said, that while he should offer no opposition to the date fixed by the promoters of the Bill, he should have preferred an earlier date. He and his friends would have been perfectly prepared to take the Debate on Monday next.

Adjourned Debate further adjourned till Tuesday, 10th July.

Barry Railway Bill

^* who had a Notice on the Paper to recommit this Bill to Committee, and also a Notice moving an Instruction to the Committee, on behalf of the Glamorgan County Council, that a clause should be inserted in the Bill providing that the proposed line should be opened for passenger traffic within a reasonable period, said, he was glad to say it would not be necessary for him to move this Resolution. The House would remember that according to the opinion of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, before whom a similar Bill came, the Local Government Act of 1888 had imposed on County Councils the duty of looking after the interests of the public in railway matters, and especially when any new line was proposed to Parliament. In the case of this Line, which was a public railway but was only used for mineral traffic, it was of great importance to the people of the district through which it would pass that it should be opened to passenger traffic as soon as possible.

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what is the Question before the House?

^* : The hon. and learned Gentleman appealed to me, and I was obliged to tell him that, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, he could not move the Instruction, and the hon. Member is now, I understand, prefacing with some remarks the withdrawal of the Notice. The hon. Member is not in Order to propose to make it a condition precedent to the sanction by the House of a particular line that on all the lines of the system of the Company accommodation should be provided for passenger traffic. It would be contrary to the practice of the House to impose such a condition on a Company before a particular line—a mineral line, on which no question of passenger traffic arises—is sanctioned. If thought desirable, general legislation should be invoked.

Then the hon. Member is not in a position to make the Motion?

^* : No; the hon. Member is addressing the House by way of explanation and on the understanding I have mentioned.

, continuing, said, the Bill which was now reported to the House was a Bill for a small extension of the main line of the Barry Railway Company. This Company obtained an Act in 1884 in order to obtain communication from the dock to the coal district, about 12 miles away. From that year onwards there had been carried a large quantity of coal and large dividends had been earned, and there was now an application for extension of the main line powers being taken to carry passengers as well as minerals. Neither the Glamorgan County Council nor the public had any desire whatever to oppose the line. Indeed, they were anxious the line should be made. The only object in view in the action he was taking was that, in the interest of the Company and the public alike, the Company should be called upon to give some undertaking that within a reasonable time they would provide for passenger traffic on the new line. The accommodation was greatly needed, and he would appeal to the Board of Trade to bring their influence to bear in the matter.

^* : I have to point out that there is no Question before the House, as the hon. Member does not move the Motion standing on the Paper in his name. But the hon. Member has, perhaps, said enough as to the facts of the case and the policy involved. I do not think the discussion can be continued.

Would it be out of Order, Sir, for me to reply to the observations of the hon. Gentleman?

^* : I should not have permitted the hon. Member to have gone so far as I did if I had not known that there was a sort of sanction to what he said on the part of the Board of Trade.

May I take it from what you have said, Sir, that I am at liberty to make a few observations?

^* : If there is a difference of view.

In the nature of a response to the appeal made to the Board of Trade, I should like to say that I am glad that, by the ruling of Mr. Speaker, the Motion cannot be brought on, and that the hon. Member has not attempted to bring it on, for, whatever are the merits of the cage, I should have considered it my duty to warn the House of the danger and imprudence of interfering with the procedure of Committees of the House, except in special cases—that is to say, in cases where questions are raised which could not be brought before the Committee or large public interests are involved. With regard to the appeal of the hon. Gentleman, I will say just this. I understand that the people of the district through which the new line will pass are greatly in need of railway accommodation. The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the matter, and we are of that opinion. I understand the Railway Company have given some sort of indication that they will endeavour to bring about what is desired. On the part of the Board of Trade I can assure the hon. Member that, recognising the need that exists for passenger traffic along the line, they will consider it their duty to take every proper means of pressing upon the Company the necessity and desirability of opening the proposed line for passenger traffic as soon as they can possibly do so. That is to say, as soon as they have obtained, with or without Parliamentary powers, connection with the Taff Vale system. I hope that will be sufficient answer to what the hon. Member has said.

said, he desired to say a word on a personal matter. He understood the hon. Member (Mr. A. Williams) to say that the Committee had been placed in a position of great difficulty. He could assure the House that the Committee never had the slightest difficulty in coming to a decision. The same result was arrived at both before the Railway Commissioners and the Committee of the House of Lords.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had very many times affirmed that the principle of his scheme was equality of treatment as between realty and personalty, and whenever an Amendment was moved in favour of realty it was met by the argument that, as there must be equality of treatment, the Amendment could not be accepted. What they were asking for was that realty should be treated on the same footing as personalty. Personalty could claim to be assessed to the Income Tax on the profits made, and their object was that realty should have the same benefit. The landowners have been twitted with not having conducted their affairs in a business-like way. By this Amendment, however, they were asking that landowners should be allowed to manage their estates in the same way as commercial businesses were managed, and be subjected to taxation on the same principle as traders. It was most unfair, when they asked for this equality of treatment, that it should be refused to them on the ground that it would involve an increase of Government machinery to meet that demand. That meant that a demonstrable inequality was to be maintained because the machinery of the Government was inadequate to the discharge of necessary duty. Surely it would be enough to ask for delay until the machinery could be increased. The right hon. Member for St. George's, by his Budget, gave farmers the option, on the production of accounts, of being assessed under Schedule (D) as though they were traders, and many Scotch farmers and some English farmers had availed themselves of this privilege. There was a good deal of misconception as to what was really meant by the difference between the gross income and the net income of an estate -that was to say, when it really reached the pockets of the landlords. In one case in which he had verified the items the gross income was £2,917 and the net £1,279. The difference did not include a single farthing for luxuries, nor for the maintenance of the mansion and grounds, for keepers or for stables; it included simply the expenditure without which the estate could not be maintained, and without which the estate would not yield any income. In another case in which there was more cottage property the gross was £700 and the net £500. Then, coming to a typical small property, he found a case in which the income was £707 a year, which it took a sum of no less than £533 to maintain. Such cases showed that the Amendment was based on the principle of justice and equality, and its supporters impaled the Government on the horns of a dilemma, which was that they denied equality because of the defects of their machinery, or they refused to amend their machinery in order to do justice. It might be urged that this Amendment was impracticable, and that they were not going the right way to gain the end they had in view. He could not, however, accept that as conclusive, because if what they asked for was an act of justice it stood to reason that the machinery of the Government ought to be altered so that their end would be met. It might be said that they could make a better bargain for those who had entrusted their interests to them if they fell back on a subsequent Amendment. Until these arguments were put before him in support of the subsequent Amendment he must support the Amendment before the Committee.

^* said, he had given much attention to this matter, and he hoped to be able to convince his hon. Friend that it was not only necessary in the interests of the Revenue, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer properly stated last night, but it was also in the interests of the taxpayer that this Amendment should not be pressed. On the whole, his view was that the matter should be dealt with on the basis adopted by the Government. It had been universally admitted that a deduction for repairs should be arrived at in some way or another from the gross assessment under Schedule (A) before the Income Tax was levied. The Government had proposed that this deduction should be made upon a fixed scale such as that which had reference to assessments to the poor rate; but his hon. Friend behind him had proposed that the actual expenditure should be allowed in every individual case according to the system which now prevailed in reference to Schedule (D) of the Income Tax, and that the person assessed should be compelled to prove to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Income Tax— which in practice generally meant to the satisfaction of the Surveyor of Taxes— that a certain sum had been expended for repairs, which might be allowed by way of deduction from the assessment. They were not now discussing the question of principle, but only the way in which it could be applied. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had very properly contended that as a matter of practice it would be impossible for the Commissioners of Income Tax to apply this principle in the 8,000,000 separate cases of assessment under Schedule (A). He must say that he thought the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman were very forcible. Would the House let him put the other side of the case? How would it be with the taxpayer if the Amendment were accepted? He thought it would be felt to be an intolerable nuisance to the large number out of the 8,000,000 persons who were separately assessed, who were occupiers and not owners, if they were compelled to prove every year in every case the amount that not they, but the owners, had expended on repairs to the property for which they were assessed, before the deductions from the tax were allowed. No doubt, as every owner of landed property knew, repairs might amount to a very large proportion of the rent received if repairs and improvements were reckoned together. It was very difficult to separate them; for he had hardly ever spent any considerable sum in repairs without also making improvements, and that, he thought, would be the experience of most people. Therefore, if the Amendment of his hon. Friend were carried, it would make it necessary that the occupiers who were assessed should divide the amount of money spent upon repairs to the property by the owners from the amount spent upon improvements. He expected that if they did that the amount expended in repairs would not come up to the percentage anticipated. But that was a matter for future discussion, not for discussion upon the present Amendment; and he thought with regard to this a forcible argument had been urged by his right hon. Friend the Member for the Sleaford Division, when he pointed out the effect of the enormous decrease of rental of agricultural properties in the last 10 years. It had happened in many cases that the gross rental of agricultural property assessed to Schedule (A) was now only half the amount it was 10 years ago, though repairs remained the same: so that the proportion of the gross rental which had to be expended in repairs would be much greater now than 10 years ago. That was a fair argument, which he was sure would be considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when they came to deal with the question of what the percentage of the allowance which was to be made should be; but he was bound to say he thought his hon. Friends were advocating an Amendment which would cause a great deal of difficulty in proposing that the allowance should be on the system adopted in Schedule (D) instead of on the basis proposed by the Government. He did not think the average allowance for repairs under Schedule (D), which was closely limited by the words of the Act, amounted in practice to more than 10 per cent. He thought his hon. Friends were making a mistake in pressing forward their view as against the basis which the Government had adopted; and if he might venture to do so, he would express to them his earnest desire that the Amendment should be withdrawn, so that they might take a fresh discussion on the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in course of which they might perhaps be able to convince him that he ought to go somewhat further in the direction of doing justice to agricultural properties.

said, he was very sorry to have to disagree with his right hon. Friend who had just sat down. He would not, however, have risen, except that he thought he saw a way out of the difficulty. He was quite aware that the question was not now to be discussed as one of principle. It was one of administration, possibility, and convenience. So far as the logic of the case was concerned, there was no reason that he could see why a single word should be said against the Amendment of his hon. Friend. Equity required that as traders had their Income Tax levied upon their net income, that landowners should not be treated in a different manner. They were not a class by themselves to be treated specially by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The answer to this Amendment seemed to be that the Income Tax Commissioners could not afford to take the time and trouble necessary to give effect to it. Up to that moment it appeared to him that the Amendment had not been read in its proper connection with the Bill. He did not think any hon. Member would maintain that there were 8,000,000 separate occupations of land in the country. Of course, the fact that the Amendment dealt only with land was a blot upon its logical perfection, but it did away with the argument that 8,000,000 separate assessments would have to be dealt with. The land in this country was in comparatively few hands, and it would not be necessary to count each occupation. When counting the assessments under Schedule (D) the Inland Revenue authorities did not count each separate shop or business, but they counted the number of traders. In the same way, under Schedule (A), it would not be necessary to count each occupation of land, but only necessary to count the number of owners. It was necessary to make certain deductions from the assessments, and all the Amendment asked was that when the assessments were reconsidered for the purpose of making these deductions they should be reconsidered on a rational basis—the basis of making them correspond with the value of the land. In a case where there was one owner but a large number of occupiers, it would be more convenient to collect the money from the one owner than from a multiplicity of occupiers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not deny the abstract justice of the proposal, and the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir J, T. Hibbert) had said that if it could be carried out it would be an equitable arrangement. Under those circumstances, he (Mr. Lawson) would offer 'to the Committee his suggestion as to the best method of carrying it out. There was an Amendment standing a little lower down on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Loughborough Division of Leicestershire (Mr. Johnson-Ferguson). That Amendment proposed to make it optional whether the owner of land should accept the concession of the right hon. Gentleman under Schedule (A) or place himself under Schedule (D), and it also proposed that when the assessment was once made it should be valid for seven years. If the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to receive that Amendment favourably he (Mr. Lawson) thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Newdigate) would be well advised in withdrawing his Amendment. If the only objection to the Amendment was that it would largely increase the number of assessments required to be made, it was obvious that the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Loughborough Division would meet that objection. He was sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired that there should be equality in his proposals, but there was no way of making the tax fall equally unless it were made to fall upon the net income of all classes, and not merely upon the net income of traders. He hoped that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not intimate that he would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Loughborough Division, his hon. Friend (Mr. Newdigate) would adhere to his Amendment, as it appeared to be the only means Members had of protesting on behalf of the landowners that they desired to be treated on the same footing as the traders.

^* said that, after what the hon. Member, who had just sat down had said, he thought he should not be acting honourably to Members opposite if he allowed them to withdraw the present Amendment on the supposition that he would afterwards move his. After hearing what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said as to the absolute inability of the officials of Somerset House at present to undertake the collection of this revenue under Schedule (D), and the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Bristol (Sir M. Hicks-Beach), he did not think it would be fair to the Committee for him to move his Amendment and waste the time of the Committee by its discussion. He thought they would have certain facts of importance to bring forward when they discussed the Amendment standing next on the Paper, and he hoped the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Newdigate) would either allow a Division to be taken at once or would withdraw the Amendment, so that the Committee might proceed to discuss matters of more practical importance.

said, he entirely disagreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Sir M. Hicks-Beach). His right hon. Friend had referred to the difficulty of discriminating between what were properly described as an improvement and what ought to be described as repairs. The real test would be whether there was any increase in the rent in consequence of the money being spent upon the property. All large owners of agricultural land knew that whatever improvements they made, and whatever money they spent upon such improvements, they obtained no increase in their rent-roll. No doubt Members who took an interest in agriculture would have noticed the evidence given a few days back by the Duke of Richmond before the Royal Commission on Agriculture. The Duke mentioned the immense sums spent in late years on his large estates, and showed that there had been no increase in his rent-roll in consequence of his expenditure. In a case of this kind he (Colonel Bridgeman) thought that the alterations effected must be regarded as necessary repairs, and not as improvements that added to the value of the property. There was no addition to the value of property unless the rent-roll was increased.

said, he wished to join in the appeal made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) to the hon. Member for the Nuneaton Division (Mr. Newdigate), that he should withdraw his Amendment and allow the Committee to proceed to business. It was quite clear that it was impossible to carry the Amendment. He (Mr. Heneage) had himself intended originally to put down an Amendment of the same description, but having, like the Member for Bristol, looked very carefully into the matter, he saw so many objections to it that he had refrained from doing so, and had put down a different proposal. No doubt the system suggested in the Amendment would be much more equitable to landlords than the system proposed in the Bill, because under it everybody would get practically what they deserved to get, whilst under a hard-and-fast line those who deserved the least would get the most, and vice versâ. He thought the Committee ought to try and get some extension of the deduction proposed by the Government.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had attributed to his right hon. Friend (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) language which he certainly never used. It was quite true that his right hon. Friend had expressed his opinion that the Amendment would not effect its object, but he had not said that the Committee in discussing it was not engaged upon real business.

said, he had not meant to say that. What he had meant was, that the subject was pretty nearly threshed out, and that it would be better now to divide upon it and proceed with fresh business.

said, the Amendment raised a very large question. It was clear from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the speech of his right hon. Friend (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) that there was no difference between the two sides of the House as to the desire to meet the owners of agricultural land as fairly as they could be met and to have regard to the exceptional circumstances in which they were situated. The speeches that had been delivered from the opposite side of the House and by his right hon. Friend (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) had been addressed to the practical difficulties in the way of adopting the Amendment. He (Mr. Long) was very unwilling to look a gift horse in the mouth or to show any want of appreciation of the desire of the Government to meet the owners of real estate, and he was also very reluctant to find himself differing from his right bon. Friend (Sir M. Hicks-Beach), for whose opinion and guidance he had always had the greatest respect; but he could not help thinking that it would be desirable to adopt the Amendment. It had been admitted that the justice of the claim was fairly established, and, that being so, he thought hon. Members had a right to discuss, not at any undue length, a proposal of such importance. Under this Bill a man was to be taxed not according to the amount he received, but according to the value of the estate from which he received it. This principle was not carried out in regard to the Income Tax, but the position was a very unsatisfactory one. He would take two cases of men succeeding to large landed estates. In the first case the property had been kept in good order, while in the other instance the reverse was the case, and the successor had during his tenure transferred a very large sum quite out of proportion to his receipt in bringing the property into a proper condition. The policy of the Government, however, was to ignore the fact that the man had to pay so largely for succeeding to an estate in this condition, and to fix an equal percentage of deduction for both the cases he had mentioned. The man who had to spend a large sum in keeping up his estate for the benefit of his successors, and for the benefit of the community at large, was to be allowed no larger deduction than the man who, on succeeding, found everything in good order, and consequently had a much larger income to spend. It therefore worked out in this way: that a man might pay a large Death Duty, and pay a large sum in respect of repairs, whilst his neighbour, paying possibly a small sum for Death Duty, would get a larger income, and would have exactly the same remission. That was an illustration that must be familiar to everybody who had watched the history of landed estates in this country. It pointed to the fact that, if the difficulties in the way of some such system as that the hon. Gentleman had pointed to were only of administration, they ought not to stand in the way. The Committee had now become tired of listening to the complaints and sorrows of the landed interests, but that was only because they were anxious to conclude their business, and did not care whether land was injured or whether it was not. But he could assure the Committee that this new taxation, which was falling on land, would be felt very seriously. It was possible that the large number of assessments the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to formed an insuperable objection, but he would make one suggestion. He would suggest that a remission might be made on the form in which the Income Tax-payer proceeded when he claimed that he had been unduly taxed by allowing the owner of real estate to appeal to the Commissioners in instances where it was thought that he had been unduly assessed, producing at the same time a statement of outgoings in connection with the property showing what was the net remainder of the receipts. This remedy was a rough-and-ready one no doubt. The surveyors had hitherto insisted, with considerable determination, on maintaining what they believed to be correct, and the owners of property had not thought it necessary to press their case intensely. But now the position would be changed. The taxation would be increased, and the owners of real estate, already overburdened with taxation, would be inclined to appeal to the Commissioners. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to go beyond the fixed amount of remission in the case of owners of real property who were heavily burdened, through no fault of their own, he would be taking a course which, without a doubt, he would be glad to take. In 99 cases out of 100 the burdens had been created not for the enjoyment of the tenant for life, but in order to improve the property—in order that the farms might be better arranged and more usefully occupied by the tenant. Whether through payment of interest on mortgages or payment on the up-keep of estates he ventured to say that the position of landowners was a very hard one at the present time. He gladly and cordially acknowledged that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in a previous speech shown the Committee that he was fully alive to the difficulties under which they were labouring, and he (Mr. Long) believed that if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to dispose of the administrative difficulties he would find it an easy matter to adopt his suggestion. If the Amendment led to any such result as that, hon. Members would feel that their time had not been wasted. If on the other hand the right hon. Gentleman was unable to made any concession of the kind, they could only hope that what had passed on this occasion would have prepared him to be a little more generous towards land when they came to deal with the fixed amount of remission. When the right hon. Gentleman had said that they were proposing especially advantageous terms to property in houses he forgot that he himself differentiated between the ownership of land and houses. Therefore, in whatever suggestion they had made they had only been following the right hon. Gentleman's example.

said, it was hard that he should be accused of not giving reasons for what he had said. He had accepted the speech of the Member for Bristol as explaining exactly the views he held himself. What he had said referred to the great inconvenience and well-nigh impossibility of differentiating between improvements and repairs. He believed that the most practical way of dealing with the question was the mode which the Government had proposed, though he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be a little more liberal.

I think it almost due to hon. Gentlemen on this side—the Chancellor of the Exchequer having especially alluded to me yesterday—that I should say a few words on this question. I agree with my hon. Friends on this side of the House in thinking that this is an extremely important question, but the difficulty is whether allowances will ever be satisfactory to constitute an average. The circumstances of estates are so different that allowances which would be ample and generous in one part of the country would not cover the justice of the case in another part of the country, or on different kinds of estates. That is the difficulty in which we find ourselves. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will, I think, admit that it is not a question of giving more or less money, but how to distribute it, and the representatives of property are themselves not agreed what will be the best mode of distributing it. I think the Committee will feel, looking at the importance of this case, that this discussion has not been a waste of time, even though hon. Members may not carry their point, and that it is the case that the administrative difficulties are insuperable. Two different points of view have been laid before the Committee— one by the right hon. Member for West Bristol, and the other by the right hon. Member for Sleaford. It is thought in the one case that it would be an advantage to land to have a fixed allowance, and in the other that it would be of advantage to accept the Amendment. What is clear is this—that on those owners of property where the outgoings are very large no system of average can ever be perfectly satisfactory, or can come home to their sense of justice. The whole House will be agreed upon this, that if we could do it, it would be desirable that no man should be taxed on a higher income than he actually makes. What my hon. Friends feel is that the system proposed by the Government is one which, with every desire to be equitable, can scarcely meet that sense of justice which they think is involved in this case, and it is necessary to prove to them, I think, more elaborately than has been done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—if he will allow me to say so— and to bring home to them very distinctly, that every effort will be made to make additional arrangements to meet the administrative difficulties alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman. Hitherto the matter has not perhaps been of so much importance, because land is favoured as regards the Death Duties, and has put up with this injustice. I think, so far as the present system is concerned, it must strike anyone whose business is in land that he must pay upon an arbitrary assessment, while a man whose business is in trade pays upon the exact amount he makes; and nobody can have listened to the speech of my hon. Friend, who moved this Amendment last night, and who pointed out the deductions which are enjoyed by trade, without feeling that those who trade in agriculture, corn, and cattle, are placed in a very difficult and disadvantageous position as regards their assessments. The Government reply that the administrative difficulties are so great that the proposal would practically take the whole Income Tax to pieces, and that a different system would have to be inaugurated. I think the difficulty with regard to the 8,000,000 assessments is not precisely that put by the right hon. Gentleman, because if you were, by a change in the system—which I admit would be a very great change— to deduct the individual owner of the property, then, of course, you enormously diminish the number of persons with whom you have to deal, and you might more easily arrive at an administrative system on this basis; but I must frankly say that from all I have learned the reconstruction of Schedule (A) on this Paper is a matter that could not be taken in hand in the course of a few months. I understand that the administrative difficulties connected with the Death Duties will be enormous. The Department will have the reconstruction of a vast system of taxation, and to put two reconstructions upon them would, I gather from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, almost break them down. It is extremely difficult for myself to contend against a declaration of that kind; but if that is so, I should wish to follow up what has been said by my hon. Friend who has just sat down, and that is, whether the Government cannot consider whether, in cases which lire not covered fairly by the average, there are not certain claims which might be entertained on the principle that the Government does not wish to tax incomes above their real amounts. The Committee will be aware that where abatements of rent are made by the landowner, he may appeal for a return of the tax. Then there is the question of Land Tax. I know some very high authorities say that there are few bad debts in land. I do not know that myself; but at all events we know that in Ireland the losses from arrears are extremely great, and it does seem to me an injustice, not only upon the landowners, but upon any class of the community, if bad debts are to be treated as income. We heard yesterday that bad debts are allowed in trade, and I throw it out as a suggestion whether the case of bad debts should not be allowed to be considered by landowners in the same way as bad debts are allowed to be considered by other classes of the community, and whether some system cannot be devised by which men should not pay largely more than they themselves receive. It is no answer to say that the Government must have an average. Notwithstanding all the years I have been at the Treasury, I have never been able to see the justice of an average as regards the taxpayer, though in regard to the Death Duties an appeal has had occasionally to be made to an average. The argument that it would be against the State is one which will never come home to the taxpayer himself, and the fact that the allowance which may ultimately be arrived at is one which is a fair average can scarcely be conclusive as regards bad debts. I cannot support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, because it has been stated so strongly that Schedule (A) would entirely break down under it; but although it cannot be accepted, at the same time the Debate has shown that there are strong reasons for considering whether, in the case of estates where a much larger tax is imposed than the amount actually received, in some way or other arrangements could not be made to diminish the injustice which, I am sure, no one would wish to see exist.

I am sure gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House will be pleased at the prospect that at some future time—an early future time—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's will be ready to re-construct the Income Tax. [Mr. GOSCHEN: I never said so.] But he has also very fairly admitted the great administrative difficulties and changes which the Amendment would involve, that in order to carry it out it would be necessary to revolutionise the whole system of the Income Tax; in fact, that it would be necessary to devise a new Income Tax altogether, and to place it on a new basis entirely. The present Income Tax is levied, as I pointed out not long ago, not upon the owner, but upon the occupier, and the occupier has the right to recover the tax from the owner. The great mass of these assessments depend upon that ground. The Income Tax authorities have no such knowledge as would be required by this Amendment, nor have they the means to acquire it. Therefore, you must revolutionise the whole basis of the Income Tax; the Amendment would practically destroy the plan of the Income Tax. I do not complain at all that this matter has been brought forward for discussion; it is a very proper one to be considered, and the discussion may throw light in the future upon the changes which may possibly be made. I do not express any opinion upon that, but I will ask the hon. Member who has made this Motion not to press it, for he must see that it cannot succeed, and even if it does it will be impossible to carry it out at the present time. I shall be perfectly ready to discuss the matter with hon. Members. There is one point I should like to observe upon. What the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's said on the subject of land is true. Any average charge may be too much for one man and too little for another, but for convenience of collection every Local Authority acts upon that principle. I do not propose to discuss this matter further now. I hope the hon. Member will be satisfied with having so ably brought it forward, and I hope he will also be satisfied with what has been said by two Ex-Chancellors of the Exchequer, that it is a thing which cannot now be done practically, and that he will allow us now to proceed with the other proposals on the Paper.

said, that this matter had been discussed principally by those who were directly interested in land. As one who had the smallest possible connection with land, he would like to say a few words before it was disposed of. This Bill absolutely revolutionised the position land had hitherto held in the taxation of the country. There had been undoubtedly very good reasons why there should be a distinction between the principle on which the Income Tax was levied on trade and that on which it was levied upon land. Land had had a benefit hitherto which personal property had not had, and now when both were placed in the same position he thought it was right that at the earliest possible moment the system of taxation should be equalised on both forms of property in regard to the Income Tax as well as the Death Duties. His experience had relation to trading and manufacturing concerns and not to land, but he could not possibly see why the manufacturer owning a factory, whether a Joint Stock Company or an individual, should be allowed, as at present, to place to the debit of his manufacturing account all the costs and charges to which he was subjected in earning his profits, while the landowner whose plant was his land was not allowed to deduct the sums expended in draining and hedging that land. He thought the system of an average allowance might be most unsatisfactory and unfair between one part of the country and another, and it also might be most unfair to the trading interests. There could only be one safe system of justice to go upon, and that was to find how much went into a man's pocket which he was able to spend from the occupation in which he was engaged. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had urged that there were administrative difficulties in the way. He quite understood that there were 8,000,000 assessments, as had been stated, but there were not 8,000,000 individuals concerned. There were 8,000,000 estates and tenements in this country, but they belonged to a comparatively small number of people. Now the tax was raised from the occupiers, and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said he did not know who the owner was and did not care, because he got his tax from the occupier. But why should not the owner of that property make just the same return to the Income Tax Commissioners that traders had to make? Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be in this position as against the property owner, which he did not occupy as against the trader: that he could compel the occupier of the property to return to him the name of the owner and the amount of rent paid, and thus check the returns of the owner. He admitted that there were administrative difficulties in undertaking a scheme of this sort at once, but where there was a will there was a way, and he was satisfied in collecting the tax from the property owners the right hon. Gentleman would have a better security and a better check than he possibly could have in the case of the trading classes. He would give an illustration which had occurred within the last two or three days, with the object of showing how unfairly the present system of taxation worked in the levying of the Income Tax upon traders as compared with landowners. A large manufacturing undertaking was built up by advertising; the cost of that advertising was a trade expense, and that was deducted yearly from the income. But what did they see as the result of judicious advertising? It was this: that while a man deducted this as a charge over a number of years before he paid Income Tax, yet in due time he was able to sell the property for £750,000—simply the result of judicious advertising, on which he had paid no Income Tax. The right hon. Gentleman had no doubt seen in the papers this week this case of a very large manufacturing concern, which was known all over the country, which simply by this advertising had been able to sell the property divided into two parts—the manufacturing and goodwill. The advertising had brought it a goodwill of £700,000, which was a trade expense. Now that amount did not come as income; it came as capital, and all those charges which had been deducted from the cost in years past would be only liable to Income Tax in future on the dividend derived from the goodwill which had accrued. The question might have arisen whether that advertising was a fair and just charge, but he thought there could be no doubt that all persons engaged in trade had a right to make that deduction; but why should not the landlord when he undertook charges and costs to improve his estate have a right to make these charges? He admitted that it might be impossible to carry it through at present, but a social distinction ought not to be drawn between the two kinds of property, and they should be put on the same level footing as regarded taxation.

said that, after the sympathetic answer which he had received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would ask permission to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

^* moved, in page 19, line 6, to leave out "one-tenth" and insert "one-sixth." He said, he thought the Committee had now come to a subject which could be discussed practically, after the almost academic discussion they had had, although he entirely agreed with his hon. Friends on the other side of the House who were anxious to have an assessment under Schedule (D). He would have willingly supported any such Amendment had it been practicable. But the fact that the hon. Member had not pressed it to a Division showed, he thought, that the hon. Member himself did not believe it to be practicable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had truly said that from the difficulties of the case at present it would not be practicable to apply Schedule (D) to them. He thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the concession he had made on this point. His only complaint was that the concession had been one-tenth instead of one-sixth. He could not see what reason there could be why land had not as good a claim to have one-sixth reduction as house property. He knew he would be met with the argument with regard to local assessments, but he ventured to agree with the hon. Member for the Derby Division of Liverpool, who had said that that argument had very little to do with the question. The points they had to consider was whether a sufficient deduction was given to the land in consideration of the expenses in keeping it up as a going concern. They were told that this 10 per cent. ought to be enough; but when they considered the expenses of management and repairs, and insurances, and also the rates which had to-be borne, it would be admitted, at any rate by those who had a practical knowledge of the subject, that it was impossible to manage an estate by an expenditure of 10 per cent. It would be nearer 20 or even 30 per cent. He could not help thinking that some people were inclined to suppose that this was merely a question of reduction on the land without any buildings. But they had got to consider that land included farm-houses and other buildings, and also cottages. As regarded farmhouses, they were increasing in size and comfort, and more money had to be spent upon them. The same remark applied to outbuildings. As to cottages, as a general rule, they were let with the farm and were assessed with it, so that under the proposal as it stood there would only be a reduction of one-tenth in regard to cottages. In a large number of counties the cottages were assessed with the farms, so that the remissions ought to be extended from one-tenth to one-sixth. He contended that it was perfectly impossible for land properly managed—having regard to the charges for repairs, insurance and general expenses—to be maintained at a sum in amount less than the 16 per cent. which was given in the case of house property. Hitherto he had voted consistently in every Division for increasing the Death Duties on real property, because he considered it was not right or proper to tax personal property at a heavier rate than real property. It had always seemed to him that there should be no distinction drawn between capital invested in land and capital invested in shares, or Railway Stock, or Consols, and that the only argument in favour of any exemption of land was that it was unfairly taxed under Schedule (A). Now when they were equalising the Death Duties in all cases, then he ventured to think the assessment for Income Tax ought to be levied in the same way, and that incomes from capital, whether derived from land or business, ought to be treated in exactly the same manner. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 6, to leave out "one-tenth," and insert "one-sixth.

Question proposed, "That 'one-tenth' stand part of the Clause.

said, that his hon. Friend in moving this Amendment and he thought hon. Gentlemen opposite, had been good enough to acknowledge that in the proposals the Government had made they had desired at least to do, what appeared to them, justice to the landed interest. He should like, first of all, to state the grounds upon which the Government made the proposals which were contained in the Bill upon this subject. Of course, they endeavoured to ascertain as well as they could what might be considered a fair deduction in cases of this kind. They went, first of all, to the best authorities to which they could go—namely, Committees of this House, who had carefully, on evidence, examined this matter; and, in the second place, they went to the Local Authorities who had themselves dealt with, if not exactly identical questions, at all events cognate questions in regard to this matter. Dealing first of all with Committees of this House, he would refer to a Committe which sat in 1861 upon the question of the Income Tax, and upon this very point of the deduction that ought to be made under the Income Tax so as fairly to give the owner of the land the net value. There were some gentlemen present—the right hon. Member for St. George's and the right hon. Member for West Bristol—who would remember the efforts of Mr. Hubbard on this question. His hon. Friend who moved this Amendment said he could not see why there should be any difference made in the allowances upon land and houses. He ventured to say his hon. Friend in that respect differed from everybody who had ever considered this question. Everybody who had devoted attention to the subject had seen that there must be a distinction between land and houses. Mr. Hubbard was Chairman of the Committee which sat on this subject in 1861, and in his draft Report he said this—

"The proportion of rent which, upon an average of years, is expended for the maintenance of dwellings, buildings, and fences connected with landed property, has been variously valued by the surveyors called before your Committee at 6, 8, and 10 per cent. Until such outgoings have been defrayed, the landowner cannot be said to have a net rent available for his expenditure, and your Committee recommend that upon the rent of all lands (requiring building reparation) an abatement be made of one-twelfth part (8¼per cent.) prior to assessment.

Therefore, Mr. Hubbard came to the conclusion, upon the evidence of surveyors, that 8¼ per cent. was a sufficient and proper allowance to be made. When he (Sir W. Harcourt) saw that Report, he determined, especially having refer-rence to the existing condition of agriculture, to take not 8¼ per cent., but the highest maximum figure which was given by the surveyors at that time, and that was why he put 10 per cent. in this Bill. The hon. Member did not see why a distinction should be made as between houses and lands, but the reason for that was stated by Mr. Hubbard in the following terms:—

"The assessment of houses is attended with more injustice than that of land, for not only are the outgoings in insurance and repair proportionately heavier, but the irregularity with which the law is itself administered involves at times serious loss to the house owner. The maintenance of house property in its full value implies insurance against fire, the annual repair, and the ultimate renewal of the fabric when decayed by age; and the proportion of rent absorbed by these outgoings is estimated by Mr. C. Lee, a surveyor of lengthened experience, at an average of 15 per cent. upon house property of all ages and all descriptions. His estimate was, in the main, concurred in by Mr. Vigers, while Mr. Clutton rated the outgoings at 17½ per cent. and Mr Hunt at 20 per cent. In corroboration both of the policy and of the amount of the proposed allowance for outgoings. Mr. Lee notices that in assessments of house property for the poor rate he has habitually deducted 15 per cent., and that in every case of rating brought judicially before the Court of Queen's Bench allowances have been made for these purposes. Apart, however, from the taxation on outgoings, a further injustice is sometimes inflicted by charging Income Tax on the amount of rates and taxes paid by the landlord for houses let by the year, or for shorter terms; but this defect of administration can easily be remedied by providing the assessors and surveyors with more definite instructions. Your Committee recommend that, prior to the assessment of houses, an abatement be made of one-sixth part for outgoings from the assessable value.

It would be seen, therefore, that the allowances in the present Bill were upon a higher scale in regard to both lands and houses than that which was recommended by Mr. Hubbard in his Report. Then there was another Committee which sat in the year 1867, and a very powerful Committee it was. The Chairman was his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers), whom, unhappily, they now very seldom saw in the House. Among its Members were Mr. Childers, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Hibbert, and other gentlemen very well fitted to form a judgment on this matter. He would read from the Report of the proceedings of this Committee the clause with reference to the allowance to be made on land—

"Motion made, and Question, 'That the deduction under this class be 10 per cent.'—( Mr. Beaumont, )—put, and agreed to.

On that occasion 10 per cent. was put as the maximum deduction upon an authority not at all adverse to the interest of land. He did not rest there, because it might be said, and it had been said, that the circumstances had a good deal altered, and that they ought to look to what may be called the highest authority, because the Union Assessment Committees had what he might call an upper House in the County Council Assessment Committee, and the County Council assessments were made with very great care by able men, who were fully competent to deal with these matters. He would take two counties, the County Councils of which were under the direction of two friends and colleagues of his, and he thought he might say without dispute that they might be regarded rather as model counties in their administration. One was the County Palatine of Lancashire, over the County Council of which his right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham was Chairman, and the other was the County of Northampton, his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty being the Chairman of its County Council. In the County of Lancashire the deduction for the assessment of land with buildings upon it was 8⅓ per cent.; in the County of Northampton, which was a purely agricultural county, it was 10 per cent. It might be said that in taking Lancashire he had taken a county which was wholly a manufacturing and industrial county. That was not so. A good many parts of that county were as purely agricultural as any in England, and there it was rather remarkable to see that they took the deduction on land, with or without the County Council assessment, at 8½, and they took buildings at 16⅔ per cent. He had taken their estimate for buildings. As he had said before, he had raised the allowance on land beyond that which this figure gave. He did not look merely at the County Council assessments, but he examined the assessments of the various Unions in the county, and what did he find? He found in almost all these rural assessments the allowance for land was much lower than the County Council assessment, though he believed the Union assessments were taken upon the Income Tax valuation. In the Chorley Union the allowance on land without buildings was 5 per cent.; in the West Derby Union, 5 per cent.; Preston Union, 5 per cent.; Garstang, 5 per cent.; Lonsdale, 5 per cent.; Ulverston, 5 per cent. Laud without buildings was taken there at 5 per cent. If they took land with farm buildings, they found in Chorley the allowance was 4 ¼ per cent.; West Derby, 5 per cent.; and in other Unions laud with buildings was put at 7½ per cent. Therefore, the Committee would see that in none of these Unions did the figure approach that which the Government had put in the Bill. It might be urged that he should have gone to the South and inquired as to what was the custom in counties nearer home. He had done so. In the County of Berkshire the deductions were 2½ per cent. on land without buildings and 10 per cent. on land with buildings. In the West Riding of Yorkshire the deductions were 7½ per cent. on land, woods, &c, and 15 per cent. on dwelling-houses. Mr. Hubbard, endeavouring to arrive at the net value of property for the Income Tax, came to the conclusion that a fair deduction would be 8¼ per cent. He (Sir W. Harcourt) had taken the maximum, and he assumed that the County Councils, when they had taken the Income Tax assessment for their purposes, had done so in the belief that they were adopting a fair average figure. All the evidence showed that 10 per cent. was as large a maximum as had ever up to this time been considered just or fair in this matter. But there was one argument which had been addressed to him by the right hon. Member for Sleaford which, he confessed, seemed to him to be deserving of consideration and of weight. The right hon. Gentleman said that these assessments and these allowances were just in former times; but the income from agricultural land having decreased, and in many respects the expenses remaining the same, the ratio of the allowance might be regarded as too small. That was a fair argument, and he hoped in the course of these discussions he had not shown himself otherwise but accessible to fair arguments. He made a concession the previous night to the British farmer in the matter of Income Tax by putting him on a level with the farmers of Scotland and Ireland. Having considered the question raised by the Amendment, he could not do what it proposed. He could not put land on the same footing as houses, because it was plain that the outgoings upon houses must be larger than upon land. He had shown how clearly that was the opinion of the assessment authorities, who had always made a great distinction—a distinction in almost all cases double and in many cases threefold more being given to houses than to land. The 10 per cent. in the Bill, which was the maximum, he had intentionally taken; but in consideration of the difficulties under which he knew the landed interest had suffered, and in compliance with the arguments addressed to him by the right hon. Member for Sleaford, he was prepared to extend that 10 percent. and accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for the Woodbridge Division (Mr. Everett) and to make the deduction one-eighth instead of one-tenth, and so raise the maximum, in consideration of the depression from which the agricultural interests had suffered. He thought that was an allowance which meant a considerable sacrifice to the Revenue; but it was a sacrifice to the Revenue which, upon consideration, he thought he could make without any serious derangement of the finances of the country. That being so, he was willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Woodbridge Division, and he hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would agree to this as a satisfactory solution of the question.

wished, in the name of those who represented agriculture on his side of the House, to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the concession he had made. Of course, those connected with the management of property would know that one-eighth did not come up to the amount expended in repairs on any agricultural property, and that they ought really to get the same as was allowed in the case of houses—namely, one-sixth. Speaking from personal experience, he could assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the expenses for repairs on houses were very slightly in excess of the amount expended for repairs in connection with agricultural property. There were charges under the head of "repairs" on land in respect of drainage, bogs, gates, and ponds, and that was land on which there were no sheds at all. When they came to consider sheds for cattle, barns, silo pits, and so on, the expenditure on repairs was necessarily much greater. The concession made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a large one—larger than they had had a right to expect—and he (Mr. Warner), for one, was only too ready to thank him. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman or some succeeding Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider this question in any future Budget which might be brought forward, to see if something further could not be done to equalise taxation on land and personal property. After the concession which had been made he trusted the Committee would not divide on the Amendment.

said, that he also could express a certain amount of satisfaction at the concession the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made, but at the same time that satisfaction was qualified. He main- tained that the very essence of the Bill was equality of personalty and realty, and unless they had a very considerable concession that equality would not exist. If there was one thing clearer to him than another, it was, that though they might not this Session be able to have equality of Income Tax, it was absolutely certain that the next Chancellor of the Exchequer—or the present if he were in Office next year—would have to re-arrange all the Income Tax assessments. The existing difference between personalty and realty could not remain in its present position. The main argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was based on Mr. Hubbard's Report of 1861; but the right hon. Gentleman hardly seemed to give weight to the fact that all the expenses in connection with the land had largely increased since that date. Wages had in a great many parts of the country far more than doubled. Improvements in consequence were far more expensive now than they were then. They also had doubled, and the incomes of the landlords as well as of the farmers were considerably diminished. On these grounds alone he could not conceive that it was possible to compare the present year with 1861. He was in great hopes that in regard to this question the Debate which had already taken place on these points, and the Debate which no doubt would arise on others to-night, would show the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he could never rest in his present position, and that a final settlement would not be arrived at until large remissions were given to landed estates. Any one who possessed such property, and had done his duty in building good cottages and farm-houses, knew that the outgoings came to more than 16 per cent. It was all very well to say in regard to house property, "There must be certain outgoings," but the same was the case with the land. Landowners got nothing for the cottages they kept up in the rural districts. On all farms in Scotland a certain number of cottages had to be maintained, and there was not a farthing of rent paid for them. If the Bill passed as proposed, it would be to the interest of the landowner to provide inferior cottages, and that he would do if he were not guided by higher motives. His object was to give the labourers com- fortable cottages and enable them to live happier lives; but inferior cottages that might be built at half the cost of the present cottages could be supplied. The landlords would of course decline that system, and their interests ought to be fairly considered. They did not ask for favours but they wanted what they did acknowledged. They asked not for favour, but for justice—that if a landlord did his duty by his estate he should not be handicapped by unfair legislation. He held that the reduction ought to be more than 12½ per cent. That was altogether inadequate; it might have been sufficient in 1861, but it would not do in 1894. He hoped and trusted that though they had got this concession it would not be considered a final settlement. It was no settlement at all of the question. They ought to maintain their ground and respectfully ask the Government to reconsider the question. If the Government did that with a view to putting realty and personalty on an equality they would give a remission of at least 20 per cent.

I am very glad to recognise the conciliatory and friendly spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has met the objections which have been raised to this part of the Bill. But although I am glad to do that, and although the right hon. Gentleman has admitted the injustice under which we have laboured up to now, and under which we should have laboured under the Bill as originally drafted, I hope he will not think me ungrateful if I say I do not think we can regard the concession which has been made to us in the light of a final settlement. We are glad to take all that we can get; that is only natural. I do not for a moment mean to adopt any other attitude. We accept with all the gratitude it deserves the concession the right hon. Gentleman has offered to us. My view is that it is not a question of percentages at all; in view of the cases I have endeavoured to submit to the House I fear that an adequate treatment of our view can only be arrived at by deducting from the receipts from an estate the actual necessary outgoings for maintenance. It is, as has already been pointed out, useless to refer to the Committee of Mr. Hubbard of 1861, because the condition and circumstances of to-day have entirely altered from what they were then. What might have been perfectly fair and adequate in 1861 may be totally unfair and totally inadequate in the year 1894. Since the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to make his concession I have roughly estimated what its effect will be on an estate that is worth, say, £1,000 a year. I will submit my estimate to the House, and I think it will be seen that we still have a grievance. We are to be allowed a deduction of one-eighth of the income for deduction. According to the view I submitted to the House last night on a great number of estates the rental has fallen 80 per cent. since 1861. The rent which was formerly £1,000, therefore, would only be £200. Twelve and a-half per cent. allowance on a rental of £200 would leave the amount to be assessed at £160 a year. But the outgoings would be precisely what they are to-day—namely, £80 a year. It is on that £80 a year alone that we ought to be taxed. Still, after the right hon. Gentleman has made his concession, we shall be taxed on the income of £160, one-half of which we absolutely never receive at all. That I believe to be an absolutely fair statement of the position, and it seems to me that the only fair treatment which could be meted out to us would be to make an allowance equal to the necessary amount of outgoings on an estate. That being my view of the matter I do not intend to press the right hon. Gentleman any further on the point. I have stated my view as fairly as I can. The right hon. Gentleman has gone a small distance in meeting us for which I am grateful to him, but there is another question in relation to the subject which I think I am entitled to raise if my statements as to the position of landowners under the Bill cannot be disputed, and I do not think they can be. In the case of traders deductions are made for bad debts. Why cannot the same sort of thing be done in the case of landowners? Are there no such things as bad debts in the case of landowners at the present time? If the right hon. Gentleman were in a position to obtain anything like an accurate account of arrears of rent he would find that they amount to a large sum.

They are not taxed.

It is the estimated rental you are taxed on. If deduction is to be made in respect of all arrears my objection falls to the ground.

Such deduction is to be made.

Then there is no necessity for me to say anything further on the point.

said, that they had taken the hardest side of the Budget first, and they had now got to the kindly side of it. He was glad they would be able to agree when they reached the end of the arguments upon the Bill that agriculture would, on the whole, have reason to rejoice over the proposals of the Government rather than to mourn over them. It was to be remembered that though the Death Duties were the hard side in being chargeable upon real property—such property not having been charged to them before—yet those duty had regard to estates left by the dead, while the remissions made, which the Committee were now discussing so pleasantly, would be enjoyed necessarily by the living. It was also a pleasure to remember that such little amounts as agricultural labourers had been able to save—and he was glad to know that not a few had been able to save money—would pay less in the form of taxation than they had paid hitherto. With regard to farmers, the Government not only gave them relief with regard to the property they were likely to leave behind, them, but also with regard to their payments of Income Tax under Schedule (B). They had now come to the landowning clauses, and a very sensible relief was to be given in their regard. He himself, as connected with the agricultural clauses, felt very thankful to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the considerate disposition he had exhibited towards them. He hoped they would accept with gratitude the offer the right hon. Gentleman now made. There was a great deal to comfort agriculturists in the Budget.

asked whether the Committee had rightly understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that arrears of rent would be treated, as bad debts?

was understood to reply in the affirmative.

You have to pay on the rental; then the arrears are allowed for.

^* : The tax is levied on the rental value, and deductions are afterwards made.

^* said, that he was sorry he could not join in the chorus of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the concessions he had made to land on this Amendment. It seemed to him that the young landed aristocracy on that (the Ministerial) side of the House were about as reactionary as the landed aristocracy on the other side of the House. He had recently understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he had now come to an end of all his concessions; therefore, he had listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech in this Debate with some sense of security. Those who were specially interested in the question of land had thought that they would come out of this speech safe from the impositions always laid upon them, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them just now that the concession made involved a loss to the Revenue. The Committee must be aware that that loss would have to be made up somewhere, and those whom he (Mr. Byles) represented, he was afraid, would have to pay in order to relieve the land of its burdens. He desired, himself, to say that he was not in favour of relieving the land of any of its burdens. [ Laughter. ] On the contrary, he was strongly in favour of laying on the land much heavier burdens. [ Renewed laughter. ] Yes; he even believed that the whole of the burdens of the State should be laid upon the land. [ Laughter. ] He was not surprised that these statements should be received with derisive laughter, but he ventured to predict that the day would come when many more men would rise up in that House to express a similar opinion. He knew, at any rate, that there was a large number of people in the country who believed that that must be so, and he thought that they would send more and more representatives to this House. He liked the Budget because it was recognised in it that the land should pay a greater share of the burdens of the State. He looked upon the Bill as an earnest of what might yet be to come. Why did he do so? [ Laughter. ] He wanted to know what title any landlord had to the land save it was that he should devote the rent to the benefit of the community. [ Laughter. ] Landlords sat at home and other people worked upon the land and produced for them their income. Did they suppose that they would be entitled to incomes that nature—

^* : Order, order! I must point out that the Question before the Committee is the alternative choice between one-tenth and one-sixth.

said, he had only been betrayed into the explanation of his observations by the mockery with which his observations had been received. He felt that it was due to the Committee that he should not make a statement, which was considered false, without attempting to justify it. He contended that the people would sooner or later realise that for any individual to attempt to take away from those who worked upon the land the result of their labour, the result of the sun, and of the rain from heaven, was a state of things that must end. A day or two ago, in the Debate on the condition of Essex, the landed gentry opposite told them that farms were going out of cultivation, and they asked the Government to intervene to prevent this condition of things. He would reply that the only thing which prevented land from being cultivated successfully in Essex was the landlord. If the landlord were to go away, the land would soon be cultivated. If the labourer got on it, he would render it productive and remunerative. He (Mr. Byles) would call the attention of the Committee to the words of the great Russian writer, Count Tolstoi, who said—

"There were men who would do anything for the poor except get off their backs.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite were continually posing as friends of the poor, but to his mind they would do well to remember the proverb of Count Tolstoi. It was the landlords only who were in the way.

said, the observations the hon. Gentleman was now making did not arise out of the Amendment.

said, that for these reasons, bowing to the Chairman's ruling, he objected on principle to the concessions which were being made, not because he had any animosity to the individual landowners—he objected to the burden of taxation upon the shoulders of the landed interest being lightened.

^* said, that in view of the concession the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been good enough to make, he should ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

said, that after the singular exhibition of hostility to the landed classes they had just witnessed, he thought he ought to point out that the rent derived from land was not produced merely by "rain and sunshine," but was the result of careful attention, and often large sums of money were expended by a landlord for improving the quality of the land.

^* said, he did not wish to see any improvement of the landlord taxed. Of course, the value of the improvements should be allowed.

said, it could be proved in very many cases that the whole of the present rental was barely the value of the landlord's improvements. His object in rising, however, was to deal with a subject the Chancellor of the Exchequer had introduced, as to the distinction between gross and net value. The right hon. Gentleman had founded an argument on the Report of Mr. Hubbard's Committee of 1861, but he(Sir J. Dorington) ventured to say that the whole of that argument was now somewhat out of date. It certainly was rendered so by the Bill they were now discussing. The object of the Bill was to establish absolute equality between personal and real property. That was not the object in view when the Income Tax was originally discussed. The Income Tax was distinct as bearing upon land and as bearing upon personalty. It was different in form, machinery, and allowances, and the State made a great difference in its own favour in levying the tax on land as compared with personal property in consideration of the advantages that land had in other respects. No doubt, however, land had had an advan- tage up to the present time as regarded the imposition of the Death Duty. He could not accept the view that rates were an hereditary burden any more than any other form of taxation. The State had derived great advantage from the imposition of the Income Tax. The difference in deduction between the gross and the rateable value was the sum which was supposed to be necessary to maintain the estate in a lettable condition. Insurance was not taken into account in the rateable value.

It is taken into account in all these deductions.

said, it was quite certain that the management expenses and expenses incidental to the estate other than repairs were not included in the deductions made as between gross and rateable value, and if they really wanted to arrive at an equitable ratio they must get the same amount of deduction in regard to income as was allowed under Schedule (D). The late Leader of that House on one occasion stated that the difference was equal to the difference between 7d. and 9d.—a difference of 28 per cent. That was much more than they now proposed, but he did not suppose that they would get anything further from the Chancellor of the Exchequer now, so he accepted with gratitude that which had been conceded, although, of course, they hoped, before long, to get further concessions. What they wanted was to be dealt with in the same way as traders themselves, under Schedule (D).

^* said, he was rather pleased to hear the frankly cynical speech of the hon. Member for the Shipley Division, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, a few evenings ago, practically accused him of being one of a party who wished to throw part of their burdens on to the shoulders of other people. Now, the hon. Member—

Order, order! I explained at the time that what the hon. Gentleman said was not in Order.

^* said, he would try to confine himself to the observations of the hon. Member on the Budget proposals.

^* : The hon. Member must address himself to the Amendment.

^* said, that though he did not wish to appear ungracious with reference to the concession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he must enter his protest against 12½ per cent. being considered a fair amount to deduct from the income of land for the purpose of the Income Tax. They certainly could not accept that as a settlement in full. He, for one, held that 12½ per cent. was nothing like sufficient. He was bound to point out that, assuming a fall of 33⅓ per cent., which had certainly taken place in the rental of most arable farms, it took 50 per cent. more acres to produce the same rental. For instance, an income of £9,000 per annum was produced by an estate of 6,000 acres at 30s. per acre, but at 20s. per acre it required 9,000 acres to produce £9,000 a year. Also the charges for repairs and other expenses had considerably increased per acre.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Mr. EVERETT, the following Amendment was agreed to:—

Page 19, line 6, leave out "one-tenth," and insert "one-eighth.

On Motion of Mr. R. T. Reid, the following Amendment was agreed to:—

Page 19, line 11, after "occupier," insert" or assessable as landlord.

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

said, that in order to illustrate the effect of this and to the previous clause he would cite the case of an estate of £1,500 gross annual value which, under the first portion of the Bill, would be valued at 23 years' purchase, and the net value would be £27,600. The amount of the new duty on that estate would be £1,242, which might be met by an annual insurance premium of £31, the owner receiving, on the other hand, under this clause £6 0s. 9d. off the Income Tax. That was the exact outcome of the suggested equilibrium.

^* urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether the same advantage could be extended to land used for the purposes of forestry as was extended to land employed for the purposes of husbandry. This was cer- tainly a most important matter and nothing should, in the future, be allowed to stand in the way of the extension of our woods and forests.

protested against the injustice that was being inflicted on Scottish farmers under Schedule (B.) While the Income Tax was being raised on the Scottish farmers it was being reduced in the case of the English farmer. Instead of its being as hitherto 3½d. on the English farmer and 2½d. on the Scotch farmer, each would now pay 3d.; of course the English farmer did not object, but he was bound to protest on behalf of the Scotch farmer.

disputed the correctness of the hon. Gentleman's view of the change in the Income Tax as it affected the English and Scottish farmer, and recommended to his attention the old saying, "Is thine eye evil because I am good"?

also supported the view that had been urged with reference to land under forestry. He thought that in these days when so much land was going out of agricultural cultivation every facility should be given for the extension of woods. The hon. Member further asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could, with a view to saving time, insert a short clause dealing with property which ran into two separate districts.

said, the Inland Revenue Department would be very glad to receive any suggestion from the hon. Member in reference to administrative forms such as those to which he had referred. As to forestry, he could assure the hon. Member that he had all his sympathies, for he loved trees and would do all he could to preserve them. He believed that in the not very distant future one of the wants of the world would be wood. Wood was, in his opinion, being consumed too fast all over the world, and even in America the time was coming when its scarcity would be felt. Anything that could be done to remove existing disadvantages in regard to forestry would undoubtedly be to the public advantage.

I want the right hon. Gentleman to do something more practical than give us his sympathy,

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 32 to 36 agreed to.

Clause 37.

^* moved to leave out Sub-section (2) of the clause. He remarked that the clause had nothing to do with the Customs and Inland Revenue of the year, and that this was the first time in his experience that such a proposal had been tacked on to a Budget Bill. As the clause was a financial innovation, he asked the attention of the Committee in order that they might understand its object. It was to Sub-section (2) that he desired to draw their special attention. Not half-a-dozen Members on either side of the House on reading the clause would have the slightest idea of its object; and if the words of a clause did not convey its meaning, certainly the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing the Bill did not elucidate it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, no doubt, made a speech of great ability and lucidity, as they readily acknowledged. The one principle to which the right hon. Gentleman had attached importance was the necessity of paying his way by making the Revenue of the year meet the Expenditure without having recourse to the pernicious system of borrowing. But the Committee would be surprised to learn that this clause gave the Government power to borrow, and it proposed to raise a certain sum, and place it upon the National Debt, contrary to the existing law, and the amount of money thus unnecessarily placed upon the National Debt was to be brought into the Revenue of the year for the purpose of creating a fictitious surplus. The Financial Statement of the year showed in the final balance-sheet a payment from the Naval Defence Fund of £289,000, which was included in the Revenue of the year, and on the other side an estimated surplus of £291,000. This payment of £289,000 gave the Chancellor of the Exchequer his surplus. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had frequently spoken of the Naval Defence Fund as one which was very much in debt, and ought to be wound up, and it was a very remarkable and clever piece of finance to extract £289,000 from a fund which was in debt. He would like to point out how that very ingenious operation was performed, and in so doing he would like to remark that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had an enormous amount of arduous work thrown upon him lately—he had to succeed a most distinguished man as Leader of the House—and having had to introduce what was probably the most contentious Bill of modern times, this complex question had doubtless escaped his notice. In introducing this matter, therefore, he must not be understood as making any personal attack on the right hon. Gentleman. The expenditure under the Naval Defence Act was to be met in a certain number of years by annual instalments, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had only proposed, under the exceptional circumstances of the day, to capitalize the instalments of this year and next year, there would not be so much objection. But under the pretext of paying old debts, the right hon. Gentleman was really creating fresh ones for the purpose of getting a surplus. Under the existing law that sum of £289,000 ought to be applied to the reduction of the debt under the Act. That debt amounted to £3,146,000, and it ought thus to have been reduced to £2,857,000. But in that case the right hon. Gentleman would have had nothing, so he had wound up the accounts by taking all the debit balances, and had transferred them to the National Debt, while he had brought all the credit balances into the financial year. The result was, that he increased the National Debt to the extent of £289,000. If it was wrong to borrow it was still worse to borrow surreptitiously, and his complaint was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer under this clause was borrowing, by appropriating money which by law should go to the redemption of Debt, and putting it into the Revenue of the year. That was not the only objection. The Treasury under this clause seemed to have taken upon themselves a dispensing power—putting themselves above the existing law. Hitherto Finance Bills had been retrospective only with reference to the financial year to which they related. But this Bill gave the Treasury a dispensing power with regard to a law relating to the finance of last year. That was a very dangerous innovation. His Amendment, if carried, would, no doubt, greatly reduce the Chancellor of the Exchequer's surplus, but it would not upset the Budget. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not wish by this Budget to inaugurate any financial irregularity, and he therefore hoped his Amendment would be accepted.

Amendment proposed, in page 21, line 29, to leave out Sub-section (2).—( Lord G. Hamilton. )

Question proposed, "That Sub-section (2) stand part of the Clause.

said, he was extremely obliged to the noble Lord for the observations which he had made, although he could not agree with his view of the Naval Defence Act and its consequences. Long before he was in Office he had spent many weary hours in endeavouring to understand that document, and he fouud that the authorities at the Admiralty and the Treasury shared his difficulty in making head or tail of it. According to the admission of everybody who had to deal with it, that Act had brought the finances of this country into a state of confusion such as they had never been in before. One of the minor advantages of the Budget was that it was a winding-up of the Naval Defence Act. That Act would disappear from the face of their finances, and there was no one who did not think it would be a very good riddance. The real truth was, that the Naval Defence Act was a plan for borrowing money and charging it upon a future Parliament. The noble Lord spoke about borrowing. But the surpluses of the late Government for three years consisted of nothing but borrowed money. The plan of the Naval Defence Act was to charge the Revenues of the year with £1,500,000 for seven years, and to spend the money in five years. That was a very ingenious process of making the two last years pay for expenditure which did not belong to them. In other words, they left a debt of £3,146,000, and what was now proposed was to apply the Sinking Funds applicable to the payment of debt to the payment of that sum. It was as much a debt as that which was incurred by Lord North or Mr. Pitt, and therefore the Debt Fund had been applied to its liquidation. One of the incidents of the winding-up of the Naval Defence Account was that there happened to be a sum of £289,000, which had been borrowed in past years, more than was required. That could not be applied until the account was wound up. The Government proposed to pay off the whole debt, and having discharged the Revenue of its liability this sum, which would have gone to the payment of the debt, fell into the Revenue. There was nothing illegitimate or irregular in that transaction. It had been done on the advice and at the suggestion of the most experienced authorities of the Treasury—Lord Welby and Sir E. Hamilton. These gentlemen were not in the habit of violating the law or of setting an example of a pernicious character in regard to the finances of this country. He would give the Committee the figures. The amount borrowed was £3,146,000, and the amount taken out of the taxes up to the 31st of March last was £7,143,000. Thus the total paid into the Naval Defence Fund was £10,280,000. He hoped that under the circumstances the Committee would approve of the Government's winding up the account and discharging the debt, and so relieving the Treasury and the Admiralty of the infinite complications brought upon them. He could not accept the noble Lord's Amendment, and he hoped that under the circumstances it would not be pressed.

said, he had rather hoped, although he did not quite expect, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have confined himself to the real point raised by his noble Friend—namely, the £290,000 which was the object of the Amendment. But the Naval Defence Fund was a favourite subject with the right hon. Gentleman. The object of that fund was not what had been suggested, but it was to secure continuity of shipbuilding by the construction of a large number of ships in consecutive years. Another object of the Naval Defence Act was to put the House of Commons into possession of the full plans of the Government, and to let the public know from year to year what they would have to pay. On the other hand, the system which the right hon. Gentleman was so proud of was to inaugurate a programme with regard to which the British public was entirely in the dark, and which would have the effect of landing them next year in a large outlay for which not the slightest provision had been made. That liability and outlay had been incurred, but no particulars had been submitted to the House of Commons. When the Conservative Government was in Office the Naval Defence Act showed what the liabilities were. They did not know that now. Given the assets, the Government did not take the trouble of submitting to Parliament the question whether they would or would not incur the liabilities. He thought a sensible and business-like public would prefer the system of the Conservative Government to the mysterious and dark system of hon. Gentlemen opposite, under which they were absolutely ignorant of the liabilities which they were incurring. It was bad finance so to construct your Budget as to land you in a large expenditure next year with regard to which no provision whatever was made. He took the opportunity of saying that some frank words which he uttered at an earlier stage had been misrepresented as if he had made a repudiation of the whole principle of the Naval Defence Fund and the arrangements therein made, and had described them as unstatesmanlike. Not at all. All he suggested was that the annuities might have been spread over a different term of years; but he stood by the National Defence Act entirely. It was a bad example hon. Gentlemen set when a public man acknowledged a mistake in one particular, as regards spreading the expenditure over three or five years, to magnify what was intended to be a frank statement, and to turn it into political capital. As regarded the allegation that no one at the Treasury or the Admiralty understood the Naval Defence Fund, he objected to the Chancellor of the Exchequer sheltering himself behind the permanent officials. The right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that his plan was approved by Lord Welby and Sir E. Hamilton, but did he tell them of the many occasions on which these distinguished civil servants differed from him, and might have criticised the action he had taken in the House of Commons? They were always entitled to know what the opinions of the permanent officials were. For the two officials named he had the greatest respect, and nothing had surprised him more than that they should have endorsed this scheme. The application of the £290,000 was perfectly unprecedented, and even according to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it would be clearly seen that the expenditure of the year was not met out of the Revenue of the year. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about past surpluses, and very stupid nonsense was talked about surpluses created by a debt. Some people did not appear to know what a surplus meant. A surplus was what remained after the calculation made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer between the expenditure and income of the year, and if there had not been the arrangement of annuities why, of course, the means must have been found of dealing with the position. After the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the statements that have been made by my noble Friend and myself, there is not a single person opposite who will not clearly see that the expenditure of the year is not being met out of the Revenue. Why, then, do we hear this stupid nonsense about instructing those who do not know what a surplus is? The surplus is that which remains of the income after the expenditure of the year has been met. If there had not been these annuities other funds must have been found; fresh taxation must have been imposed. That the Chancellor of the Exchequer should hold such language about surpluses really passes my understanding.

I have always held that language.

Well, it passes my understanding. If the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that he holds such language, he shows that he does not know what a surplus is in the ordinary sense. He says that we created fictitious surpluses by borrowing. He himself is borrowing now for telegraphs and for other purposes. It is absolutely foolish for him to hold such language. If he is right the County Council always has a deficit, because it is always borrowing for some purpose or other. What the right hon. Gentleman says is really not business. Well, my noble Friend has raised this point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer prefers to continue in what he conceives to be the regular course of coolly appropriating a sum of money which belongs not to this year but to last year, and which at this moment ought to have been applied to the liquidation of debts. And he thinks he has set an example of sound finance to his heterodox predecessor. I should certainly recommend my noble Friend to proceed to a Division.

said, he rose to support the Amendment of his noble Friend, and he would crave the attention of the Committee for a few moments, because at the behest of the House he had to perform duties which brought him into very close relation with such transactions as that now before the Committee. He might offer a very strong defence of the Naval Defence Act, as he had often done to his constituents, but he would not attempt anything of the kind in the presence of the distinguished and honoured statesmen who were at that moment sitting below him. He quite admitted that if the Amendment were carried, the result would be to leave the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a very modest surplus. He firmly believed that the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in adopting the course he had done with reference to the money dealt with in the Amendment was to produce a surplus. The question was whether the particular method of procedure adopted was justifiable. In his (Sir K. Temple's) humble opinion, it was not. The Amendment related to a small sum of £288,000, which in his further observations he would for the sake of clearness symbolise by referring to it as a quarter of a million. Under the Naval Defence Act a sum of £10,000,000 was authorised to be expended on shipbuilding. The expenditure was to run over a period of seven years, and there were to be annual instalments of about £1,400,000 for seven years, but power was given by the Act to expedite the shipbuilding by borrowing sums of money within £10,000,000. It had so happened that for naval reasons the whole of the £10,000,000 had been expended within five years. During those five years £7,000,000 had been paid by the Treasury, and about £3,300,000 had been borrowed. The consequence was that the amount received was about £10,250,000, instead of £10,000,000. If the Naval Defence Fund were wound up, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to wind it up, there was no doubt a sum of £250,000 of unexpended balance, technically speaking. The question was how the £250,000 should be applied. He said most confidently—and he would if necessary say so before a jury of Auditors General—that it must be applied to reduction of debt. Reduction of what debt? Why, of course, of the debt of £3,000,000 odd. Of course, the House of Commons might in its omnipotence otherwise order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed by Sub-section 2 of this clause that the money should be paid into the Exchequer. This was a proposal which he (Sir R. Temple) submitted was wrong financially. He should have thought that the best way of winding up the fund would have been to pay off the £3,000,000 by continuing the instalments authorised by the Act. By Sub-section 3 of the clause the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to apply the Old and New Sinking Funds to the repayment of the £3,000,000. If this were done it ought to be done with the aid of the £250,000—that was to say, that the Sinking Funds should be applied to the repayment of the amount less the £250,000. Instead of paying the whole of the £3,000,000 from the Sinking Funds, only £2,750,000 should be obtained from that source, and the remaining £250,000 should be obtained from the source he had mentioned. As it was, the £250,000 was left in the air, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid his hands upon it and helped himself to it. The right hon. Gentleman had no right to do this. The money did not belong to him, and he (Sir R. Temple), with all respect, distinctly charged the right hon. Gentleman with taking money for the revenue side of his Budget to which he was not entitled, and to which he had no right whatever to help himself. By adopting this plan the right hon. Gentleman had really added to the debt. He had taken £250,000 more from the Sinking Fund than he ought to have taken, and to that extent he had added to the debt.

^* : I feel bound to take the sense of the Committee on this question. I am absolutely certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would never have had recourse to this plan had it not been for the financial exigencies of the position. I submit that the Treasury are setting a dangerous precedent by dispensing with the law because the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being happens to be hard up.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 54.—(Division List, No. 139.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 38 agreed to.

moved, in page 2, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:—

(Exception for transactions for money consideration.)

"(1) Estate Duty shall not be payable in respect of property passing on the death of the deceased by reason only of a bonâ fide purchase from the person under whose disposition the property passes, nor in respect of the falling into possession of the reversion on any lease for lives, nor in respect of the determination of any annuity for lives, where such purchase was made, or such lease or annuity granted, for full consideration in money or money's worth paid to the vendor or grantor for his own use or benefit.

(2) Where any such purchase was made, or lease or annuity granted, for partial consideration in money or money's worth paid to the vendor or grantor for his own use or benefit, the value of the consideration shall be allowed as a deduction from the value of the property for the purpose of Estate Duty.

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

moved, in page 8, after Clause 9, to insert the following Clause:—

(Appeal from Commissioners.)

"(1) Any person aggrieved by the amount of duty claimed by the Commissioners, whether on the ground of the value of any property or the rate charged or otherwise, may, on payment of the duty claimed by the Commissioners, or such portion of it as is then payable by him, appeal to the High Court within the time and in the manner and on the conditions directed by Rules of Court, and the amount of duty shall be determined by the High Court, and if the duty as determined is less than that paid to the Commissioners the excess shall be repaid.

(2) The costs of the appeal shall be in the discretion of the Court, and the Court, where it appears to the Court just, may order the Commissioners to pay on any excess of duty repaid by them interest at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum for such period as appears to the Court just.

(3) Provided that the High Court, if satisfied that it would be unjust to require the appellant to pay the whole of the duty claimed as a condition of an appeal, may allow an appeal to be brought on payment of such portion of that duty as to the Court seems reasonable; but in such case interest at the rate of 3 per cent. shall be payable on the unpaid duty so far as It becomes payable under the decision of the Court.

(4) Where the value as alleged by the Commissioners of the property in respect of which the dispute arises does not exceed £10,000, the appeal under this section may be to the County Court for the county or place in which the appellant resides or the property is situate, and this section shall for the purpose of the appeal apply as if such County Court were the High Court."

New Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time.

asked if it was intended that there should be an appeal from the High Court in the one case and from the County Court in the other, or were the decisions of these Courts to be final? The clause was not clear on the point.

said, the point would be considered and made clear if there was any doubt about it.

Motion agreed to.

Clause read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill.

^* said, he would move, on behalf of Sir R. WEBSTER, to insert, after "payments of," the words "or giving security for." He thought that this was a most reasonable proposal, and he hoped the Government would accept it. It would be a considerable relief to the taxpayers, and there could be no fairness in requiring the person accountable to pay the duty before the right of appeal could be exercised.

Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause, in line 3, after the words "payment of," to insert the words "or giving security for."—( Sir M. Hicks-Beach. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.

was understood to oppose the Amendment on the ground that it would cause inconvenience to the Treasury.

thought the learned Attorney General did not follow the object of the Amendment; the hardship that it was intended to meet was in the case where a duty had been demanded in excess of what was justly due.

said, it was perfectly obvious what was the meaning of the Amendment, and it was one that must cause considerable inconvenience to the Department.

said, the argument of the learned Attorney General was that the Commissioners did not like it, that it would mean delay, and there- fore the Government would not have it. That was not a fair way to treat a proposal asking for the relief of the taxpayer. He could not see why it should not be allowed to rest with the Court to say whether security should be given instead of the duty having to be paid, and that was all that was asked by the Amendment of his hon. Friend.

protested against the notion that it was to be a condition that a man was to pay the full amount of the duty before he was entitled to appeal. The further concession they asked was small, that a man should be able to give security for the payment instead of paying the money down. In no other form of litigation was anything of the kind demanded as was demanded under this clause, and therefore it appeared to him that they were departing from the ordinary principles of justice. The Amendment was in order to meet those cases where a man knew the demand made against him was unfair and unjust, and therefore they were only asking for justice when they asked that a man should be entitled to give security for costs rather than have to sell part of the property in order to pay the duty, a part of which might have to be afterwards refunded. He could not understand how too much work would be thrown upon the administrative department by giving security which might be security "to the satisfaction of the Court," when the matter would be decided as other questions of finding security were decided, in Chambers, so that no burden would be thrown upon the administrative department. But there was something beyond. They were now re-organising a body that were to have large powers. They had had large powers which they had exercised fairly on the whole, but now they were going to raise a number of new cases in which difficult questions as to valuation and otherwise would arise; they were going to increase the charges very much in proportion to the property taken, and were they going to force a man to sell property which otherwise he need not sell, in order that he should pay a certain amount of duty before they had ascertained it was a fair and just amount he should be called upon to pay? It appeared to him that was contrary to one's ordinary notions of justice. The con- cession they asked was a small one, and-was not that they should be put upon even the ordinary footing of other litigants.

said, the argument, and the solitary argument the Government had vouchsafed to give them on this occasion was that it would be inconvenient to the Department concerned, and therefore the Amendment should not be introduced into this clause. Whenever they had an absolutely unanswerable case on the grounds of equity, the convenience of the Department was invariably thrown in their teeth. They were told that however strong their arguments might be, however just the cause was bound to be, if the gentlemen at Somerset House would be put to inconvenience, that was sufficient reason for rejecting their claims. He admitted, of course, the administrative arguments, as far as they went, were valid arguments. There was a Debate earlier in the evening in which it was stated, on the strength of the authorities of the Inland Revenue Department, that if their suggestions in regard to the Income Tax under Schedule (A) were carried out, the whole collecting machinery would be broken up, and that a great financial injury would be inflicted upon the community at large, and many of his hon. Friends were so impressed by the value of that administrative argument that they were not prepared to go into the Division Lobby and vote for the Amendment, which, upon its merits, was unanswerable. He quoted that to show they were prepared, when the case was a strong one, to allow administrative argument to override the broad principle of equity. But could it be maintained in this case there was any evidence of administrative inconvenience? Under what circumstances were the Inland Revenue to be asked to make arrangements with regard to security? Only if there was a dispute about the amount of the duty, and they were told in the earlier stages that in all the years during which the Inland Revenue administered the Death Duties not one single case had got into Court. [Sir J. RIGBY: No.] Each of the learned Gentlemen quoted it once, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was not here to contradict him, quoted it a great many times at all events, and they were told on various occasions, but always with conviction, that so admirably did the Inland Revenue manage its affairs that it never came into collision with its unfortunate debtors; so gently did it perform its work, the process was so painless, that the patient never even felt the shock, and certainly never made any complaint. If that was so, and the Inland Revenue were going to continue in the future these admirable traditions, how was it to throw an extraordinary burden upon them? If the virtues of the Inland Revenue were so great an appeal would never come into question at all, it was a mere security that would never be called upon. But there was another point. As his learned Friend behind him had said, they were asking very little, and that they might with justice ask for a great deal more. They asked that the amount should not be exacted, but that security for the money should be exacted; though he could not see why even security for the money should be exacted; as he could Dot see why the ordinary relations between debtor and creditor should be reversed in this particular case. If he claimed that a man owed him money, had he a right to make him pay the money or give security before he went into Court? The word "debtor" was used constantly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech on the Second Reading; he said, "this is a debt owed to the State." If so, let the State behave as every other creditor was compelled to behave and prove the legality of the debt before it exacted the amount. He thought the Amendment did not go the full length which justice required, but it did contain a very fair compromise, and a compromise they were ready to be content with, and he therefore asked the Government, in obedience to common sense and equity, to make the small concession they demanded, and to turn a deaf ear to the plea of administrative convenience, a plea that had been ridden to death on more than one occasion in these Debates.

said, ii might be assumed the Government would not object to this Amendment unless there were real grounds for objecting. The clause was put down to give the right of appeal to persons aggrieved, but what they said was that if they appealed they must first pay the duty, and if the Court was satisfied the duty paid was more than ought to have been paid, the excess should be repaid. The right hon. Gentleman said it was a small matter. So it was in amount, but it was not a small matter in substance, and if people were allowed to appeal without payment of the money, he was afraid it would be a temptation to a good many persons to appeal, and the result would be a good deal of delay and inconvenience.

^* said, he would make a suggestion that they should leave the Court a free hand, and they could do that by introducing the words "or giving security to the satisfaction of the Court for." He thought there could be no reasonable ground for objecting to the Amendment in that form, and it would meet all the objections raised by the hon. Gentleman.

I will accept that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, after the words "payment of," in line 3, to insert the words "or giving security to the satisfaction of the Court for."—( Sir M. Hicks-Beach. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.

^* was understood to agree with the suggestion made, but considered that there was little difference between depositing the money or the security, and that it was hardly fair for the authorities at Somerset House to be protected in this way.

Question put, and agreed to.

moved to amend the clause by the insertion of words providing that a beneficiary who doubted the valuation of the estate as declared by the Commissioners should have the right to appeal

"within two years after the death of the deceased, or within such further time as the Court may allow.

Under the clause as it stood in the Bill it entirely depended on the Court within what time the appeal could be made. The Court might if they liked, enact that no appeal should be made except within six months after the death of the deceased. Indeed, he thought it probable that the Court would limit the appeal to a very short period after the first instalment of the duty had been paid, and that might cause in many cases a very serious hard- ship and grave injustice might be the consequence. He thought, therefore, some definite time should be fixed within which the beneficiary could appeal. He suggested two years as the period, because that was the time in which the Commissioners might refuse to give the beneficiary a certificate of discharge, and he thought that so long as the Commissioners might refuse to give the beneficiary a certificate of discharge, the beneficiary should have within that period the right to appeal to the Court. There was another reason in support of the Amendment. If the beneficiary was doubtful as to the value placed on the estate by the Commissioners he would be very much tempted to test that valuation by the sale of the estate. But the clause as it stood would impel the beneficiary to hurry on with the sale; and what was asked in the Amendment was that the beneficiary should have time to have the arrangements for the sale completed in order that he might have the value of the estate as determined by the sale, to bring as evidence before the Court on appeal. The beneficiary would require some time before he could come to a decision as to the course he would follow. He could not at first tell whether he would be able to reside on the estate and meet the duty by instalments. If they gave the beneficiary plenty of time, it is possible he would find that he could live on the estate, and would not need to sell it. No one desired to see the landlords changed. Some hon. Members might wish to abolish landlordism, but he thought they were all agreed that it would be an evil to bring about a change in the landlords; and for that reason also his Amendment ought to be supported.

Amendment proposed in line 5, to leave out the second word "the," and insert the words "two years of the death of the deceased or within such further."—[ Major Darwin. )

Question proposed, "That the word 'the' stand part of the Clause.

said, the Government had left this subject to be dealt with within the time, in the manner, and under the conditions directed by the Rules of Court, which might on occasion be varied. He thought that this was a fair solution of the question, as the Rules might be altered from time to time, if desirable. He asked was it advisable in the interests of the Revenue that there should be a minimum period of two years fixed within which a beneficiary might appeal in a matter in which promptness and despatch were so essential? He thought they ought not to be too suspicious of the Courts to whom they left the power to regulate this matter.

pointed out that a sale of the property within two years, and the valuation resulting there-from, would be outside the scope of the Bill, because the value of the property as settled by the Bill was the value at the moment of death of the deceased, and not its value at any other time. The value according to the Bill would not be the value ascertained in an ordinary sale in any ordinary open market. That value would be the value of the estate if it were sold by a forced sale at the moment of the death of the deceased. But there was another objection, and he thought an almost fatal objection, to the Amendment. He really believed that he was the only Member in the House who remembered all the clauses of the Bill. The Committee would find that Clause 7, Sub-section 9, dealt with the case of excessive charge of duty due to overvaluation, and provided for an appeal to the Court, within the time, in the manner, and under the conditions prescribed by the Rules of Court. It would, consequently, be inconsistent with that clause, if the Committee were now to make a different prescription, binding the Court not to make any Rule which would prevent the beneficiary from appealing at any time within two years. He, therefore, hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.

said, he was inclined to agree with his hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn. He thought the time within which an appeal should be allowed might very well be left to the Court to determine. But there was another point to which he desired to draw attention. They had been told more than once by the Law Officers that if a man choosed he might elect not to pay the duty, and that in that case proceedings would have to be taken against him so that in that way he could have the question of valuation settled without having recourse to the Bill at all. He wished to ask whether, in dealing with this matter of appeals, the Attorney General could not allow the usual and less cumbrous form of practice prevailing in regard to other matters to be adopted in the cases under discussion.

said, that he did not admit that an appeal was given in every case. The subject raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite was very wide indeed, and could not be dealt with at this last stage of the discussion in Committee. It was a matter that would keep them in Committee a very long time indeed.

inquired whether any provision existed which would cause the Rules that the Court might make to be laid before the House? If such a provision existed, then he was in favour of leaving the matter in the hands of the High Court; but if any Rules which the Court might make would not be brought before the House, there was, he thought, much more force in the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

^* pointed out that his Amendment would not limit the time in which these appeals would be made; but if the House would have the opportunity of revising the Rules drawn up by the Court that would serve his purpose quite as well. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Lynn Regis that the value of the estate a year afterwards was no evidence of its value at the time of the death. He thought the value of the estate a year after the death was very good evidence of its value at the time of the death.

said, he did not think the difficulty would be settled by the Rules of the Court being laid on the Table of the House. Everyone who had any experience of the mode of dealing with Orders of the kind after 12 o'clock at night knew that it was a most unsatisfactory mode of regulating the matter. He believed that if the records of the House were searched it would be found that the House had been unable to effect any control in matters of the kind. From his experience in business, he was of opinion that it was most desirable that adequate time should be given for appeal; and he thought a period of two years was a fair minimum.

said, that the question really was whether the Committee should fix the minimum time or whether the Court should be left to do so. He thought it was a matter for the Committee to deal with, and he thought that the Committee ought to deal with it. His hon. Friend who moved the Amendment had truly pointed out that a man who came in for a property would take some time before he could value its outgoings and value its incomings; and that, therefore, he should have a reasonable period within which to discover for himself whether the Commissioners had fixed the proper value on the estate. His hon. Friend the Member for Lynn Regis had said the value under the Bill was the value at the time of the death. But, primâ facie, the value of the property a year or so after the death was, he thought, very good evidence of its value at the time of the death. He thought they should not leave it to the Rules of Court, which might or might not be altered by the House, to determine the time within which an appeal should be allowed. He thought the Committee should do it themselves, and should fix two years, which was not at all an unreasonable period from the point of view of either the Revenue or the parties interested.

was understood to say that such a thing as this had never been suggested. Whenever it came to a matter of procedure it was acknowledged that a Committee of the House of Commons was not a fit tribunal to deal with the matter, and that there could not be a better tribunal than the Council of Judges, to whom practically all questions of practice had been relegated for some years.

^* said, he was sorry he could not altogether agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He had always found that when questions like that now under discussion arose the Government of the day were anxious that they should be settled by Rules of Court, while the Opposition were anxious that they should be settled by the House of Commons. It had always been recognised as a fair compromise between the two opinions that questions which did not affect matters of principle should be settled by Rules of Court, and that such Rules when made should be laid before the House of Commons for its information. He was, therefore, sorry to hear words from the Attorney General deprecating such a course being taken. Even when Rules were laid upon the Table of the House it was not an easy matter to call attention to what was objectionable in them or obtain their reversal, but the publicity obtained was a salutary check, and, therefore, he hoped that the Government would reconsider their determination upon the point.

said, that a recent decision of the House of Lords under the Patent Act in regard to Board of Trade Rules showed the advantage of Rules of this kind being laid before the House. The Courts in Scotland challenged the Rules, declaring that they were ultra vires. The House of Lords reversed that decision, and the Lord Chancellor, in giving judgment, drew attention to the fact that the Rules had to be laid for 40 days before the House of Commons before they came into force, and said that no Rules could be ultra vires which had to pass through that ordeal. The Solicitor General not long ago had succeeded in stopping Rules that the Judges had made from coming into operation. ["No, no!"] Yes; he referred to Rules which the Judges had made, and which were withdrawn on notice being given that objection was taken in the House. As to dealing with these matters being limited by the forms of the House, he would point out that they could be taken after 12 o'clock at night. He joined his right hon. Friend in hoping that at the end of the Bill a clause might be inserted, declaring that the Rules must be laid upon the Table of the House, and could not be enforced until that had been done.

, whose utterance was almost inaudible in the Gallery, was believed to refer to the difference existing between Rules requiring the confirmation of the House and those merely laid upon the Table for the information of Members.

thought the Amendment was one of substance, and not merely of procedure or practice. If carried it would not interfere with the framing of Rules of Court, or with the choice of the persons who were to frame those Rules. It would be merely an indication that the House thought that anybody who felt he had a grievance should have at least two years in which to bring an appeal.

said, that if Rules were not to be 40 days before the House of Commons before taking effect there should be some limit of time within which an appeal must be made. He had thought that these Rules of Court would be the same as those made under the Judicature Act. If that were the case he should not feel inclined to support his hon. Friend in the Division Lobby, but if, on the other hand, they were to be Rules of Court made without that sanction which they would get by being laid on the Table of the House he should support him.

^* said, that if he were given to understand that these would be effective Rules of Court he would withdraw the Amendment.

said, there was a distinction between Rules of Court which did not obtain validity before they had been before the House 40 days and Rules of Court which were merely laid on the Table. Rules being laid before the House for 40 days implied and gave the right to any Member to call attention to the Rules and to move their rejection at any time after 12 o'clock at night.

^* said, Her Majesty's Government were placing them in an invidious position. He was much disposed to agree with the objection raised that two years was too long a time to give for appealing, and that the elasticity which would be secured by Rules of Court might be desirable. At the same time, they on that side of the House, in accordance with what had fallen from the Mover of the Amendment, felt strongly that the public had a right to know what the Rules were before they came into force, and that, therefore, they ought to be laid upon the Table of the House. He had never heard of such a request being refused by any Government.

said, he was willing to take the matter into consideration before the Report stage was reached. He had no authority to give any further pledge.

said, it was an extraordinary thing that no Minister who had authority to give a pledge on behalf of Her Majesty's Government was present.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that the matter would be considered before the Report. In certain cases it was directed that the Rules should be laid upon the Table for the information of the House, and over such Rules the House had no jurisdiction whatever. There was another class of Rules in which it was directed by Statute that they should not come into force until they had laid upon the Table of the House for 40 days, and in such instances the Rules could be challenged. He saw no reason why Rules under this Bill should be treated differently to Rules framed under the Judicature Act.

said, his contention was that an hon. Member had a right to object to a Rule laid upon the Table of the House, even though there were no statute declaring that it should not be valid until it had lain before Parliament for 40 days. In the case of the Rules of the Road at Sea, which were merely directed to be laid upon the Table, they had been successfully challenged.

said, he had not stated that there was no power to call attention to such Rules; but there were a certain class of Rules which had no force whatever until they had lain on the Table for 40 days. Either House of Parliament might petition against them. The other class of Rules were laid upon the Table for the information of the House.

And you can move an Address on them. You can move an Address on any subject you like in this House.

said, that as the right hon. Gentleman's statement might be quoted hereafter as one having authority, he wished to say that, having had occasion to consult Mr. Speaker on this matter at the beginning of the Session, he was informed, upon the precedents, that whenever time was limited, it implied and carried with it the power of moving an Address. This applied even to Papers laid on the Table for information only.

said he begged to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

^* begged to move the insertion of a new subsection with regard to the procedure in an appeal from the Commissioners to the High Court, and in certain cases to the County Court. They had incor- porated in the Bill certain provisions as to the mode in which the principal value of property was to be ascertained by the Commissioners. The value was to be the market value at the time of death, and a special provision with regard to agricultural property limited the market value to 25 years' purchase of the net annual value, calculated in a certain way. That, of course, was a great improvement on the Bill as it originally stood. Still, great opportunity for disputes between the Commissioners and the persons accountable for duty was left open. It was obvious that in cases where the property did not come within the limiting proviso of 25 years' purchase of the net annual value, or where, on the other hand, its market value—being bad agricultural laud—was below that 25 years' purchase, disputes might arise between the Commissioners and the persons accountable. He was acquainted with a case in which a leasehold house in London was valued by the Commissioners for purposes of probate at £5,000. The legatee demurred to that value and put it at something like £1,500 less, but the Commissioners insisted on payment of Probate Duty on £5,000. Within a year the property was sold by the legatee for £3,500, and on application the excess duty was returned. He quoted that case as showing the great difference there might be between the valuation of the Commissioners and that of the persons accountable for duty in estimating the market value of property of that class. Therefore, this Bill very properly provided an appeal to the High Court and the County Court. But how were these Courts to arrive at a decision as to market value? He thought the Committee on reflection would admit that the Judge of the High Court could not possibly decide such questions himself, nor could the Judge of the County Court. They would, therefore, be compelled to one of two courses. They must either hear evidence brought before them by the Commissioners and persons accountable as to the market value of the property, or they must refer the matter out of Court to some expert who was qualified to decide the subject. If they adopted the first course, enormous expense would be involved and great hardships would consequently accrue to the persons accountable. Furthermore, it would by such a mode be very diffi- cult indeed to arrive at the real market value of the property; the valuers on the one side and the other would be likely to differ to a most extraordinary extent. He had knowledge of a case in which some property had to be valued on behalf of a seller and purchaser in a large town in the Midlands. Five experts were called in by the seller and five on the other side. The five on the part of the seller valued the property at from £61,000 to £52,000, and the five on the part of the purchaser valued it at from £21,000 to £17,000. There could not be a better example of the impossibility of arriving at a fair decision through the evidence of experts. A Judge who had to decide the value of property would be well advised if he referred the matter to arbitration. He had prepared an Amendment to the new clause of the Solicitor General which would cover these points. There should be first some Local Authority, so to speak, standing between the taxpayer and the Inland Revenue Commissioners in this matter, much as the local Commissioners of Income Tax now stood between the taxpayer and the Inland Revenue Commissioners. He proposed that a list of qualified valuers should be formed for each county by the County Councils and County Borough Councils in Great Britain, and by some similar Local Body in Ireland, and that these authorities should lay down the scale of remuneration to be charged. From a rota of these valuers, comprising as it would amongst its members those who knew most about the value of local property—who certainly would know more about it than valuers sent down from London—the Judge of the High Court or the Judge of the County Court would select some one valuer to arbitrate between the Commissioners and the persons accountable. He did not propose that this should be compulsory on the Court. It would have the option in each case either of deciding itself or of appointing an arbitrator. He had made inquiries as to what the probable procedure would be, and he was informed that cases of this kind would, under the ordinary Rules, be referred to some sort of arbitration. He was confident that it would not only be the best and fairest, but very much the cheapest, mode of arriving at a fair judgment of what the value of property was, and therefore what the duty ought to be. He was sanguine that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would be able to assent to the proposal, therefore he would not trouble the Committee at greater length. He ventured to suggest this scheme to the Committee, and if the words of his sub-section were not exactly to the taste of the Government they could be easily amended on Report.

Amendment proposed, in line 8, at end, insert—

"The County Council of every county and county borough in Great Britain, and the Grand Jury of every county in Ireland, shall within 12 months after the commencement of this Act, and may thereafter from time to time, appoint a sufficient number of qualified persons to act as valuers for the purposes of this Act in their respective counties, and shall fix a scale of charges for the remuneration of such persons, and the Court may refer any question of disputed value under this section to the arbitration of any person so appointed for the county in which the appellant resides or the property is situate; and the costs of any such arbitration shall be part of the costs of the appeal."—( Sir M. Hicks-Beach. ")

Question proposed, "That those words be there added.

said, this might be suitable enough as far as Great Britain was concerned. No doubt it would be well to cast on the County Councils—who were elective bodies—the function of appointing valuers to determine the value of estates.

The High Court would select the valuers from the rota. If the hon. Member can suggest any better authority than the Grand Jury in Ireland, I shall be happy to adopt it.

said, he did not think the people of Ireland would be satisfied to entrust such a duty to the Grand Jury, who were a nominated and not an elective body, and he would ask the right hon. Baronet, or he would himself, if necessary, move to leave out the words "and the Grand Jury of every county in Ireland." Words must be added, if necessary, at the end of the paragraph to empower the High Court itself to appoint valuers.

said, he had no objection at all to the proposal of the hon. Member for Kerry.

said, he agreed to this Amendment, and he understood the right hon. Baronet was willing to accept the appointment of these valuers by the High Court in Ireland instead of by the Grand Jury. He would refrain from making any comment on the Grand Juries of Ireland. That point being agreed between the right hon. Baronet and the hon. Gentleman he saw no objection in principle to the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet. There might be questions about the way the clause was framed, but that was a question of detail, not machinery, and he was quite prepared to accept it. He would, therefore, move to omit the words "Grand Jury in every county in Ireland," in order to insert the words "High Court in Ireland.

^* offered no opposition to this Amendment, though he thought that the principle of appointing local valuers should apply in Ireland as in Great Britain.

said, the High Court might be trusted to appoint a sufficient number of valuers, and he thought that for the whole of Ireland a staff would not be required on the same scale as in Great Britain.

said, he would suggest for the present the words "Grand Jury for every county in Ireland" be omitted, the purpose being to complete it on Report by the insertion of other words.

Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "Grand Jury for every country in Ireland.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

proposed, in line 15 of the Solicitor General's Amendment, to insert the words "without requiring payment of any portion of the duty or." The change which this Amendment would make was this. By the Government proposal the plan was to set aside the claim made by the Commissioners, and if the Court thought it unjust that the appellant should pay the whole duty, the Court should allow payment of a portion of the duty. He proposed that if the Court thought it unjust that the whole duty should be paid the matter should be brought to Court without payment of duty at all, the distinction being that the Government insisted that some duty should be paid, and he suggested that in some cases, if the Court thought it proper, no payment should be made. Supposing the Commissioners said an estate was worth a considerable sum of money and the executor thought it was worth nothing at all, why should the executor be obliged to pay any duty? If he was right, no duty would be payable. Why should he, in order to take the opinion of the Court, pay a sum of money down? Take another case in which the Commissioners made a very large claim for duty, while the executor thought a very much smaller amount was payable. It might be the case that the executor had absolutely nothing to pay the duty with. Was it right or reasonable that before he could get hold of any of the estate at all, before he had a penny in his hands out of which to pay the duty, that in order to obtain the decision of the Court he should have to pay a sum of money down? He protested against the view that the Government or the Commissioners were to be placed in an entirely different position from any litigant in the country. If the Court thought it fair that the litigant should not pay the sum why should the Government insist upon its payment? As a matter of principle, he asked the Committee to say that in such cases they should be allowed to litigate with the Government on fair terms.

Amendment proposed, in line 15, after the word "brought," to insert the words "without requiring payment of any portion of the duty or."—( Mr. Butcher. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, the Government had gone as far as they ought to do. They had already made a concession on the subject of security.

said, he thought it was only justice that a man should have the option of giving security instead of finding the money. It was perfectly well known to all who had dealings in these cases that giving security meant paying for the security, or, in other words, it was a charge put upon the person who found the security. He understood the Solicitor General to say it would be right to give the Court a discretion in the matter. If he could trust the Courts, which of course he could, surely he should leave it to them to decide whether it was a case in which the appeal ought to be allowed without any money being paid or any security being given, and he suggested with great respect to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the answer he had given had not met his hon. and learned Friend's point. There might be cases in which, as a matter of common justice, they did not think any security ought to be given or any money to be paid, and to tell the Court to say there must be something to pay, put the Court into an invidious and absurd position.

said, the Solicitor General had allowed a diminution in the full payment before the appeal was tried, and it was only a logical extension of that principle that in cases where the Court thought it just there should be no payment at all, and he should have thought the Government would at once accept it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Amendment which the Government had already accepted would meet the case. That was not so. If he had been in the House when his hon. Friend on the Front Bench spoke, he would have heard him say there would be considerable difficulty in certain cases where the claim was unjust. He really thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was resisting a matter so obvious that it was hardly worth his while.