by the present orders.
The next question is whether or not safety of life at sea will be promoted by changing the helm orders. Upon that your Lordships will have sufficient evidence on the Committee stage that, in the opinion not of the shipowners but of those who go down to the sea in ships, their safety and the safety of the passengers entrusted to their charge will be grievously imperilled by this change in the helm orders. It is not a question

35
of adhering to ancient and traditional terms. It is not a question of whether or not, during the transitional period, there will be immediate danger to life and property. I venture to assure your Lordships that the overwhelming majority of the persons who go clown to the sea in ships are of opinion that, during the transitional period, there will be a vastly increased and real danger to life. It is for that reason, I am told, that some 8,500 navigating officers in active service, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Inchcape, are violently opposed to this change. They have no other reason, political or otherwise, for that opinion. Their interests are, if anything, against coming out into the open and advocating a view opposed to that expressed by the majority of their owners. The reason they are of that opinion is that they are satisfied that their lives and the lives of those entrusted to them will really be endangered during the transitional period by this change.
What they say is that the present orders are so engrained in the minds of old navigating officers that it. will be impossible during the transitional period, when the time of emergency comes, to change quite suddenly the whole of their psychological arrangements and say "Starboard" when in the old days they would have said "Port." They say that it is riot merely a question of the navigating officer but of the helmsman, and it is not a question of the up-to-date quartermasters whom we would find in the American liners and, if I may say so, in the P. and O. boats. It is a question of craft in narrow waters and in foreign waters where the crew, including the steersmen, are foreigners, who have been trained with great difficulty to take the helm and have been taught that when they are told to "starboard" they must put the ship's head to "port" and when they are told to "port" they must put her head to "starboard." Somehow or other those men will have to be made to unlearn the only meaning which has ever been given to those words in the whole of their existence, and the lives of the people on board of that and other ships will be risked if those orders are not carried out.
My noble friend Lord Inchcape was not taunted with, but it was suggested that he was, ploughing a lonely furrow.
36
On the contrary. If the ships which hold the officers who desire the change were compared with the ships containing the officers who are afraid of the change there would be an extraordinary disproportion. The latter ships would cover the ocean; the other ships would be numbered, I venture to think, upon the fingers of one or two hands. It is a very important question. Your Lordships will not have to consider merely the question of these helm orders as a bargaining counter for securing other advantages in respect of safety of life at sea or of the load line, wireless telegraphy and so on. What you will have to consider is whether or not there can be any justification for exposing the people who actually go on the ships to a real danger.
It is suggested that the Convention will be lost if this clause disappears. It is a little difficult to follow that suggestion. If it be really true that this change in the helm orders will not secure the further safety of a single foreigner on any foreign vessel, it is a little difficult to understand how it can be that the Governments of foreign countries will ignore the other provisions which it has been unanimously agreed do make for safety because one clause is abandoned which has nothing to do with safety of life at sea. I doubt very much whether either the Legislature or the Executive in foreign countries could possibly take such a narrow view as that. I will say no more about the matter at the present moment except to emphasise once more that it is one which vitally concerns safety. They are not conservative in the sense of seeking to avoid change merely because it is change. These are the very men who showed themselves absolutely fearless in the sight of danger not so very many years ago, and these men are now really afraid of this change. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that the matter will have to be very carefully considered when it comes to dealing with this particular clause in Committee.
EARL STANHOPE: May I ask the noble and learned Lord one question? What happens when a foreign pilot goes on to a British ship to take a British ship into a foreign port? Or, similarly, what happens to a British pilot when he goes on to a foreign ship to bring that foreign ship into a British port?
LORD ATKIN: I shall not give an answer to that as an expert. All I can say as a matter of fact is that no lives are imperilled under the present condition of things. I believe what happens is that if there is any difficulty about it the foreign pilot gives his orders through the British officer.
THE EARL OF INCHCAPE: May I supplement that answer, because I can speak from experience? In the Suez Canal there are a certain number of British pilots and a number of foreign pilots; and there are British pilots taking foreign ships through the Canal and foreign pilots taking British ships through the Canal. There has never in my experience—and I have been connected with the Canal for something like twenty-five years—been a single case of danger of not understanding the orders given.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I understand that so far as the Second Reading is concerned, there is really no objection in any part of the House. I do not want to follow what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, but I think I ought to say this, that the whole information which I have, and which comes from the most accredited sources, is entirely in opposition to the statements that he has made. But that will have to be further considered when the matter comes up for discussion on the Committee stage. I only wish to say that now, because we are dealing with a Convention that was originally dealt with by the best experts that could be obtained in all those countries. We are dealing with a matter on which the shipowners in this country, through their Parliamentary Committee, are agreed, and I think the argument used by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, is unanswerable, that this is not an occasion to go into that particular matter. I therefore ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading, and allow the matters which have been mentioned to stand over for the Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WIDOWS', ORPHANS' AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Perhaps I had better explain very brie fly how this measure arises. The Bill is intended to extend for a further period of five years the Housing (Rural Workers) Act of 1926. There are a considerable number of houses in rural areas in a bad state of repair which are capable of being repaired and reconstructed, and while it is quite clear that it is better to build new houses, and in the end perhaps far cheaper in many cases to build new houses, yet there are houses which can be reconstructed, and the object of the Act, and of this Bill which is extending the Act for a further period of five years, is to enable the reconstruction of these houses to go on assisted by grants from the State and the local authorities.
The arrangement is that the cost of the reconstruction of a house is paid for in equal thirds by the local authority, the Government and the owner of the house. In the past five years, it has been found that the average share paid by each of these three in England has amounted to £39 and in Scotland to £42 10 s. I might say in this connection that the Act has been very much more used in Scotland than in England, and I propose in a moment to explain for the information of your Lordships the extent to which the Act has been made use of in Scotland and in England, so that we can compare the two. The improvements generally, consist of adding additional bedrooms—many of the rural cottages contain only two bedrooms; that is insufficient either for morality or decency—the putting in of water supply, the building of sculleries, the putting in of baths and, where possible, w.c.s, the repair of defective roofs and defective floors, and doing away, where possible, with dampness and poorly constructed or damaged windows. The grants are given subject to specific conditions—that is to say, the owner of the house must guarantee that the house shall be occupied either by a rural worker, or by a worker of approximately equivalent economic status, during a period of twenty years.

39
One other point in this connection. Arrangements are made under which the owner cannot seriously increase the rent of the house except in so far as his third of the total cost of reconstruction is concerned. I may say that in Scotland there is practically never any increase of rent, because the houses are tied cottages. In England, where the powers of increase are made available, they are very seldom actually used. I am informed that the average possible increase is In the neighbourhood of one shilling a week, and that the actual average increase as a rule is only a few pence, so that the cost to the occupiers of the houses has not been very great.
The extent to which the Act has been used is the justification for proposing that it should be continued. It took a long time to get any use made of the Act by local authorities. It was passed in 1926, and in 1927 we only had 281 certificates of approval in Scotland and 150 in England. Scotland, with a population one-tenth that of England, used the Act to nearly twice the extent of England. In the following year, 1928, there was an improvement, and 1,100 houses were reconditioned in Scotland and 1,100 in England. In 1929 the Scottish figures rose to 2,100, while the English remained at 1,100. In 1930—last year—the Scottish certificates of approval granted numbered 3,400 whereas in England the number granted was only 1,500. It is quite clear that the Act is being used in Scotland to a very considerable and useful extent, and therefore I want to make it clear at once that it is mainly on behalf of Scotland that this continuation is being urged, but that we do not despise at all the extent to which it is being used in England. In Scotland all the 33 counties have made use of, or have offered to use, the Act. In England the proportion of counties was not so great, as the figures will have indicated to your Lordships, but it is possible—and I think we ought to provide for the possibility—that there may be an increase in the use made of the Act, particularly because the Ministry have during the past two months by circular and by action of their general inspectors urged local bodies to use this and every other means to improve housing in rural areas.
I told your Lordships that the cost of these improvements was divided into three parts, one being paid by the Gov-
40
ernment, one being paid by the local authority and one being paid by the owner of the house. The total cost of the improvements is limited as far as the payments by the State and the local authority are concerned to £100. In other words, if the cost of an improvement is more than £150 everything beyond £100 will be paid by the owner of the house. I may say that assistance can be given either by grant or by loan, but the loan method of obtaining assistance has scarcely ever been used. It is clear that landlords feel that the grant method enables them to re-condition more easily than the loan method, or at any rate the loan method as regards loans from local authorities.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Is the grant a gift?
LORD MARLEY: The grant is a gift. With regard to the cost—this, I have no doubt, will interest the noble Lord, Lord Banbury—the payment by the State is made in the form not of a cash grant but of an annual payment for twenty years, and this, of course, will tend to become less after we have reached the peak of the number of houses being re-conditioned; that is to say, in 1947, twenty years from the date when the first grant was made in 1927. The total annual Exchequer liability up to September 30 last year was £33,000 a year. It is estimated that this will reach a total of £51,000 by September 30 this year under the existing Act as it stands, and if your Lordships agree to continue the Act for a further five years it is estimated—it is only an estimate, because it is impossible to know to what extent the Act will be used—that we shall have a further 25,000 houses re-conditioned, which will increase the Exchequer liability to a, peak of £133,000 a year, which will decline from 1947 onwards. I think one may say that these statistics of the number of houses being re-conditioned do show that at least in Scotland some fair use is being made of the 1926 Act and that there are signs of an improved use of the Act in England. I think therefore that your Lordships will agree that in view of the growing rate at which the Act is being made use of it would be unfortunate that it should not be allowed to continue. I therefore move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Marley.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State has explained this Bill to your Lord-ships with much lucidity and I merely rise for a few moments to assure His Majesty's Government that we on this side of the House do not offer any opposition to the Bill. Why should we? This is our Act which His Majesty's Government—in their wisdom, as we think—are continuing for another five years in spite of the gloomy prognostications indulged in in this House and in another place in December, 1926. We are not, in this House, accustomed to make use of violent diatribes as regards Bills of which we do not approve and we were fortunately spared the violent and extraordinary language which the present Minister of Health used about our Bill when it was brought in in another place five years ago, but I would remark that I have read the debates in this House when the Bill was introduced by my noble friend Viscount Gage on December 10, 1926.
I observed that the noble and learned Lord who now leads the House and who I am sorry to see has left his place, made what I can only call a rather funereal and gloomy speech. He and his then colleague, Lord Olivier, while not opposing the Bill, damned it, I may say, with faint praise, and the noble and learned Lord wound up by saying that although they hoped for the best they were afraid that the Bill would do very little. I am quite sure that the noble and learned Lord in the goodness of his heart is feeling pleasantly surprised at the great success which has attended this measure. I have been supplied with certain figures as regards the use made of this measure, but the noble Lord has read to your Lordships figures which are even better than the ones I have. From the figures he gave us, I gather, after doing a hasty sum in addition, that some 10,000 houses in Scotland and England have been dealt with under this Act. I do not call that a very small result. It means that counting the tenants of the houses and their families probably 40,000 or 50,000 people have been made more happy and comfortable than before.
LORD MARLEY: It is 11,000 houses auproved—not actually re-conditioned.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I quite understand. The larger number of dwellings dealt with under the Act of five years ago has been dealt with during the last two or three years, and I think the reason for that, as my noble friend who introduced the Bill in 1926 said, is that this did not pretend to be more than a minor measure. I think that in the case of these minor Acts of Parliament it takes local authorities a certain time to realise what are their implications and what are their responsibilities and powers under these various measures. That, I think, is why progress under the existing Act has been more rapid during the last two or three years and that is why I am sure greater progress will be made under the new Bill in the future.
There is one protest I should like to raise and that is with regard to circular 1197 issued by the Ministry of Health on April 27 last, just a few days after the Bill had received a Second Reading in another place. This is a circular issued by the Minister deploring the slow progress which has been made in the provision of houses in the rural districts, and one would have thought that the Minister might have pointed out the advantages of the existing Act and asked local authorities to interest themselves in the matter. Instead of this, the only reference to it is in the appendix, where there is a space at the end of the form headed "Scope for action under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926." I really think that if His Majesty's Government wish the existing Act, and this Bill when it becomes law, to work properly, they ought to take a little more notice of it. I think it is a point which my noble friend might bring before the Minister of Health whether another circular could not be issued drawing the attention of local authorities to this new Bill in somewhat plainer terms. His Majesty's Government have had a fortunate day in this House, and I congratulate them—I am glad to be able to do it—on having brought forward a Bill which will not annoy anybody but, on the contrary, will make a great many people in this country comfortable and happy. I hope the Bill will get a Second Reading, and will pass rapidly through its remaining stages and become the law of the land.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I should like to take up a moment of your

43
Lordships' time in asking the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill a question. The noble Lord called attention to the great disparity which exists in the extent to which this Act has been used in England as compared with Scotland, and I should be very glad if he were able to tell us what, in his opinion or that of his experts, were the reasons for this.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: A Scotsman will always get money for nothing if he can.
LORD DANESFORT: I would suggest that, if there is some special reason which he can discover why the Act is not operating as well in England as in Scotland, he should introduce an Amendment into this Bill which would facilitate its operation in England. I remember that when the Act was brought in it appeared to me a most admirable measure for repairing cottages in England at very small expense and making them suitable for labourers and people living on the farms, and I was astonished to see that it was not used in England so much as one would expect. Perhaps when the noble Lord comes to reply he will be able to tell us if there is any reason why the Act has been used less in England than in Scotland, and whether he would be willing to introduce some Amendment which would make it more easily operated in England than at present.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I was anxious to raise a point, not only with regard to the disparity between the use made of this Act in Scotland and in England, but also as to the very different use made of it in various counties in England. Some counties have used it largely and others have hardly used it at all. I have more than once asked the reason for this, and I am told that it has been largely due to the fact that in certain counties the Act has been popularized, and in some counties which have used it most actively there has been co-operation between the rural councils and the county councils. I believe that Devonshire has used this Act more than any other county in England, and I am told that at the very outset the Devon County Council got into touch with the various rural councils and asked for their full co-operation. The result is that in
44
that county the Act has been used much more fully and beneficially than in any other county in England. I believe more could be done with this very useful little Act if some methods were adopted to popularise it and to make the various local authorities much more familiar with its contents and with what can be done under it. I hope very much, therefore, that if this Bill passes steps will be taken to circularise still further and more fully the various local authorities. I congratulate the Government on this Bill, and I hope it will pass.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I will snake a few very brief remarks in reply to the very kindly criticism that has been put forward. With regard to the circular referred to by my noble friend who followed the debates so carefully in 1926—I am sorry he did not get more from them in this House; he could have got a great deal in the other House—the Minister has instructed his general inspectors to bring to the notice of the county councils the possibilities of this Bill. I do not, know why it is—it may be the personality of the inspectors, or it may be the personnel of certain county councils—but some counties use the Bill and others do not. It is thought that generally speaking the South is less quick in coming forward than the North, but here we have Devonshire, right in the South, well ahead of many Northern counties. I confess that I cannot explain the problem. In Scotland I think perhaps the reason that the Bill has been more used is that there are rather worse houses and bad housing conditions are more numerous, and also that the walls of the houses are often very much stronger than the roofs so that you can often repair the roof and the walls will take the new roofs. It is easy to find many small houses and crofts in Scotland with walls two feet thick. You will see broken-down cottages in Scotland without roofs but with walls that have perhaps been standing for two hundred years. I think that perhaps that may be the cause of the greater use of the Act in Scotland. I am sure that this country will learn from the Scottish example and, if this Act is continued for a further five years, will, as the noble Lord, Lord Temple-more, said, make greater use of it in the future.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, this is a small Bill to provide further money for the postal, telegraphic and telephonic systems. As your Lordships know, the capital for developing the telephone system is provided by advances made by the National Debt Commissioners and repaid to them by means of annuities charged on the Post Office vote. The last of these Acts was passed in 1928, when capital to the extent of £27,50,000 was issued. This sum is almost exhausted, only £650,000 remaining, and the cost of the programme for the current financial year is estimated at about £11,000,000. The amount expended in the year ending March 31, 1931, was £10,835,000. This Bill authorises the issue of £32,000,000 and of that sum about £29,000,000 will be devoted to the telephone service and the balance to the postal and telegraph services. This sum will meet capital requirements up to March 31, 1934. This does not preclude the Postmaster-General coming_ to Parliament for a further grant should the development be more rapid.
Perhaps, if your Lordships will allow me, I might say a word or two with regard to telephone development. During the last three years the telephone service has shown a net growth of 351,000 stations for telephones. Last year's net increase, despite widespread industrial depression, was over 100,000, and that is taking into account a certain amount of loss from business alterations, economies, etc.—what are known as, cessations. The total number of stations in the system on March 31 was 1,982,171, and it is anticipated that the two millionth telephone will be installed during the current month. Great progress has continued to be made in the matter of establishing public call offices. At the end of March of this year the number of call offices throughout the country was 34,618, representing an in-
46
crease of 10,564 during the last three years. The increase during the last year was 3,527, including 1,740 new call offices in rural areas. Among the number were 2,215 new kiosks, 540 of which were in rural areas. The total number of kiosks (open day and night and on Sundays) is now 10,255, including 1,268 in rural areas. This particular development is a success and is very popular. There has been a considerable progress in linking up rural railway stations with the public telephone system, the number of stations connected at March 31 last being 1,974. This figure represents a growth of 120 per cent. during the last three years.
There has been a continuation of the policy of carrying the telephone into rural areas, and that is further illustrated by the fact that the number of rural exchanges opened since 1922 is 1,590. At present a substantial portion of the annual cost of rural exchanges is borne not by the subscribers who directly benefit but by the general body of telephone users. But further encouragement is going to be given to subscribers in rural areas by the normal tariffs which were introduced on January 1, 1931, in place of the higher tariff of £8 per annum previously required for a circuit to a rural exchange with from eight to fourteen subscribers. Thousands of existing subscribers benefited from this concession.
I will say a word or two about foreign telephone development. During the last few years great strides have been made in the development of the overseas telephone services. In March, 1925, communication by telephone was possible with only four overseas countries. Now this number has been increased to thirty-eight. During the year ended March 31, 1931, the number of local calls was 1,371,000,000, and the number of inland trunk calls was 122,000,000. I only give these figures very cursorily to show your Lordships that every attention is being paid to the continued development of the telephone services, and the Postmaster-General, while defending himself from criticisms in another place on the Second Reading of this indicated that he intended to take every advantage of the new developments of advertising in order further to advertise the telephone system, and to pay very special

47
attention to the alteration, where necessary, of regulations which in any way embarrassed the quick development of the service. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I think I understood the noble Lord to say that the £32,000,000 might be sufficient for three years, and that after that it might be necessary to spend more money. The £32,000,000 will have to be borrowed, and there is a provision in the Bill that the Treasury may for this purpose borrow money by the issue of Exchequer bonds, etc. I suppose they will not be able to borrow at much under 4 per cent., even if they get it at that, and I should like to know, irrespective of these figures as to the number of calls, which probably includes wrong calls, what prospect there is of the interest being paid by telephone subscribers, and what prospect there is of a sinking fund being created which will within a given time pay off the £32,000,000. We must not forget that our financial position at the present moment is extremely critical, and although it might be wise to go into speculative matters and endeavour by advertising to create a demand for telephones, we ought to consider whether we have money to spare for that purpose and whether it would not be better to save a little money and not spend it at the present moment. If the noble Lord can assure me that the increase in revenue will be sufficient to pay the interest and create a sinking fund, I shall have nothing much to say, but unless he can give that assurance I must liken the Bill to the rake's progress, which ends in disaster.
LORD DANESFORT: I should like to support what has been said by my noble friend. I hope the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading will be able to give us some reasonable evidence that the expenditure of this enormous sum of money will prove remunerative. I think there is special reason for asking at the present moment for such an assurance, because we all know that millions of public money are to-day being spent on absolutely unremunerative investments. I go round the country and see millions being spent upon roads and footpaths which are absolutely useless. I have made protests to the county councils, and
48
they say that their surveyors recommend them. I suppose the experience of other noble Lords is the same as mine, that millions are being spent not only uselessly but mischievously upon roads. I will not go into the mischievous abuse of the "dole," but it is within everyone's knowledge that we ought not to spend one farthing of public money unless we are able to see not only advantage to the public but that the expenditure will be remunerative. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give us some reassurance upon the remunerative nature of this expenditure.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I think I can give the two noble Lords that assurance. It is a highly remunerative expenditure. It always makes a profit for us after paying interest and depreciation, and it was, I think, very much pressed on the present Government in another place, that the greatest possible efforts should be made in developing the telephone services. Complaint was made that we were not up to the mark reached by other countries, and the Government was very strongly urged to spend money in this way, knowing that it brought in a good return and there was no loss to the Exchequer in the total result. Therefore I was rather surnrised that this measure should be criticised in that way, but, having received this assurance, I hope your Lordships will allow the Second Reading to be passed.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

PALESTINE AND EAST AFRICA LOANS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, this is also a Money Bill, but I want to assure your Lordships that it does not authorise the expenditure of a single penny. The Act which it amends was passed in 1926. It authorised the raising of loans to the extent, so far as East Africa is concerned, of £10,000,000 in the aggregate for railways, harbours, roads and so on. But there was, as we now find, a small mistake in the Act. The Act authorised the Government to guarantee loans raised by these Posses-

49
sions, provided that the Colony or territory passed legislation making the principal and interest of the loan and the sinking fund a charge on their revenue having priority over all other charges not then existing. The Government of Tanganyika raised a loan of £2,000,000, which was guaranteed, and, in accordance with the Act, they passed an Ordinance making it a charge on their revenues with priority over any other charges. Now they want another loan, and we find they cannot comply with the Act of 1926, because they have already promised to give a. priority over any future charges, and that Act requires that any loan should have the same priority over charges not existing at the time of the Act of 1926. The purpose of
50
this Bill is simply to get over that little difficulty, and to say that it shall be sufficient if they give priority to any other charges except only any one given in accordance with the Act of 1926. It is the smallest possible amendment of the Act, and really it carries out what was the original intention. This Bill being a certified Money Bill, if the House accepts it it will not be necessary to go into Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Passfield.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.

TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
LONDON ELECTRIC, METRO POLITAN DISTRICT, AND CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
NORTH KILLINGHOLME, (ADMIRALTY PIER) BILL.
Message from the Commons, That they have come to the following Resolution to which they desire the concurrence of this House, namely: That it is expedient that the North Killingholme (Admiralty Pier) Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons: The said Message to be taken into consideration on Thursday next.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
The Order made on the 19th of May last, appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bill, discharged.
WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Abinger be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Roundway: Read, and agreed to.