§ Mr. MONTGOMERYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the facts that Mr. Justice Buckley, in the case of the Great Western Railway Company v. Blades, in 1901, said that within the decision in the case of the Glasgow Corporation v. Farie, in 1888, the same clay may be a mineral in one district and not in another, and that both these cases are cited in that of the Great Western Railway Company v. the Carpalla United China Clay Company, Limited, to which the Government have referred for the general meaning of the word mineral, and that no common brick clay has, since 1888, been held to be a mineral for the purpose of receiving compensation under the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845, he will specifically declare common brick clay not to be a mineral for the purposes of the Finance Bill?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThere is no doubt that brick clay is a mineral in the ordinary acceptation of the term, and it is not proposed in the Finance Bill to make any exception in favour of brick clay. The cases referred to do not affect the general question. They merely decide that, for the purpose of undertakings for which land is acquired under the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act or the Waterworks Clauses Consolidation Act, brick clay forming the surface of the earth is to be treated as land to be acquired under the ordinary provisions of those Acts, and not as minerals, which are subject to special provisions.