Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 181: debated on Tuesday 20 August 1907

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

House Of Commons

Tuesday, 20th August, 1907.

The House met at a quarter before Three o'clock.

Questions And Answers Circulated With The Votes

Retirement Of Temporary Civil Service Clerks

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a small body of men designated temporary clerks, who have been employed in certain departments of His Majesty's Civil Service for a period of fifteen or twenty years, have been given notice to retire; and whether, in view of the fact that these men will not receive pensions, and that their salaries have not been subject to any increment, he will state the amount of bonus which will be awarded to them for their long services. (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I have no knowledge of any such notice having been given. Such notice would not require the concurrence, and would not education authority in the year ending the 31st day of July, 1906, in which the average attendance did not exceed sixty:— in the ordinary course be within the knowledge, of the Treasury. As regards the award, if any, to be made to such persons on retirement I am unable to make any statement in the absence of full particulars of the cases referred to.

Punishments In The Royal Navy

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to Cd. 3628, the Punishments in the Royal Navy during 1906, what were the offences and sentences in each case of the twelve men sentenced to penal servitude, the places of offence and trial, and the ship each man belonged to, and the offences and sentences of each individual in the seven cases who suffered corporal punishment with birch, the date on which each birching took place, where it occurred, and the name of each individual's ship. (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) The particulars asked for are shown in the accompanying tables:—

I. Sentences of Penal Servitude.
Rating.His Majesty's Ship.Place at which offence was committed.Place at which court martial was held.Date of court martial.Charges proved or to which prisoner pleaded guilty.Length of sentence.Remarks.
Able seamanCambrianPort SaidSydney, New South Wales1906 8th Jan.1. Attempting to use violence against his superior officer being in the execution of his office.
2.Striking his superior officer being in the execution of his office.
5 years
Ordinary seamanMajesticOn shore at GibraltarPortland31st Jan.Sodomy.5 years
StokerMajesticOn shore at GilbraltarPortland31st Jan.Sodomy.5 years
Able seamanFloraAt seaHong Kong5th Feb.1. Act to prejudice of good order and naval discipline in leaving the quarter deck without permission whilst undergoing 10a punishment.
2. Wilful disobedience of lawful command.
3. Striking his superior officer being in the execution of his office.
4. Act to the prejudice of good order and naval discipline in breaking out of irons.
5. Using violence against his superior officer being in the execution of his office.
3 yearsTried, together, with S. T. Mills, able seaman, and A. Ralph, ordinary seaman (see below).
Able seamanFloraAt seaHong Kong5th Feb1. Act to prejudice of good order and naval discipline in leaving the quarter deck without permission whilst undergoing 10a punishment.
2. Wilful disobedience of lawful command.
3. Attempting to strike his superior officer being in the execution of his office.
4. Act to the prejudice of good order and naval discipline in breaking out of irons.
5. Using violence against his superior officer being in the execution of his office.
3 yearsThese two, with F. C.

Ordinary seamanFloraAt seaHong Kong5th Feb.1. Act to prejudice of good order and naval discipline in leaving the quarter deck without permission whilst undergoing 10a punishment.
2. Wilful disobedience of lawful command.
3. Using violence against his superior officer being in the execution of his office.
4. Act to the prejudice of good order and naval discipline in attempting to use violence against a sentry.
5. Act to the prejudice of good order and naval discipline in breaking out of irons.
6. Using violence against his superior officer being in the execution of his office.
3 yearsJacobs, able seaman, were tried together (see above).
Ordinary seamanLondonMaltaMalta21st Feb1. Absence without leave.
2. Striking his superior officer being in the execution of his office.
3 yearsTo be brought up in 2 years.
StokerBedfordChathamGibraltar7th March1. Absence without leave.
2. Striking his superior officer being in the execution of his office.
3 years
StorkerAntrimAt seaArose Bay, Villagarcia8th March1. Behaving with contempt to his superior officer.
2. Striking his superior officer being in the execution of his office.
3. Act to the prejudice of good order and naval discipline in violently resisting an escort.
4. Attempting to strike his superior officer being in the execution of his office.
4 years
StokerAntrimAt seaArose Bay, Villagareia8th March1. Striking his superior officer being in the execution of his office.
2. Act to the prejudice of good order and naval discipline in striking a private R.M.L.I.
3. Act to the prejudice of good order and naval discipline in violently resisting an escort.
4 years
Stoker, 1st ClassVictoryPortsmouthPortsmouth23rd Nov.Two, of inciting stokers to join in a mutinous assembly.5 years, reduced to 3 yearsTo be brought up in 12 months.
2nd yeoman of signalsAmphitriteChathamChatham20th Dec.1. Theft of a boat's signal book.
2. mproperly leaving his ship.
5 years, reduced to 3 years

II. Cases of Corporal Punishment with Birch.

(Prior to Admiralty Order for its suspension, or to promulgation of the same.)

Rating.Date.Place at which punishment was inflicted.Offences.Sentence. Cuts with birch.
Boy, 1st Class, H.M.S. "Victory"1906 3rd Jan.R.N. Barracks, PortsmouthDesertion from H.M.S. "Glory"24
Boy domestic, H.M.S. "Pembroke"5th Jan.R.N. Barracks, Chatham1. Misappropriation of money entrusted to him

2. Obtaining money under false pretences

24
Boy domestic, H.M.S "Vivid"8th Jan.R.N. Barracks, DevonportStealing officers' clothing18
Boy domestic, H.M.S. "Pembroke"13th Jan.R.N. Barracks, ChathamDesertion from H.M.S. "Pembroke"24
Boy, 1st Class, H M.S. "Ganges."15th Jan.H.M.S. "Ganges," Harwich1. Absence over leave 59 hours

2. Disposing of part of his uniform

20 (also 60 days leave stopped, and 60 days pocket money and 12 days vacation leave stopped, and pay all expenses).
Boy, 1st Class, H.M.S. "Ganges"15th Jan.H.M.S. "Ganges," Harwich1. Absence over leave 59 hours

2. Disposing of part of his uniform

20 (also 60 days leave stopped, and 60 days pocket money and 12 days vacation leave stopped, and pay all expenses).
Signal boy, H.M.S. "Victory"3rd Feb.R.N. Barracks, PortsmouthBreaking out of ship and desertion from H.M.S. "Victory"24

Post Office Women Clerks—Miss Howse

To ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that Miss Howse, the president of the Association of Post Office Women Clerks, was recently superseded by three of her juniors, notwithstanding the fact that she has been in the Post Office service thirteen and a half years, and during nine or ten years has been employed on special duties, he will state what official reason was put forward by the lady superintendent for thus superseding this young lady.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether it was with his sanction that the lady superintendent of the Post Office Savings Bank recently conveyed to Miss Howse the information that, although her work was excellent, she was passed over for promotion because she was insolent and insubordinate; whether the only insolence and insubordination that this young lady was guilty of consisted in being president of the Association of Post Office Women Clerks, and in taking an active part in furthering the interests of that association; and seeing that this lady superintendent has acted in a similar manner towards her subordinates in several other instances, will he say what steps he intends to take in the matter. (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Miss Howse has herself properly approached me on the subject of the recent promotions at the Savings Bank, and I am inquiring into her case and her allegations. Pending my decision it is highly improper that a Member of Parliament should have been approached in the matter. If I thought that the officer in question had herself instigated or been cognisant of the Question I should be unfavourably impressed with her judgment or her fitness for promotion.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether it is with his permission that the lady superintendent of the Savings Bank Department frequently exceeds her official duties by having covert threats of dismissal, and without preferring any charge, conveyed to her subordinates who may be suspected of matters which are personally disapproved of by her; if not, will he give instructions that methods of this description must be stopped, and that all charges made must be in writing with full opportunity of defence to the suspected person; and will he state the age, length of service, and date of retirement of this lady superintendent.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that he has accorded full liberty to Post Office servants to combine in their own interests, he will explain whether it was with his permission that the lady superintendent of the Post Office Savings Bank conveyed to her subordinates the information that she disapproved of the Association of Post Office Women Clerks, that she disapproved of their holding meetings, that she disapproved of their giving evidence before the Select Committee on Post Office Servants, and that she would not allow them to hold meetings in the Savings Bank premises; whether he is aware that she sent her own particular friends to take private notes of the proceedings when meetings have been held by these women clerks outside the Post Office buildings, and that she afterwards sent for the speakers at such meetings and cautioned them; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter. (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It is well known in the service that officers who may consider themselves aggrieved by the action of their superior officers can lay their alleged grievances before me. I much regret, therefore, that any officer in the service should have preferred publicly to promulgate anonymous and unsubstantiated statements such as those contained in the Questions.

Hms "Agamemnon"

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the painting work in connection with the construction of H.M.S "Agamemnon," now being built by Messrs. Beardmore, of Dalmuir, is almost entirely being done with a machine and by unskilled labour; and whether this is in accordance with the terms of contract signed by the firm. (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) Nearly the whole of the painting work on the "Agamemnon' has been and is being carried out by skilled manual labour and only a very small proportion by machine. The skill of the labour employed upon the machine is judged by the results, which have been satisfactory. The use of the machine is not forbidden by the conditions of the contract, but no work performed in an unskilful way will be accepted.

Mechanician Experiment

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when it is proposed to report to this House the result of the mechanician experiment, and its total cost to date, so that Members may have an opportunity of discussing it. (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) An opportunity of discussing this question will arise on Vote A and Vote 1 of next year's Navy Estimates. I am advised that it is impossible to give an estimate of the total cost.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the fact that the inculcation of the idea that chief stokers and engine-room artificers are their greatest enemies is made part of the educational training of mechanicians for His Majesty's Navy, and upon what grounds this is based; and whether, in the interest of good order and discipline, he will take steps for its discontinuance. (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) There is no foundation whatever for this allegation.

Engine-Room Artificers

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if engine-room artificers have loyally carried out the duties imposed upon them in the training of mechanician candidates; and will he state the terms of the last report giving the results of their labours. (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. The Report stated that with one exception all the mechanicians passed satisfactorily.

Stokers' Promotion

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what are the terms of advancement from stoker in His Majesty's Navy to chief stoker and mechanician, respectively; are candidates for S. P. O. and C. S. ratings selected only from those who express their willingness to continue with the course of training for mechanician if required. (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) The regulations on this subject are numerous and detailed, and I have caused a copy to be sent to the hon. Member. The Answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

Stokers In The Navy

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many men have joined His Majesty's Navy as stokers since 1st October, 1906; what was stated by them as their former occupations; have the age and height for entry been reduced since that date; what number of seamen and marines have changed their rating to that of stoker since that date; and what is the-number of stokers now short of the complement required irrespective of Royal Naval Reserve men. (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is 2,805. It will be obvious from this that the second Question does not admit of a Parliamentary Answer. As to the third Question the Answer is in the negative. The figures asked for in the fourth Question are, approximately, seamen, 409; marines, 82. The Answer to the fifth Question is 500.

Pensioners And Home Service Billets

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to what extent it is proposed to substitute pensioners for active-service ratings in Home service billets, enumerating for what special duties they will be utilised and from what Vote their wages will be paid; and will their pension allowance be stopped whilst they are in receipt of full pay for employment in their former rating. (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) The extent to which the substitution of pensioners for active service ratings will be carried out depends upon the requirements of the service. Pensioners entered as civilians are employed on duties for which they are considered more suitable than active-service ratings, such as caretakers, attendants, etc., and to a limited extent on instructional duties. The charge will fall mainly on Vote 11 (Miscellaneous Effective Services). The Answer to the last Question is in the negative.

Stamford Embezzlement Case

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of a man named Herbert Stanton, who, after upwards of thirteen years service was arrested on his honeymoon and charged before the Stamford borough magistrates with embezzling the sum of £14 19s. from his employers, and, after, being remanded three times without bail, has now been committed for trial at the Stamford quarter sessions, which will not be held till the end of October next, bail still being refused; and whether he will consider the desirableness of a representation to the magistrates upon the subject, or take such other steps as may be necessary to prevent a prisoner charged under such circumstances remaining in custody for a period of upwards of three months pending trial. (Answered by Mr Secretary Gladstone). I have made inquiry into this case. The question of allowing bail when a felony is charged is one for the discretion of the committing magistrates. I am informed that the charges against the defendant are more serious than is indicated in the Question, as they include two charges of embezzlement, two of falsification of accounts, and two of converting his employer's money to his own use; and that the sessions at which they are to be tried are fixed for 1st October, not for the end of that month. In any case I have no authority to interfere; if any injustice has been done, the remedy is an application to a Judge of the High Court to grant bail.

Egyption Administration

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Dallen, Mr. Hains, Mr. Athoney, Mr. King Lewis, and most of the other inspectors of the Egyptian Ministeries of Finance and the Interior were teachers brought from England and transferred to their present positions, although not possessed of engineering certificates. (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey). I have no information on the subject, but I am not aware that the efficiency of these Gentlemen has been called in question.

Egyptian Ministry Of Public Works

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Messrs. Yorke, Darke, Prampolini, and others, are, or are about to be, appointed to high posts in the Egyptian Ministry of Public Works, though not possessed of polytechnic school certificates or diplomas; whether many other European officials of the same Ministry have been so appointed though lacking such certificates; and whether they have been promoted over Natives who possess such certificates. (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) I have no information as to the points raised by the hon. Member, and I would observe that questions of this kind lie solely within the discretion of the Egyptian Government, who must be trusted to make the best appointments in their power.

Political Unrest In Egypt

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many of the Egyptian Ministers and how many of their British Advisers are now on duty at Cairo; and whether, in view of the alleged political unrest in Egypt, he can state when the Ministers now absent and the Agent-General will return to their posts. (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) I am not consulted as to the vacation of the Egyptian Ministers, nor do I propose to interfere in the matter. There is no reason, so far as I am aware, for interference with the annual leave of the British Advisers, and certainly none for the curtailment of that of the British Agent.

Assam Labour Commission

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has yet taken action upon the Report of the Assam Labour Commission; and whether any Papers on the subject can be laid in the Library. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I understand that the Report is still under the consideration of the Government of India. A copy was placed in the Library of the House in February last.

Plague In India

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will consider the advisability of giving, in Official Publications and Answers, together with the actual figures relating to plague mortality, the figures per mille of the population of India, in order that comparision may not be made with a population approximating to that of the United Kingdom. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I will bear in mind the hon. Member's suggestion in cases in which the additional information would be pertinent and correct, and might prevent misleading comparisons. When, as frequently happens, plague is practically confined to a province, a per mille ratio to the population of India would itself be misleading.

Grimsby Docks

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Great Central Railway Company, the owners of the docks at Grimsby, have given instructions that the railway company's own boats plying between Grimsby and various Continental ports are to have priority in berthing and loading facilities over vessels belonging to, or chartered by, English traders for conveying traffic from the port of Grimsby to the port of London; whether such preference of the railway company's own traffic has been shown as against coal intended to pass from Grimsby to His Majesty's dockyard at Woolwich; and whether, in the public interest, he is prepared to put a stop to the preferential treatment complained of. (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The Board of Trade have been in communication with the railway company on the subject of my hon. friend's Question, and are informed that no instructions to the effect indicated have been given. The company state that in accordance with the course of business which has been uniformly followed at Grimsby, both before and since they acquired their dock property, casual steamers using the docks give place to vessels plying regularly to and from the port, but this description applies to the boats of several owners besides those of the company, and all are treated alike.

Promotions To Head Postmasterships

To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that it was represented to the Parliamentary Committee on post-office servants, by means of a printed chart as well as by departmental witnesses, that head postmasters have the right to look for promotion to the large postmasterships with salaries up to £775, including the postmasterships of Sheffield and Hull, he will explain why the vacant postmasterships at Sheffield and Hull have just been filled by the appointment of officers from the Secretary's Office, London, and the Surveying Department, respectively.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that the officer appointed postmaster of Sheffield has been considered unfit for promotion in his own Department, and has been passed over on several occasions by the promotion of junior officers of his own class, and that the officer appointed postmaster of Hull was second in the list of assistant surveyors, first-class, and therefore likely to have been promoted within a short time, if deserving, to a surveyorship carrying a salary of £600 by £25 to £900, he will say whether there are any head postmasters amongst the 877 members of that class who are in every respect well qualified for, and entitled to, promotion to such offices as those at Sheffield and Hull.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that dissatisfaction prevails throughout the ranks of the head postmasters in consequence of the manner in which their claims have been dealt with in the matter of promotions and of the fact that a much larger proportion of postmasterships carrying salaries of £400 and upwards have been filled by the promotion of officers other than postmasters since the present Postmaster- General has been in office than was formerly the case; whether it is proposed to compensate head postmasters for the decrease in their prospects of promotion caused by these appointments of officers from other branches by promoting head postmasters to better positions in the Surveying Department, the Secretary's Office, and other departments of the postal service; and what steps the Postmaster-General will take to allay the feeling existing amongst those public servants. (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I will answer these three Questions together. It is not, and never has been, the case that promotion to the larger postmasterships is exclusively reserved for postmasters, nor was it so stated to the Select Committee. Postmasterships are staff appointments for which all officers of the post office are equally eligible and can make application, and postmasters have no exclusive claim to all or any particular proportion of them. There has been no change in practice in regard to the matter since I have been Postmaster-General. As regards the officers recently appointed postmasters of Sheffield and Hull they were, in my judgment, taking everything into account, the best qualified of the candidates who presented themselves. I need hardly say that before arriving at this conclusion I examined carefully the qualifications of all the postmasters who made application for these posts. The hon. Member may not be aware that the postmastership of Cardiff, which is of equal value with that of Sheffield, was filled at the same time by the promotion of a postmaster.

Assistant Clerks

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the fact that the new class of assistant clerks is the only considerable body of permanent Government officials on the major establishment to which the privilege of twenty-one days annual leave after five years service is not extended, whether he is aware that this concession is granted to some officials junior in rank to assistant clerks; and whether, consequently, he can see his way to allow assistant clerks to count the time served by them as temporary boy clerks or copyists to reckon towards the com pletion of the period of ten years established service which it is at present necessary for these clerks to serve before they become entitled to eighteen days annual leave. (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I do not feel able to add anything to the reply which I gave to a somewhat similar Question put by the hon. Member for the Ludlow Division of Salop on the 9th ultimo.

Powers Of School Boards

To ask the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of Section 20 (5) of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, under which the Board of Education may authorise a school board to put in force the powers of the Land Clauses Acts, either absolutely or with such conditions and modifications as they may think fit, the Board is prepared on the request of a local education authority to insert in Provisional Orders Confirmation Bills provisions modifying the Land Clauses Acts with regard to such matters as payment of compensation in the case of insanitary property, exemption from Section 133 of the Land Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and the power to take part only of properties. (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Board of Education are prepared, on the request of a local education authority, to insert in Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, where the circumstances in the opinion of the Board justify such a course, those clauses which, having been frequently inserted in local Acts, are regarded in the practice of Parliament as model clauses.

Vagrants' Children

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the evidence given by Mr. J. G. Legge, late chief inspector of industrial schools, before the Departmental Committee on Vagrancy (Minutes of Evidence, page 160, Questions and Answers 4621, 4623, 4624, and 4628), and in view of the Report of that Committee, he will, in his legislation for next session affecting children, take steps to secure that when the parent or guardian of a child is dealt with as an habitual vagrant, there shall be a power to the Court to order the child to be sent to an industrial school. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I am aware of the evidence and recommendations to which my hon. friend refers, and I can assure him that they shall receive my careful and sympathetic consideration when the Bill is being drafted.

Mile End Local Government Inquiry

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that at the inquiry recently held at Mile End by one of the inspectors of the Local Government Board objection was taken to the legality of certain surcharges that formed the subject of the inquiry, on the ground that the audit had not been properly adjourned, and that such adjournment had not been proved, as required by Section 7 of the Poor Law Audit Act, 1848; and whether, seeing that the ultimate enforcement of these surcharges involves the liberty of the subject, he will undertake that during the recess the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown shall be taken as to the validity of the proceedings of the auditor, and in the event of that opinion being against the validity of the auditor's action he will take immediate steps to declare these surcharges void. (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I understand that at the inquiry a question has been raised as to the legality of the surcharges on the ground that the audit at which they were made had not been properly adjourned. At present the inquiry is not completed, and the inspector's Report has not been made. Until I receive it, I cannot say what course it will be right for me to take with reference to the point raised.

Lord Cloncurry's Evicted Tenants

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have been taken for the reinstatement of evicted tenants on the Kildare estate of Lord Cloncurry; and whether the claim of James Hanlon, of Newpark, Donadea, to be reinstated in his former holding of the lands of Kilmurry, from which he was evicted in the year 1882, has been considered; and, if so, what is the result. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received only one application for reinstatement on this estate, namely, the application of James Hanlon, which they have rejected. The Commissioners have ascertained that Hanlon merely held a grazing tenancy of the farm in which he sought reinstatement, and that he is at present the tenant of a farm of seventy acres on the estate.

Kilbride Labourer's Cottage

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Naas (No. 2) Rural District Council made recently an improvement scheme under the Labourers' Acts, and under the same proposed to erect a cottage for a labourer named John Richardson, in the townland of Kilbride, the site being on a holding in the occupation of Mr. Fletcher Moore, who objected that the site was on demesne land, such objection being up held by Mr. John F. M'Cabe, Local Government Inspector; at the local inquiry into the scheme, did Mr. Moore, in his evidence, admit that this particular holding was distinct from his demesne, had been in the occupation of a tenant up to 1902, when the tenant was evicted, and since then has been on his hands; was the inspector correct in disallowing the site under the circumstances; and will the matter be reconsidered. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The tenant's interest in the land on which the site in question is marked was purchased fifteen years ago by Mr. Fletcher Moore, who added it to the demesne surrounding his mansion house. The inspector considers that the plot comes within the exemptions specified in Section 6 of the Labourers' Act of 1883. The decision in such cases is vested by the Act of last year in the inspector, and his decision was arrived at after considering the evidence given at the inquiry and visiting the lands in question.

Castletown School Mistress

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can ascertain whether Mrs. M'Geehin, late teacher of Castletown national school, Mountrath, received any salary for the two years previous to her enforced retirement from the service of the Commissioners of National Education, though she fully complied with the directions of the Commissioners; and, if not, whether he can suggest to the Commissioners the propriety of now paying the arrears of salary earned by her. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that Mrs. M'Geehin received her salary and other emoluments in full up to the 30th June, 1904, when she ceased to be recognised as teacher of the Castle-town girls' national school. In October 1903, it was found necessary to make an adjustment in respect of an overpayment of salary made to Mrs. M'Geehin prior to 1st July, 1901. This overpayment was due to incorrect returns of pupils' attendances which Mrs. M'Geehin had furnished.

Instruction In Irish

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can ascertain how many teachers in Circuit 21, Section A, who taught Irish for a fee during the year ended 30th June, 1907, got increments; and what annual reports are necessary in order to secure increments in such cases. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that twenty-three teachers of national schools, other than convent schools, in Circuit 21, Section A, taught Irish for a fee during the year ended 30th June, 1907. One of these teachers has a salary in excess of the maximum of the scale provided for first-grade teachers, sixteen received triennial increments since 1st April, 1905, one case is under consideration for promotion in grade, two are not at present entitled by length of service to any increment, and three have failed to give service of sufficiently satisfactory character to warrant an award. In dealing with the claims of teachers for the triennial awards of increments the Commissioners consider the reports upon the schools which cover the whole, or practically the whole, of the triennial period.

Questions In The House

Presbyterian And Methodist Churches At Berehaven

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that there are about 700 men of the Home Fleet, which regularly visits Berehaven, who are members of the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches, and that the authorities of both these Churches have for fully two years pressed the Admiralty to grant a site at Berehaven sufficient for the erection of a hall in which to conduct religious services; and whether, seeing that such services are at present conducted in the open often under much discomfort, he can now grant the site asked for and arrange for giving possession without further delay.

The first application was made about eighteen months ago. The Admiralty have been anxious to meet the wishes of the Churches, and the difficulty in selecting a suitable site has now, I hope, been solved, so that an offer to use the land will shortly be made.

Home Fleet—Vessels Under Repair

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what number of destroyers which took part in the recent manœuvres of the Home Fleet are now undergoing or awaiting repairs, or have been under repair, since the manœuvres.

Of the Home Fleet destroyers which took part in the recent manœuvres, two are undergoing large repairs due to a collision, nine are in hand for minor repairs, and one will shortly have her boilers re-tubed.

Germany And The Cape Government

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any information can be given to the House as to the steps taken by the Government of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope in consequence of the negotiations with the German Government as to the Damaraland and Bechuanaland frontiers.

There are no negotiations in progress with the German Government in regard to the Buchuanaland frontier, but certain questions have arisen as to the interpretation of Article 3 of the Anglo-German Convention of July, 1890, in so far as it relates to the Orange River. His Majesty's Government have made certain proposals for settling these questions, which are now under the consideration of the German Government, and in the interval no action is required on the part of the Cape Government.

asked if any military or semi-military steps had been taken as to the removal of certain tribes. There had, he said, been rumours to that effect

Mortality Among Panama Canal Labourers

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make inquiry into the rate of mortality among the labourers employed on the Panama Isthmian Canal.

I understand that my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has called for an official report, but has not yet received it. I may mention, however, that very beneficial results have followed from the strict enforcement of sanitary laws and anti-mosquito regulations in the canal zone, and from the application of the new knowledge of tropical diseases to local conditions. In October, 1884, there were twenty-one deaths and eighty-four cases of yellow fever amongst 2,706 non-im munes, in a total of 19,243 men, employed in the construction of the canal. In October, 1905, among 4,000 non-immunes in a total of 22,000 employees, there was no death and only one case. This is an excellent instance of the inestimable value of the kind of research work which is being conducted by the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and other institutions of a similar kind.

If the information is not received till after the prorogation will the right hon. Gentleman have it circulated?

Panama Labour Contracts

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will ascertain what steps the local Governments have taken to assure themselves that the labourers engaged in the British West Indies working on the Panama Isthmian Canal thoroughly understand the terms of their engagement before leaving.

The respective Governments of the British West Indies are very careful to safeguard—as far as it is possible to do so—emigrants from those Colonies, and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by making the suggested inquiry unless or until the hon. Gentleman is able to furnish me with some definite evidence that neglect has occurred.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps the Government have taken to ensure that the coolies understand the terms of their contract.

We assume naturally that the officers responsible have done their duty, but if there are any facts to justify the suggestion that there has been neglect and that injury has resulted therefrom they will, if brought to the notice of the Secretary of State, be inquired into, but we think aprima facie case should first be made out.

was understood to ask if the regulations provided for inquiry being made of the coolies if they really understand the contracts. Would the regulations be laid on the Table?

Australian Tariff

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received a representation from the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce on the subject of the new Australian tariff; and, if so, whether he will inform the House of the nature of that representation.

A letter has been received from the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, representing that hardship and loss will be inflicted on exporters by the immediate coming into operation of the new Australian Customs Tariff, and asking that a telegram might be sent to the Commonwealth Government requesting them to postpone the operation of the tariff for, say, three months. The effect of this letter has been telegraphed to the Commonwealth Government.

Italian State Railways—Luggage Robberies

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the systematic robberies that are continually taking place on Italian State railways, from registered luggage belonging to British subjects whilst in charge of State officials; and whether His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of making representations to the Italian Ambassador in this country with a view to the stoppage of these thefts, perpetrated by or with the connivance of the State officials.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
(Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick)

Complaints of such robbories are constantly brought to the notice of His Majesty's Consuls, and in some cases to that of His Majesty's Embassy, who have fre quently made representations to the proper authorities through diplomatic and consular channels.

Egyptian Public Companies And Foreign Capital

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet able to state approximately the amount of native and foreign capital invested in public companies in Egypt, the number of companies trading there without being registered, and the proportion they bear to the number registered.

From information supplied by the Egyptian Ministry of Finance, it would appear that the share and debenture capital of the companies whose business is entirely, or almost entirely, confined to Egypt, is estimated approximately at £90,000,000 sterling, of which the proportion contributed by Egyptian companies is about two-thirds, the remaining one-third representing the capital of foreign companies. These figures afford no indication of the proportion of native and foreign capital invested in these companies, the capital of Egyptian companies being largely held abroad, andvice versa. It is estimated, however, that the larger proportion of the total is in foreign hands. The capital is distributed among some 220 companies, about 45 per cent of which are Egyptian and the remainder foreign companies. There are also a certain number of banking and other foreign companies which have established branches in Egypt, but with respect to which it is not possible to ascertain the amount of capital invested in the country. Foreign companies are not registered in Egypt. I should that the above figures do not include the Suez Canal Company.

Egyptian Government And The Legislative Council

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet able to state whether any and what papers have been withheld by the Egyptian Government from the Legislative Council, as asked in Question 4 on 7th May.†

†See (4) Debates, clxxiv., 63.

According to a Report received by His Majesty's Agent and Consul General at Cairo, neither the Egyptian Council of Ministers nor the Secretary of the Legislative Council, to whom inquiries have been addressed on the subject, are aware of any refusal on the part of the Egyptian Government to communicate Reports to the Legislative Assembly, nor are they able to ascertain what are the Reports referred to in the hon. Member's Question of 7th May†.

Egyptian Postmaster-General

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to state the grounds of the appointment of Borton Bey as Postmaster-General of Egypt.

Borton Bey was appointed Assistant Postmaster-General in December, 1904, and was chosen for that post on account of his great experience as an administrator, having served since the beginning of 1899 in various important and responsible positions. Saba Pasha, the late Postmaster-General, succeeded Halton Pasha, an Englishman. Had Borton Bey now been passed over for the appointment, the next official in seniority would have been an Italian.

Egyptian Salt Adulteration

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that on analysis the ordinary salt sold in Egypt by the Egyptian Salt and Soda Company, Limited, is found to contain only 91·08 per cent. of salt, with 6·01 of sodium sulphate, 2·33 of sodium carbonate, and ·20 per cent. of sand, while the fine table salt sold by the same company contains only 89·93 per cent. of salt, with 6·96 of sodium sulphate, 2·65 of sodium carbonate, and ·26 per cent. of sand, the fine salt being thus the more impure of the two; and whether he will recommend the Egyptian Government to use what power it has in connection with the partial monopoly of the Egyptian Salt and Soda Company to secure that its products shall be freed from the adulterants or impurities above specified.

†See (4) Debates, cixxiv., 63.

This matter must be left to the Egyptian Government. But the information which the hon. Member has sent me will be forwarded to Cairo.

Metropolitan Police Clothing Contracts

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the regulations as regards the price, quality, and supply of police clothing; and what contracts for this purpose have been placed in Wales last year.

I have no information with regard to police forces other than the metropolitan police. The conditions of the metropolitan police clothing contract could not well be stated within the limits of a reply to a Question, but I shall be happy to show my hon. friend a copy of the form of contract if he desires it. No contract for metropolitan police clothing was placed in Wales last year.

Glasgow Telephone Operators' Hours Of Duty

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that girl telephone operators in Glasgow, employed by the National Telephone Company, are kept at night work for twelve hours for seven consecutive nights without any stated time for rest or meals; and whether he can take any action to effect an improved arrangement.

I have communicated with the company, who inform me that their night operators in Glasgow have one week night duty and one week day duty alternately. During the week of night duty their employment is as stated in the Question, but is understood that they have during every night two hours each free from duty, although, owing to the exigencies of the work, the precise time when this rest is to take place cannot be fixed. The company inform me further that for some time past the fubject of night operator's work has been under their consideration with a view, if possible, to modifying the existing conditions. The matter is one in which I have no authority whatever to interfere.

London, Tilbury, And Southend Railway—Workmen's Trains

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Company have not yet fulfilled their undertaking to issue workmen's tickets between Grays and Purfleet by their 5.39 a.m. train; and whether he can state when such workmen's tickets will be issued. I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has taken any action with a view to inducing the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Company to afford to the workmen of Grays and Tilbury similar facilities by means of workmen's tickets and workmen's trains for getting to the docks in London as are afforded to the inhabitants of Barking and places nearer the metropolis and as the company afford to the inhabitants of London for getting to the docks at Tilbury; and, if so, whether there is any prospect that such facilities will soon be granted.

The Board of Trade have been in communication with the railway company as to the delay in issuing workmen's tickets between Grays and Purfleet, and I understand that this delay has been due to the receipt of the subsequent demand for workmen's tickets from Tilbury and Grays to London referred to in the second Question. If this further demand is not proceeded with the company are prepared to issue the tickets to Purfleet at once, but if it is to be pressed the company would prefer that the whole matter should form the subject of any inquiry that may be ordered.

Australian Tariffs—British Protests

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the protests of British Chambers of Commerce on the subject of the new Australian traiff; and whether he is taking any steps to bring those protests to the attention of the Australian Government.

I can add nothing on this subject to the reply given by me yesterday to the hon. Member for the Tottenham Division.†

I beg to ask the President of Board of Trade if he is aware that, owing to the heavy frieght and other charges incurred in shipping goods to Australia, the natural protection enjoyed by the Australian manufacturer is usually 50 per cent. to 100 per cent.ad valorum upon the export price of the British manufacturer; and whether he will represent that fact to the Australian Government in connection with their imposition of a heavy tariff upon imports from the United Kingdom.

If and when the question of representations come to be considered, the point referred to by my hon. frieud will not be lost sight of.

New Cross—Accident To Post Office Linesman

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the case of Charles Kelly, a linesman in the engineering department, who lost both legs by accident while in the employment of the Department at New Cross on 4th March, 1904; whether any compensation or other method of settlement of his claim for damages has been made; and if so, what is the nature of such settlement.

I have obtained from the railway company concerned a sum of £700 as compensation for the injuries received by Kelly. This sum was paid to Kelly on the 7th June last.

National Telephone Company Rates

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that opposition is being aroused in the chambers of commerce and other trading associations throughout the country at the new measured rate introduced by the National Telephone Company; and whether he has taken any steps to ascertain the opinions of these bodies, or any of them, with reference to the introduction of the new rate.

As I have already explained, my consent was not necessary for the introduction of these rates by the National Telephone Company, and I have, therefore, not invited any expression of opinion from chambers of commerce and other trade associations.

Promotions In The Education Department

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education how many second division clerks have ever been promoted to be examiners in the Board of Education, and how many sub-inspectors have, during the last five years, been promoted to be inspectors, seeing that there is no absolute barrier to promotion by merit in those two cases; and what are the dates of such promotions.

Two second division clerks in the Board of Education have been promoted to be examiners on the 8th March, 1904, and the 23rd November, 1901. The former of them was promoted under the late Science and Art Department. Eleven of the persons appointed to inspectorships since 1st August, 1902 have been sub-inspectors. My hon. friend will, therefore, see that there is no barrier to promotion between the two classes.

School Accommodation

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he can state separately the numbers of provided and non-provided schools for older children which are still recognised as supplying accommodation on the eight-square-feet basis; and whether the provided schools so recognised are exclusively schools which have been transferred under the Act of 1870 and which were originally voluntary schools.

No, Sir; as I have already stated, I cannot yet make an accurate statement as to the accommodation of the 21,000 public elementary schools on either basis, but I am having the information gradually collected, and I am taking such steps as I can, during that process, to expedite the writing down of the public elementary school accommodation to the ten and nine feet basis.

Mortomley School

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what steps have been taken to see that the decision of the Board of Education in the matter of the Catholic school, at Mortomley, near Sheffield, was carried out by the local education authority, and whether the salaries due to the teachers had yet been handed over to the managers.

I have had a communication unofficially from the local education authority informing me that the salaries would be paid. I believe the delay has been on account of the holidays, and the closing of the office in consequence thereof.

both gave notice to repeat the Question.

Incorporated Law Society

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General if he has any information as to the recent poll of the Incorporated Law Society rejecting all the precautions suggested by a recent committee of inquiry appointed by the council for the better protection of trust funds and the prevention of the cases of misappropriation and malversation, of which so many startling examples have occurred.

I am informed that certain resolutions were carried by the Incorporated Law Society, having for their object the preservation of trust funds in the hands of their members. They were in the following terms:—

  • "That it is the duty of every solicitor to keep full and accurate accounts, which should be periodically balanced."
  • " That moneys received by a solicitor on behalf of his client should be kept separate from his own moneys, and that a convenient way of effecting this is by opening a clients' money account at a bank into which all moneys received by a solicitor to any part of which a client is, or under any circumstances may be, entitled should in the first instance be paid."
  • " That moneys of clients in the hands of, or under the control of a solicitor, should only be used on account and with the authority of a client to whom they respectively belong."
  • " That any increment in the nature of interest, income, or other profit accruing on clients' moneys should be credited to the clients whose moneys have produced such interest, income, or profit, and that any solicitor who, without the authority of his client, should retain for his own use any such interest, income or other profit is guilty of professional impropriety."
  • " That except under special and unavoidable circumstances it is no part of a solicitor's business to hold money belonging to a client for any lengthened period, and that it is contrary to right practice to do so."
  • " That in cases where a solicitor finds himself in possession of money of a substantial amount not his own, of which he cannot immediately, or within a short time discharge himself, it is his duty, if he does not keep a separate clients' account at a bank, and it is desirable even if he does keep such a separate account, to pay that money in to a deposit account separate, not only from his own money, but from all other money, and to earmark it, by endorsement on the deposit receipt or otherwise, as belonging to the particular client or matter."
  • "I think the hon. Member will recognise that these introduce novel and valuable precautions which will be observed by the members of the Society. The resolutions that were not carried were—"
  • " That every solicitor should either (a) have his accounts audited at least once a year by a chartered or incorporated accountant, or (b) Keep a separate bank account for all moneys received by him on behalf of his clients."
  • " That in the case of every solicitor whose accounts are audited by a chartered or incorporated accountant he should be required annually, on applying for his practising certificate, to forward to the Society a certificate from such accountant stating that the accounts had been properly kept and duly audited."
  • " That in the case of every solicitor whose accounts are not so audited he should be required annually, on applying for his practising certificate, to forward to the Society a Statutory Declaration as follows: (a) That he had kept a separate bank account for all moneys received by him on behalf of his clients, and that all such moneys had been paid into that account and had been used only for or on account of the clients to whom they respectively belong; (b) That all increment in the nature of interest, income, or other profit accruing on such moneys had been credited to the clients whose moneys respectively had produced such interest, income, or profit; and (c) That on the date of the declaration all such moneys had been duly dealt with or were in hand and available."
  • Further asked if the resolutions carried were not merely expressions of pious opinions while the only really operative resolutions were rejected,

    replied that there was a good deal to be said in favour of those that were rejected but, it was held to be somewhat hard that solicitors should be called upon to make statutory declaration.

    The Public Trustee

    I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General if he can inform the House where in London the office of the Public Trustee will be located; when the proposed table of fees for his services as trustee of a settlement, as custodian of shares to bearer and certificates of negotiable securities, or as executor of a will, will be issued; and how soon settlors and testators will be able to avail themselves of his services as a trustee or executor, who will never die, never leave the country, and never become incapacitated, and whose honesty and integrity will be guaranteed by the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

    The office of the Public Trustee will, in the first instance, be opened in Clement's Inn, immediately adjoining the Strand, Lincoln's Inn, and the Royal Courts of Justice. The table of fees will be published this week; and the Public Trustee's services become available under the Act on 1st January next.

    Streatham Hospital Bequest

    I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Elland Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether, with reference to the estate of the late Benjamin Weir, deceased, estimated at about £100,000, with an accumulated income of about £10,000, which was bequeathed by him for the purposes of a hospital for the benefit of the inhabitants of the parish of Streatham, the Charity Commissioners are preparing or contemplating a scheme for the application of the estate to purposes outside the parish of Streat ham, although that parish, which has an acreage more than four times as large as the City of London, and with a population of 101,628, and sixty miles of roads, yet has no hospital; whether a local public inquiry will be held, or any other opportunity given to the inhabitants to express their opinions on the subject, before any such scheme is carried into effect; and is he aware that a letter was received by the Charity Commissioners from the Streatham Ratepayers' Association dated 23rd May, 1907, of which receipt was acknowledged on the 25th idem, promising attention, but to which no further reply has been given.

    The residuary esatat e estimated as stated by the hon. Member was left by the late Benjamin Weir by will for the maintenance of a hospital to be carried on, at a house belonging to the testator at Streatham, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the parish of Streatham and the neighbourhood. The house having been found to be unsuitable for the purpose, and the authorities of King Edward's Hospital Fund having informed the trustees of the Weir Charity that the sum at their disposal was quite insufficient to found a hospital, and having advised union with the Bolingbroke Hospital at Wandsworth Common th e, Trustees have submitted proposals to the Charity Commissioners for dealing with the Weir endowment. These proposals are for the application of the greater part of the endowment for the enlargement and maintenance of the Bolingbroke Hospital (at which beds are to be available for Streatham cases) after providing for the carrying on of the existing Weir Dispensary at Streatham and for the establishment and maintenance of a home at Streatham for nurses for the benefit of the neighbourhood and for setting apart a fund for the payment of fees for nursing and other treatment of Streatham patients. The Commissioners have expressed their willingness to publish a scheme in substantial accordance with the proposals of the Trustees. In the letter of 23rd May, 1907, from the Streatham Ratepayers' Association it was stated that a similar letter was being sent to the Trustees of the Weir Charity. The Chairman of the Association was informed at an interview at the office of the Commissioners on the 31st July last that the Commissioners favoured the proposal for amalgamation with the Bolingbroke Hospital. In a letter of the 15th August the views of the Association and of the Streatham Chamber of Commerce have been stated to the Commissioners, and when a scheme has been framed for publication full opportcnity will be given to all persons to express their opinion on the subject. In these circumstances there does not seem to be any occasion for a local public inquiry.

    Customs Assistant Statistical Clerks

    I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether assistant clerks in the Statistical Office of the Customs are compelled to remain on overtime duty till 8 p.m. for about six months every year; if so, will he endeavour to arrange for the reduction of this amount of overtime; what is the remuneration for such overtime; and would the overtime work afford an opportunity for the employment of some of the unemployed.

    I am informed that the number of working days on which extra attendance by assistant clerks in the Statistical Office was required compulsorily during 1906, to secure the early publication of the monthly trade returns, was sixty-one, but that every effort is made to reduce the amount of such attendance. The overtime remuneration of assistant clerks is as follows:—

    Per hour
    s.d
    With salaries under £85 a year9
    With salaries of £85 and under £10010
    With salaries from £100 to £15012
    The necessity for compulsory overtime arises only for a few days at the beginning and end of each month, and it is impracticable to meet it by the employment of additional labour.

    Civil Service—Boy Clerks

    I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any benefits which may result from the recent memorial of boy clerks in the Civil Service will be applicable to boys discharged since September last. I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether temporary provision can be made for the employment of Civil Service boy clerks, aged twenty, pending a decision being arrived at by the Treasury on the memorial now before them. I beg further to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will undertake that in future no appointments of boy clerks will be made in excess of the number which can be absorbed into the permanent establishment of the Civil Service.

    If my hon. friend will allow me I will take the three Questions which he has put down on this subject together. It would not be practicable to give retrospective effect to any new measures which may be adopted in connection with the employment of boy clerks, nor would it be possible in any event to find employment for boys who had already left the service. Though I can give no undertaking of the kind which my hon. friend suggests, I may say that the administrative changes which I contemplate will probably have the effect of reducing to the extreme limit possible the number of boys discharged on grounds other than that of unfitness for permanent employment, and of securing that unavoidable discharges are effected at an earlier age than at present.

    Old Writers' Wages

    I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the old writers received a half-yearly bonus in addition to their wages; whether, in cases where such writers have been discharged in the course of a half-year, the portion of the bonus which has accrued has been withheld from them; and, if so, what is the reason that it has been withheld.

    No bonus accrued under the regulations regarding copyists except at half-yearly intervals. No part of any bonus which had accrued has been withheld, so far as I am aware. On the contrary, some copyists were allowed on the recommendation of Departments to be retained for short periods specifically in order to enable them to complete the six months qualifying them for an additional half-yearly bonus.

    Agricultural Returns

    I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, the reason why the Agricultural Statistics and Report on the Agricultural Returns for the year 1906 have not yet been printed and presented to the House; and when they may be expected.

    The Agricultural Statistics for 1906 are being issued in four parts. The first three parts have already been published and the fourth part, dealing with Foreign and Colonial Agriculture, will shortly be issued. Each part contains a Report on the Returns comprised therein.

    Cattle Statistics

    I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state the total number of cattle returned in 1906 as entering the markets at the places in England scheduled under the Markets and Fairs Act, 1891, and the total number of fat and store cattle imported into Great Britain from Ireland in 1906; whether, since the year 1902, there has been a serious annual decline in the numbers returned in both cases; and to what cause is the decline attributed by the Board of Agriculture.

    The number of cattle returned as entering the scheduled markets in 1902 was 1,010,115. The corresponding figure in 1906 was 857,598. The total number of cattle imported from Ireland was in 1902, 959,241, and in 1906, 775,374. The high figures of 1902 were in each case due to exceptional causes to which reference will be found in the Reports on the Agricultural Returns for 1902 and 1903, the principal one being a shortage in supplies from the United States. I may add that the imports of cattle from Ireland were somewhat larger in 1906 than in either 1904 or 1905.

    Irish Customs Statistics

    I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Return of Imports and Exports, recently issued by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland contains the statement that the information given is neither complete nor exact, and applies to the year 1905; whether such tables are prepared for the United Kingdom by the Customs Department and issued monthly; and whether, seeing that the whole value of such figures depends on their accuracy and the promptness with which they are issued, he can undertake that in future correct tables of imports and exports shall be issued for Ireland by the Customs Department.

    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND
    (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL, Tyrone, S.)

    The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As to the second part of the Question, tables of the foreign trade of the United Kingdom are prepared by the Customs and issued monthly. The trade between Great Britain and Ireland is regarded as coasting trade, and the Customs do not prepare statistics of the quantities and values of goods carried coastwise. As to the final part of the Question, the Department will undertake that a full and complete statement of Irish imports and exports will be promptly and regularly issued, provided they are given the necessary powers to obtain adequate Returns. Legislation with this object in view is being considered.

    Does the hon. Gentleman consider that a delay of eighteen months is reasonable?

    Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to introduce legislation next session to expedite the Returns?

    I can give no undertaking, but I will do my best to get the necessary legislation to secure that the Returns are adequate and prompt.

    Outrage At Lord Ashtown's Residence

    I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to hold an inquiry into the alleged outrage at Lord Ashtown's residence, having regard to the fact that the inquiry into the alleged outrage at Drumbo resulted in proof that the outrage was the work of the residents in the house.

    An investigation of the most careful and searching character is being made, and until this has been completed it would be premature to consider the question of holding a formal inquiry under the Explosive Substances Act, 1883, or otherwise.

    May I ask is it not a fact that on the night when this explosive was said to have been laid there the dogs about the place gavo no alarm, and also whether, although the ground about the spot was full of moisture and very soft, there were no footmarks around the place?

    All considerations of that sort are forming the subject of the most careful and searching inquiry that is now being made.

    In view of the admittedly suspicious circumstances surrounding this case, will the right hon. Gentleman order a special sworn inquiry, such as was held in the case mentioned in this Question, which, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, resulted in showing that the alleged outrage was committed by persons in the house?

    I think everyone will agree that until the preliminary inquiry, which is being carried out in the most searching manner, is concluded it would be premature.

    Is it a fact that Lord Ashtown, since the outrage has been in London, and has been in communication with the authorities, and if so may we have anyex parte statement that he made to them for our own investigations?

    And has the Chief Secretary seen the statement in thePall Mall Gazette welcoming this as a timely outrage, which would justify the House of Lords in their treatment of the Evicted Tenants Bill. And is he aware that the Pigott letters were also produced on the occasion of important legislation for Ireland?

    Pending the inquiry, it would be most irrational for me, whose opportunities for information are not at all complete, to express any opinion. The most searching investigation is being made, and after that the Government will consider the necessity or desirability of holding a special inquiry either under the Explosive Substances Act or otherwise.

    Is it a fact that Lord Ashtown has been in London, making anex parte statement to the authorities, and, if so, may we see that statement for our own investigation?

    I do not know where he is. I do not know that he has made a statementex parte or otherwise to the authorities. I do not think he has.

    May I ask the Chief Secretary whether there is any ground for the allegation contained in the concluding part of the Question?

    I must decline to give any opinion. I know nothing about It. I cannot say.

    *

    Does the right hon. Gentleman know that Lord Ashtown makes a business of circulating information that he can pick out of the papers all through Great Britain with the view of defaming the people of Ireland, and that he has an agency through which he supplies hon. Unionist Members from Ulster with the material for Questions, which are slanders on Ireland?

    *

    Will the right hon. Gentleman be careful in investigating this matter to try and find out if it is not possible, as is believed in the district, that Lord Ashtown himself did this in order to give a fillip to his infamous business of defaming Ireland. [No Answer was returned.]

    asked whether the evidence at the inquiry would be available for hon. Members.

    Will you give us the opportunity of cross-examining Lord Ashtown? [No Answer was returned.]

    Wage Revisions In Government Departments

    I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the temporary character of Select Committees of inquiry as to wages and conditions of service of employees in the public service, and their failure to give satisfaction to those workers concerned or to establish any definite and orderly system of revision of wages from time to time, the Government will take into consideration the establishment of a permanent Commission or Board whose duty it would be to regulate wages in all Departments of State, in keeping with changing conditions, cost of living, the general standard of wages in private employment, and the particular nature of the employment.

    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
    (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs)

    My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question, as it deals with a matter affecting other Departments. I can only refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave on 31st July to a similar Question put to me by the hon. Member for Shoreditch.† I have nothing further to add to that at present.

    The Master Of The Horse

    I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the salary of £2,500 a year paid to the Master of the Horse is for services rendered, and, if so, what those services are; and, if the services are not of an important nature,

    †See (4)Debates, clxxix., 974.
    will he give favourable consideration to the proposal to abolish this office, so that by the economy effected the salaries of more useful officials of the State, about to be appointed, may be provided without additional burdens to the taxpayer.

    A salary of £2,000 was attached to this post on the recommendation of the Select Committee which at the commencement of the present reign drew up the proposals for the Civil List which Parliament has approved. The Civil List settlement is in the nature of a statutory arrangement, and the total amount cannot be varied; and therefore no such result as my hon. friend desires can be effected by any adjustment of detail.

    asked whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to introduce legislation in the interests of economy to reduce this sum of £2,000 for a sinecure office.

    said that there would be no economy effected. This was an arrangement entered into by Parliament, and it was binding on it.

    What are the qualifications for this post, and is it still vacant?

    I do not think that concerns either my hon. friend or me, or anyone else in this House. ["Why?"] It rests with the King to apportion this money according as he finds it desirable and necessary.

    Are we to understand that in the event of being abolished the post the £2,000 would go to His Majesty personally?

    said that probably His Majesty would find some other means of disposing of it within the limits of the Civil List. That was an end of it as far as Parliament was concerned.

    I have already said we have nothing to do with that. The duties are assigned to the office by His Majesty, and I know enough of them to be aware that the office is no sinecure.

    Redistribution Of Seats

    I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can see his way to introduce in the ensuing session any measure for the redistribution of seats in Parliament and rectifying the constantly increasing disparities in the representation of the people, seeing that under existing conditions one half of the Members of the House of Commons are returned by 5,137,117 electors and the other half by 2,309,519 electors, and that one half of the electors of the United Kingdom return 445 Members and the other half return 225 Members.

    No Sir, I cannot make any more promises for next session—nor can I accept responsibility for the hon. Member's figures.

    Did not a Plural Voting Bill pass this House, and was it not sent to the Chamber of Hereditary Revisers, and we heard no more about it? [No Answer was returned.]

    Fair Wages Resolution

    I beg to ask the Prime Minister, in view of some firms which have contracts with the Government declining to treat with the accredited representatives of workmen and making non-membership of trade unions a condition of employment, whether the Committee appointed to consider the working of the Fair Wages Resolution of the House will be asked to deal also with the need for amending the terms of the Resolution; and whether the necessity of representation on the Committee of workmen's organisations has been considered.

    The Committee has been instructed to report whether any changes are desirable in the administration of the Fair Wages Resolution in order to enable its objects to be more effectually attained. It is not intended to amend the terms of the Resolution or enlarge its scope. In these circumstances it did not appear necessary to invite representatives of workmen's organisations to be members of the Committee. They will, of course, have every opportunity of placing their views before the Committee.

    asked whether, seeing that the Committee would have to deal with the complaints of workmen, it was not better it should have on it accredited representatives of workmen's organisations.

    replied that it was a purely inter-departmental Committee, and there was no place on it for outsiders of any kind.

    Business Of The House

    asked as to the business for the next two or three days.

    said that the Government proposed to take the first four orders on the Paper that day and To-morrow the Factory and Workshops Bill and the Miners Bill.

    asked what day would be given for the discussion of the Public Accounts Committee.

    said that there had been a little see-saw between the Cabs Bill and the Factories and Workshops Bill, but at present the latter was in the more commanding position. As to the Public Accounts Committee, an opportunity for discussion would be afforded on Friday, but it did not follow that the opportunity would be a whole day.

    Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to give the House as to the letter addressed by the Senior Member for the City of London to the Chancellor of the Norwood Conservative Club approving Free Trade

    The Late Sittings

    asked the Prime Minister whether he could take some steps in the arrangement of public business to prevent the House from having to sit to the early hours of the morning day after day. Hon. Members were becoming quite worn out. He had attended the House regularly; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind the great stress on Members who did not want to sit up continually to forsaken hours when they could not possibly attend properly to business.

    The general desire is not to sit longer into the remainder of the year than we can possibly avoid; and, therefore, it is necessary to sit late at night. But I think that some nights we sit unnecessarily long owing to the unnecessary amount of repeated discussion. I think I can see as far through a millstone as most people; but I have not been able to discover what motive or advantage their can be in these prolonged discussions, and I am afraid that they are the real cause.

    May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he is never here to see what goes on?

    I thank the hon. Member for his courteous and kindly reference to myself. But, unfortunately, when he comes to my time of life, and has my amount of work to do, he will discover that there is such a power as the family doctor; and he is my master at present.

    I, like the right hon. Gentleman, though perhaps with less excuse with regard to the family doctor, have not suffered from these late sittings; and I do not put this question in an invidious spirit. But does the right hon. Gentleman think it judicious to attack hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House for unnecessary debate unless he has been himself present?

    One can only proceed by way of sample. In this case, I took a sample by staying up last night until half-past one; and what I saw between 11 o'clock and that hour was quite enough to explain everything to me.

    asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that the House was asked to deal with the Appropriation Bill, the Criminal Appeal Bill, the Limited Partnerships Bill, and the Companies, Bill; and whether, as far as could be judged from private information, there was a single Member of the Liberal Party who thought it possible to get through all that business last night.

    said that there was no agreement about business. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that an important Bill like the Companies Bill ought to be taken at half-past five in the morning, when the great majority of Ministers were away, and when the learned Attorney-General, who had spoken already on the Transvaal Loan Bill, the Appropriation Bill, the Criminal Appeal Bill, and the Limited Partnerships Bill, could not be in a state to advise the House?

    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY
    (Mr. GEORGE WHITELEY, Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey)

    said that the Companies Bill ought to have come on at half-past twelve. Other Bills were placed before it, but they were practically non-controversial. The Appropriation Bill had never been debated at such length on the Third Reading. Therefore the Government were not asking the House to do an unnecessary amount of business. The Government had a large number Bills to which they attached importance, and if these Bills were to be passed, they must ask the House to sit late.

    If these Bills were so important how was it that the Government could not keep more than seventy-five of their men here?

    said that hon. Members interested in the Companies Bill had not acquiesced in any arrangement that two hours would be sufficient for its discussion.

    *

    said the business was posted in the inner lobby at five o'clock in the evening, after conversation with one of the right hon. Member's colleagues. It was admitted that several of the orders named would be regarded as uncontroversial, although nothing definite was arranged about the time that might be taken over the Companies Bill.

    May I say I was shown a list of the Bills, and I asked how long it was proposed to sit, and the Government Whip, with a smile on his face, said he had no control over that. I suggested to him that in the interests of the amicable arrangement of the Business of the House, he would do well to modify the list.

    Land Values (Scotland) Bill

    As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.

    *

    moved a clause the object of which was, he said, to give local authorities in Scotland the opportunity of deciding whether or not they would adopt this very expensive Bill. The measure required that every local authority in Scotland should institute a new method of valuing land. It would impose considerable expense on the local authorities, and they ought to have the option of saying whether they would incur that expense or not. They were the best judges if they would get an adequate return for their outlay. In New Zealand, which had always been quoted as a model for this legislation. such option had been given the local authorities. He knew he might be told that in New Zealand there was also a national tax on land values, but perhaps. hon. Gentlemen were not aware that in New Zealand the national tax on Land Values was a substitute for the income tax. Was that what the advocates of land values taxation desired, that people who paid the land values tax should not pay the income-tax? There was, however, a further reason for giving the local authorities option in this matter. This Bill had never been before the country at all. It was introduced very late in the session and passed through the House on the Second Reading stage after one day's debate, going from thence up to the Grand Committee. He thought he might fairly ask the House to take warning by what happened last year in regard to a similar measure. On the Second Reading debate of last year's Bill he had the honour of moving the rejection of the Bill. His Motion was defeated by a majority of 258; but what happened? The Bill was referred to a carefully packed Select Committee, practically all the members of which were in favour of the measure. After having deliberated upon it, however, and examined witnesses, that Committee reported "that the Bill be not proceeded with." Such an instance as that afforded good proof of how easy it was for the House to vote for a Bill without knowing the meaning of it. A new situation had been created by the statement of the Government that they would not tax feu duties. When the local authorities demanded this Bill their whole object was to secure the taxation of feu duties. He quite admitted that there was some doubt as to whether the Government would remain firm in their resolve, and because of this uncertainty he put a question to the Prime Minister. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman, did not give him a very clear answer. With reference to this question he had received a leter from the Parliamentary agent to the Manchester Unity of Odd-fellows, dated 15th August. It began—

    "Dear sir,—I must thank you for your Question, No. 62, in the notices given last Monday with respect to the taxation of land values. Though tho Hearts of Oak Society put the subject forward this year the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows with its 800,000 adult members and £12,000,000 capital amongst its 4,000 branches is largely interested. Many of its lodges have invested in ground rents at prices which will produce less than 4 per cent. Their object was absolute security of income from which claims, as they mature in the old age of the members, could be properly met. As the leases are long no unearned increment will accrue to present members.…"
    In other words the object of this great Friendly Society was to provide for old age pensions out of the land values they had purchased with their savings. The letter continued—
    "I therefore await with much interest the Parliamentary news in to-morrow's newspapers to ascertain the view the Prime Minister takes."
    He was sorry to say that the view the Prime Minister took was not very clearly expressed, but he still had confidence that the Government was resolved not to tax feu duties or to go back on existing contracts. He remembered warning the Liberal Party years ago against the danger of rushing into this morass. He told them they would find themselves in the position of ving to break existing contracts, or else finding that there was no money in the scheme. The burghs wanted money, they did not want a Bill which would give them no money, but would instead involve a great deal of extra expense. Greenock, which had originally supported the Bill, had now petitioned against it. A new situation had also been created by the reply of the Lord Advocate to a deputation of county councils which waited upon him a little time back in reference to this question. The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "When the statute passes it will be found that county proprietors, equally with town proprietors, will be escaping taxation for improvements which they have made upon their land, and that any assessment which may be laid upon the land value is already paid on the composite value."
    Instead of getting a new revenue they were going to wipe out the old one. Where then were the local authorities to get the money to carry on their work? They could only get it from poor people who were compelled to live in the centres of the towns. They would have to pay at the rate of 30s. to £2 in the £1 upon the value of the land upon which they were living. Shopkeepers would be rated on a similar similar scale upon the sites of their business premises. When this was made clear to the people of Scotland their answer as to whether they wished for the Bill or not would be very definite indeed. The Bill would benefit the rich man living in the suburbs in his large house; he would be relieved of all rates except upon the site of his house and garden, which would be put at a low value. It was the poor people and the business men in the towns who would have to bear the burden. Nor was that all. The professed object of taxing agricultural land upon its supposed value for building purposes was to force it into the market. But the whole case for especially taxing agricultural land which had an urban value, but was only rated at its agricultural value, had been given away by the Government in Clause 33 of the Small Holdings Bill—that perfect and delicate piece of mechanism, which according to the Prime Minister must not be touched. The agricultural land referred to in that clause already had an urban value though it was not fully developed. Who was to pay the special tax? Not the county council, because they had no beneficial interest in it; not, certainly, the holder who was growing cabbages on the land, and not the landlord who had not yet resumed possession of it. There was, in fact, nobody who could pay the tax. In other words the Small Holdings Bill rendered it impossible to carry out the purpose of the Land Values Bill. The object of the present Bill was to get to know whether they were going to get any money when they put this tax on. That information could be got just as well without imposing this burden upon the whole of Scotland. The Latin proverb said, "Make your experiments upon something cheap." He did not think that Scotland was cheap enough for such an experiment to be tried on her. He suggested that the experiment should be tried in the constituencies of the Lord Advocate and the Secretary for Scotland—one urban and one rural. At any rate let the burghs and counties be consulted. That would afford alocus penitentiœ to those who had been agitating for a tax on land values. Let them get at the facts and this agitation would be killed. There were four Members for the City of Edinburgh—three of whom were in favour of the Bill, and the fourth on the other side. The majority of three to one said that they believed the people of Edinburgh were in favour of the Bill. Let them give the people of Edinburgh a chance of saying so. They preached the doctrine of "trust the people"; let them practise it. He begged to move.

    *

    seconded the Motion of the hon. Member for Preston, who, he said, had expounded the questions raised by this Bill in a manner which he would not do, owing to their great difficulty and complexity. But he would remind the House that the Bill was made applicable to both urban and rural areas. In the Select Committee the question was never raised of including the counties, and no evidence was led in support of it. He was bound to say that the quotation by the hon. Member for Preston, of Clause 33 of the English Small Holdings Bill, was most damaging. It had not occurred to anyone on the Committee on this Bill upstairs. It had put the Government in an extremely difficult position, although he had no doubt his right hon. and learned friend would wriggle out of it as he usually did. An Amendment having the same object in view, but put in a different form, as the proposed new clause of the hon. Member for Preston, was proposed in Committee upstairs; but during the course of the discussions they were told by the Lord Advocate that there was a national purpose underlying this Bill, which would be entirely defeated were local option adopted. Before the House divided on this new clause they should know what that national object was. He had no doubt that in the view of the Solicitor-General it involved the taxation of existing feu duties, although they had been assured by the Prime Minister and the Lord Advocate that it did not. At any rate, it seemed that the view of the Solicitor-General was not to be accepted. If that were so, they were entitled to know what the national purpose was. He thought that this particular Bill was not thoroughly understood by the people of Scotland; it was not even understood by those who pressed for such legislation in connection with the Glasgow Bill of last year. He was quite certain that if local option were granted, it would be utilised in the way of rejecting the Bill altogether. He knew how the incidence of taxation would be changed if this system of rating were adopted in many of the small burghs in Scotland. He was quite certain that the rich manufacturer would ride off with a light weight of taxation, and the poor cottager would have to pay almost all the taxes. [MINISTERIAL cries of dissent.] He insisted that it could not be denied that that would be the effect of the Bill. Take the town of Ayr, which he represented. Suppose there a house which had cost £30,000 or £40,000 to erect, standing in its own grounds two acres in extent. And next to it, suppose a market garden, also two acres in extent. Would it be believed that the market gardener who had difficulty in making a living would have to pay the same taxation the rich man? That would be an atrocious cruelty. He thought the people should be asked whether they were willing to adopt a measure for the taxation of land values, before it was put in force in their localities. New clause—

    "Within three months after the passing of this Act the clerk of every council of a county or burgh shall convene, with not less than one month's notice, a special meeting of the council to consider the desirability of adopt-this Act in that county or burgh, and if the decision of that meeting is against such adoption this Act shall have no force within that county or burgh."
    — (Mr. Harold Cox.) Brought up, and read a first time. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

    *

    said he regretted that he could not, on behalf of the Government, accept the new clause. The bulk of the argument delivered by the hon. Gentlemen who had moved and seconded the Amendment had been not in connection with a valuation Bill pure and simple, but with reference to the incidence of taxation and rating. What had the taxation of feu duties to do with a Bill for the ascertainment of land values in Scotland and for that alone? What did the observation of the hon. Member for Preston mean as to there being no money in it, or about people who would have to pay 30s. or 40s. a year on their land values? What did the observation mean as to who was to benefit by the Bill? And what did the observation mean as to the relations between the county council and the small landholder? What had all that to do with the Bill?

    said that his argument was a perfectly simple one, viz., that these local authorities should not be put to the expense of getting information when there was no money to be got out of it.

    said he understood that the concluding portion of his hon. friend's speech was to the effect, "By all means get at the facts." This was a Bill the object of which was to get at the facts. The hon. Member had said that they could get at the facts by taking two constituencies, one an urban and the other a rural constituency, and working out from them all that was required in regard to land values of Scotland. The hon. Member did him the honour to refer to his constituency, the Hawick Burghs. Assuming that in his constituency there was very little unoccupied land the capital valuation of the land would make very little difference indeed from the present valuation. But what they wanted to know was the capital value of the land in a large portion of Scotland where there were burghs with a large agricultural area some portions of which were being held up for building. What was the use of attempting to deduce from a single instance the whole value of Scotland for the purpose of a Bill to obtain nation al statistics? A single instance would not do. They must have the whole of Scotland valued in order to enable a second stage to be reached, whether there was to be taxation or whether there was to be rating. His hon. friend seemed to argue that this which was only a valuation Bill was a rating Bill which rashly provided for something which could be done without any inquiry at all. Surely his hon. friend's study of the literature of this subject must have convinced him that all the best authorities were agreed that any rating or taxation Bill must be preceded by necessary preliminary inquiries in the shape of the ascertainment of the land values, so as to enable the country as a whole, and if thought wise, localities individually, to judge whether the basis of individual rating or taxation ought to be altered. Of course that would be by a new Bill; but this Bill was confined to ascertaining land values. There was a provision in the Bill that until Parliament should otherwise determine no rate or tax should be put on in consequence of the information obtained under this Bill. He could imagine that nobody would refuse a Bill which made it optional to adopt it. When his hon. friend said that it all hung round the ultimate question of rating he would remind him that on questions of rating a great many points of admitted complexity would have to be considered. They must first get at the facts as a whole, on a national scale, upon exactly the same scale as the existing valuation. On those grounds, and feeling that the Amendment would render the Bill inoperative, he could not accept it. So far as their desire to obtain national statistics was concerned, the Government were following the best skilled advice which was contained in the Minority Report of the Select Committee.

    asked if the proposal in the Bill had not reference to the abatement of existing rates.

    said that his object was to show the necessity of preliminary inquiry. It was in the mind of everybody that they should have national statistics as to the land values on the same scale as the existing Valuation Acts in Scotland, which made no distinction between valuation for rating or taxation purposes.

    said that this was a branch of the question which was quite different from the subject of whether they ought to give options as to rating to rural districts apart from this Bill. He had an Amendment on the Paper relevant to that point, and in the observations he had to make on this Amendment he would not refer to the comparison between agricultural districts and urban districts, which was at the basis of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was a Bill for the ascertainment of national statistics, and he had two observations to make upon that. He gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that he wished the House to discuss this Bill on the Report stage, without reference to the schemes of local taxation, which he and his friends, not always speaking with one voice, desired to see subsequently adopted on the basis of this measure. It was, however, impossible for them to discuss the Bill in that abstract manner. The Lord Advocate wished them to regard the Bill simply as a matter of obtaining information without regard to the uses to which that information might be put, but one must remember the various uses to which the Government had announced that they proposed to put the information. The Solicitor-General for Scotland had announced that in his view the duties should be subjected to taxation. The Lord Advocate had not, he thought, got so far as that.

    *

    I said expressly and from the first that existing contracts as to feu duties must be respected.

    continuing, said the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, frightened and alarmed by the utterances of their rasher colleagues, had gone out of their way to explain that they did not propose to break existing contracts in connection with the taxation of feu duties and other contract values. That destroyed the whole value of this measure in the eves of those who wished to have it passed, and who were in effect its authors. The Propagandist Institution, which had been started at Glasgow, had no other object in view than the taxation of feu values and other contract values which the Solicitor-General for Scotland wanted, but which the Government now discovered would be very imprudent.

    said he believed that the right hon. Gentleman had always held that view, and if his words were susceptible of any other interpretation he withdrew them. But if the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had always held that view, they might have communicated it to their hon. and learned colleague, and it would have saved a great deal of confusion in Scotland. It would have been better if one of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues had not gone about Scotland preaching an economic doctrine which the Prime Minister, the Lord Advocate, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer repudiated. When the rioht hon. Gentleman said he held that view, however, he would like to ask whether he had always advertised it.

    said he had supported the Bills on this subject which had been brought forward in the last two or three Parliaments and every one of them contained an exception in favour of existing contracts.

    said he had not the least quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman, but it was sufficient for his purpose that one member of the Government held that these values should be taxed and that he had not only held that opinion but had preached it before the general election and after the general election.

    said he had not done so since the general election.

    said he would not dispute that point with the Solicitor-General for Scotland as it was sufficient for his purpose to point out that one member of the Government held that these values should be taxed while the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it would be immoral to tax them. The original authors of this Bill, the people whose agitation had brought about this proposal, had always desired to put on the very form of taxation which the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought was a breach of the whole idea of public honesty and private property. Was not that a reason for giving localities in Scotland an opportunity of rejecting a Bill which would not carry out the objects which they had in view in promoting this agitation? The right hon. Gentleman had said that these statistics were to be obtained for a national object. Then why were they not to be obtained at the cost of the nation? He was told that a sober estimate of the cost of this valuation in Scotland was £2,000,000. The Government talked glibly about obtaining information for the nation at the cost of individuals, but they had not given the House any estimate of the cost. Twelve thousand separate valuations would have to be made in Scotland, including the burghs and counties, and they were asking proprietors of hereditaments to make valuations of great difficulty, involving in many cases expert advice. These individuals ought to be given an opportunity of objecting, not so much against the principle of the Bill, as against the cost of the Bill's being thrown upon them. The agitation with which this Bill was intimately connected had already done a great deal of harm. The Government had to choose between carrying out a policy which might benefit a good many ratepayers in the towns, but at the cost of public faith and morality and the interests of the best of the working class, and a policy which would be enormously expensive so far as the collection of information was concerned, but would be extraordinarily barren of pecuniary results so far as the ratepayers of the towns were concerned. When the towns and country districts realised that carrying out this Bill would be a very expensive operation and they would get nothing out of it, he thought the Bill would lose the little popularity it now possessed and the factitious support now accorded to it. An opportunity ought to be given to the Scottish ratepayer to relieve himself from the mesh which the Government were involving him in. They understood that subsequently a Rating Bill would be based on this measure, and he thought that burghs and counties should be given an opportunity of adopting it; if they did so the measure would be a success. It would not be an elaborate experiment from which large conclusions could be drawn. It would not be an experiment extending over a large part of Scotland. Why should not the Government allow the small section of Scotland which rated their Bill at its true value to escape from the unnecessary burden of perfectly useless taxation which it was proposed to throw upon them? In the interests of the ratepayers, of those who had to make this valuation, in the interests of the burghs, in the interests of the general requirements of the community, he earnestly suggested that local option in this particular might well be adopted by the Government. They might allow each locality to decide for itself whether it thought it worth while to adopt a very costly investigation for the very barren results promised by the Lord Advocate and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or in the hopes that the more productive policy of the Solicitor-General as he understood it would be carried out. Let that section of opinion which had forced this Bill forward decide whether the policy was worth while, and if they thought not let the Government allow them to leave it to their friends in the neighbouring burghs to go through the perfectly useless procedure which the Bill attempted to impose on every burgh and county of Scotland.

    said he had listened with great interest to many speeches delivered by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but this was the first time he had heard him address the House in favour of the principle of local option. Like many new converts, the right hon. Gentleman had applied that principle in exactly the wrong way. The earlier part of his speech, in which he sought to establish a difference of opinion between Members sitting on the Treasury Bench with regard to the taxation of feu duties, was, except in one particular aspect, wholly irrelevant. But as the right hon. Gentleman had raised that point, he desired to say in a sentence, speaking for himself, and he believed for the vast majority of those who sat on the Ministerial side in this Parliament and on the Opposition side of the last Parliament, that they had repeatedly had before them measures dealing with this matter, and in every case, so far as he knew, there was a clause in the Bill which excluded its application to existing contracts, and nobody had ever welcomed a measure of this kind except on that assumption. In his view that was an elementary condition of any reform.

    asked whether it was not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman voted for a Bill last year which contained no such clause.

    said that might be so, but on that occasion the Lord Advocate laid it down in the most explicit terms that that was the only assumption upon which that Bill could be accepted. The only relevance of the right hon. Gentleman's reference to this topic was his suggestion that the various local authorities in Scotland who had interested themselves in this matter would not have done so unless they had thought that existing contracts and feu duties were going to be the subject of taxation. From that he inferred that if the principle of local option were allowed to have full effect, the same keenness would no longer be shown. It was extraordinary, if that was the case, that the various municipalities not only in Scotland, but in England, should have joined in supporting a Bill of an hon. Member which had always contained that very restriction.

    said that the right hon. Gentleman must have surely forgotten that while the Bill of the hon. Member for the Elland Division excluded feu duties, the Glasgow Bill did not.

    said the so-called Glasgow Bill was not a Glasgow Bill in any sense of the word.

    said the Bill to which he was referring concerned the kingdom as a whole. He thought he was justified in saying there was no reason to think that the municipalities of the country would be any less willing to adopt this reform because it was so restricted. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the supposed expense which the operation of this Bill would entail. He did not think the operation would be a very expensive one, and he was certain that when it had once been performed, when the initial expense had once been incurred, subsequent developments would be very inexpensive and simple. As regarded the expenditure of the proprietor, the expense of a rough estimate was all that he would be put to. That estimate would be subsequently revised by the burgh and local surveyor, and he did not think that would be a very heavy tax either in time, trouble, or cost to the owner. But assuming local option were adopted, and the great bulk of the burghs and counties took advantage of local option, there would be no relief in the expenditure, because the only expense which would be removed in such a case would be the expenditure of the council itself. If they refused to adopt the Act, the owner also would be entitled to refuse to do so. If the council decided to adopt the Act, the ownernolens volens would be put to the same expense. He desired to point out that the great virtue of the Scottish system was that there was a single valuation for all purposes. This was a very great improvement on the English system. Under the Act of 1854 these valuations were conducted by a single officer, and in a great number of cases he was an Imperial officer performing duties for the Inland Revenue. They felt it would be dangerous to introduce into that system any practice which would not be uniform. He considered the step now proposed a useful one from a purely statistical point of view, but he did not attempt to conceal the fact that many of them regarded it as the first step towards a great reform. He agreed that the object of the promoters of the Bill was to take measures for ascertaining facts on which local authorities would be enabled in future to make use of fresh sources of revenue.

    said he only intervened to say a word in reference to something which had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman said it was the first time he had heard the Leader of the Opposition express his views in favour of local option. His right hon. friend might never have addressed the House upon the subject before, but as the head of the Government he had more than once been responsible for Bills which had adopted the principle. He reminded the right hon. Gentleman that the great body of statutes which controlled the public health of the country nearly all rested on what had up to now been considered the exceptionally sound foundation of the option for the local authorities to adopt them if they thought fit. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had used an argument against the adoption of the clause moved by the hon. Gentleman opposite, namely, that the Scottish system of valuation was far superior to that existing in England. With that observation he entirely agreed. It had been the aim and object of most of those who had striven to amend the valuation laws in England to take the example of Scotland as their model, and try to work up to that higher standard. He entirely agreed with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. He did not agree, however, that inconvenience would result from the application of a different system in different parts, for this reason, that they had had it laid down repeatedly that the intention of this particular Bill was not to create a new system of valuation but to take a first step in that direction, and to accomplish the result by subsequent legislation. If that were the case, what stronger argument could they have for this clause than the fact that this legislation was to be followed by other legislation, which would never be introduced, however, by any Government, no matter how powerful, unless the first step had been taken which would not only justify it in the places where it was to be enforced, but which would have the general consensus of opinion is the country to which the law applied. He did not understand how the Chancellor of the Exchequer could justify the opposition he had offered to the clause. He regretted very much that the Government did not see their way to adopt the clause, because he thought it would if accepted, lessen the feeling of opposition which existed in many quarters to the Bill. The whole system of valuation was so complicated, so difficult, and so important, that any step they took to amend it should not only be well considered, but be supported by popular opinion. He believed it would have been of enormous advantage to have had behind them the expressed opinion of the local authorities who, by the adopting of this Act and the working of it, would have shown in the first place that they believed in the principle, and, secondly, in the views of the Government in introducing the Bill and carrying it through the House.

    said the policy of this legislation was based on the not very scientific gospel of Henry George, the supporters of whose policy thronged the benches behind Ministers. He challenged any supporter of that gospel to tell him the name of any economist of any reputation, living or dead, of the old school or the new, who was a supporter of the doctrine underlying this legislation. A few weeks ago he had discussed in that House the point that the taxation of incomes should not proceed without a knowledge of the facts, and he had moved an Amendment which was aimed at securing knowledge about incomes before proceeding to tax them. It therefore followed, he need hardly say, that he strongly supported the Lord Advocate in his desire to gain knowledge of statistics through this Bill so far as that was the object. As the Leader of the Opposition had said, it was impossible to consider this clause, or indeed any part of the Bill, without reference to what would follow this particular first step. What was the object of the Bill? It had been described by the Lord Advocate, on the Second Reading, as a step towards the taxation of values largely created by the enterprise of the community. He ventured to differ from that observation. There were no social values existing in this country which were not taxed already by existing methods of taxation. He would add that if the Government desired to tax social values as they ought to be taxed, they would find a much more scientific. much more common sense and practical method of getting at those values by reforming the existing system of taxation, than by setting up this new method of taxation, to which they themselves had to make important exceptions. They themselves confessed that they could only apply it partially, and could only apply it to some people and not to others. It was an entire mistake if anyone supposed that social values entirely attached themselves to land. The greater part of the social values of this country created by the community did not attach themselves to the land, but to other things. The exaggerated ideas with regard to this particular policy of taxing land values, which were doubtless entertained by a great many local authorities on imperfect information, had been very well expressed by one of the most able advocates of this policy who now sat behind the Lord Advocate. The hon. Member had said in very plain words that he would substitute a land-values tax for all other local rates, and, when he had done that, he would logically proceed to place all Imperial taxation on the same source. But that was not statistically possible. The most liberal estimate of the land values of the country was a sum not large enough by one-half for the purpose. They did not come to that House to talk fine theories; they came to frame, if they could, sensible and practical policies which were capable of application to existing circumstances. He thought they must always bear that in mind. What was this policy in essence? It was to relieve capital of taxation at the expense of the landlords. Let them take, for instance, a tea shop in the Straud. It would be hardly a proposition in accordance with common sense to relieve that tea shop of the cost of police, of the maintenance of the roadway, and of all the other beneficial services performed for it by the local authority. Was it really a common-sense proposition that in connection with this thriving business, which drew from the community social values, five, ten, twenty times that which was drawn by the landlord, the capitalist or body of capitalists should be relieved of taxes? Surely if there was any doubt as to the social values in such a case they had only to compare the value of the site and its increment with the amount of interest drawn from the business, which only meant the employment of girls at a cheap wage, and not very much enterprise. If they went to the Stock Exchange, they would find the £1 shares of that business quoted at something like £5 or £6. The landlord did not draw the lion's share of the work of the girls, or the social values created by the presence of the community; they who drew those values chiefly were a body of idle capitalists, who had put their money into the tea shop. The local authority must really have regard to what the rates were, and it could not be too clearly borne in mind that even in regard to what were called onerous rates, they were really beneficial to the occupier. If a local authority desired to reform its taxation ought it to proceed upon the policy to which this measure was the first step; or ought it rather to have proper regard to the means of those who lived within its borders? The whole matter became plain when they considered where the injustice of rating lay. Let them take the case of a man with an income of £4,000 a year living under the beneficent sway of one of the London Borough Councils. He would probably live in a house assessed at £200 a year, and the rates would be, say, 7s. 6d. in the £. That man would pay in rates £75 a year. Regarded as an income-tax that rate was 4½d. in the £ on his income. Let them contrast that with a man earning £400. He would probably live in a house assessed at £45 a year, and would pay £16 7s. 6d. in rates, or an income-tax of 10d. in the £. Would this Bill or the policy it was intended to lead up to remedy that injustice? It would not. Some sort of an income-tax or an ability-tax would have a fairer incidence. The policy to which this Bill was the first step made not the slightest impres-upon these injustices. While he advocated a local income-tax he did not desire to overlook another important point in the question of rate incidence to which he would now refer. While he did not for a moment acknowledge that the landlord bore the entire burden of local rating, he did agree with Professor Marshall that such part of local taxation as was levied upon the site value tended to decrease the rental and was in some sense a burden on the landlord. If a local authority were to levy an income-tax, and the present unfair house rate was abolished, the landlord would stand to gain. In that case the valuation of sites might be useful. They might levy a new local land tax directly assessed upon the valuation ascertained by such a Bill as this to compensate for the benefit gained by the landlord. Thus, they might find a common ground of agreement in the imposition of a land tax combined with a local graduated income-tax, which should have a fair incidence, according to ability to pay. Any legislation which contained so many exceptions as this Bill stood condemned on the face of it. The exceptions were so numerous that it would not be worth pursuing this policy. Moreover, the policy of taxing land values, with present contracts excepted, would not obtain for the community the unearned increment. How could they get at the increment which attached to sites due to the presence of the community? It was not difficult, and it could be done by a local transfer tax on the German pattern. Such a tax was in force in Frankfort. The tax varied according to the time which had lapsed, and according to the amount of increment which had occurred since the last transfer at sale or death, and a certain proportion of it was taken for the community. That was a direct and sensible method. The longer the transfer was delayed, the more the value rose. If they combined the income-tax with a new land tax and with an increment tax, they would get a fair and equitable scheme of local taxation. He did not advance this view dogmatically, but he thought it should have consideration before they went further with a policy which would only add very greatly to the complications which already existed

    said it had been stated that the people of Scotland did not understand the subject before the House, and probably that statement was correct. He did not think, however, that the people of Scotland would understand it much better to-morrow. This was a very intricate question which was not grasped by everybody and which he for one did not pretend to grasp in the higher branches. There were, however, one or two practical considerations which were understanded of the people. He agreed that it would be most inexpedient to upset the general system of valuation in Scotland. From the humble, but practical standpoint of the local authority he should very much deprecate the introduction of local option in rating matters. They had a certain amount of trouble now with regard to appointments under local authorities, but if they were allowed to regulate their own basis of valuation as was proposed under this local option clause some disturbing elements might be introduced which would not conduce to the harmonious working of local institutions. Therefore, they had to take the Bill generally as part of the valuation system of the country. The point which was really raised by this new clause was the cost. If for a national object information was required, the cost of obtaining it should be borne by the nation. He was certain the local authorities would expect material assistance to be given them sufficient to cover the cost of this new entry. That was needed, and he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have made some reference to that subject. As for the cost, he did not think it would be anything like £2,000,000. Some assessors had estimated their costs at very considerable sums, but they would amount to nothing like £2,000,000. He did not think in the case of landed estates the cost would be anything out of the ordinary course. He had consulted several people, and he was inclined to think it would not cost anything. With all due respect to the members of the Committee he attached less weight to the last inquiry than to the inquiry into the incidence of taxation held under Lord Balfour of Burleigh. This valuation was just as necessary to carry out the minority Report of Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Committee of inquiry as to carry out the recommendations of the last inquiry. It was necessary to separate house and site values. At any rate Lord Balfour of Burleigh advised separation in the valuation, and that could only be carried out by some such proposal as that contained in the Bill.

    reminded the hon. Member that the separate valuation which was recommended was purely for the purpose of giving deductions on poor rates and so on. It was for a different purpose altogether from that to which the hon. Gentleman was referring.

    said that if he were to build on this in the future he would take the Report of the Joint Secretaries to the Treasury as the basis of legislation. He would not take the basis of the last inquiry, nor would he limit himself in any way to the proposals of the minority Report or that of the Joint Secretaries. If the only purpose required was a separate valuation that was all they would get by this Bill. The real point raised by the Amendment was the question of cost. The scheme being a national one, he thought the local authorities had a right to expect a lead from the Treasury in respect of the first valuation. The question of local option might come in later on, but he did not think it could possibly come in now. The right hon. Gentleman had laid considerable stress on the policy advocated by the Solicitor-General. He was not himself a supporter of the full policy of the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he did not think it would be just if applied in certain cases. A number of inquiries into this question had taken place and a variety of proposals had been made. The proposal in the Bill was one which ought to be carried out. He did not believe that at the beginning there would be much money in the scheme, but eventually it would lead to increased revenue which might become considerable, He believed in taking the whole of the increment for the benefit of the community which had created it. They might all unite on this valuation, which committed them to nothing, but which was absolutely essential if they were to do anything. Whether in respect to agricultural land or urban land he could see no difficulty in carrying out the proposals of the Government. He had always maintained that the increased value of agricultural land was created by the owner, and that the increased value of urban land was not created by the owner, although he reaped the full advantage of it. It was in order to mitigate that irregularity, as he conceived it to be, that this valuation was an essential preliminary to any readjustment of local taxation or of any scheme for the endowment of the community with a better proportion of the value it created.

    *

    said the cost of making this valuation would be about £4,000,000. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laughed, but he thought he could prove the statement. He found that the rateable value of property in the city of London was £43,000,000 per annum. Taking that at twenty years purchase the capital value was £860,000,000. It occurred to him that it was possible the whole of Scotland might be worth half the capital value of the city of London. He thought it was worth more, but for the purpose of his argument he would reckon it at half. That gave the capital value in Scotland at £430,000,000. They could get it valued for nothing by people who did not understand the work, but if they got it valued by people who did understand the work they expected to be fairly remunerated. If they took as representing this work 1 per cent. on the £430,000,000 they found that the cost would be £4,300,000. He noticed that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not laugh now. Considering the amount of work which the surveyor would have to perform he did not consider 1 per cent. too high. No man of repute in his profession would do it for very much under 1 per cent., but even if the cost was only a half per cent. the amount would be £2,200,000. When it was done it would not be worth for practical purposes the paper it was written on, as everyone who had dealt in property would admit. When a man had a property to sell he consulted a surveyor, but it often happened that the prices realised in the market differed very considerably, up or down, from the estimate which the owner received of the price the property would probably bring. The valuation under this Bill might be made by some person who spoke in a flippant tone of something which he did not understand at all. He was confident from his long experience that if they were to get a proper valuation of property in Scotland they would have to pay at least £2,000,000 for it. Nothing was more difficult to get than a correct valuation of property. It must be looked at from the point of view of both the buyer and the seller. In this case there would be a tendency on the part of surveyors to put up the value however much they might guard themselves against forming a partial judgment.

    *

    said the new clause seemed to him to be an exceedingly reasonable one. The different localities which would be affected would, if it were passed, have the option of saying whether the measure should be put into operation in their areas. They would be able to consider whether it would be worth while incurring the cost; they would also be led to consider whether it was just, and what they were likely to get out of the measure when it was put into operation. The Bill provided for ascertaining certain facts, but they all knew that the ultimate object was to make those facts the basis of the rates and taxes which should be imposed hereafter. It appeared to him that the Bill would work a very unjust revolution in rateable value. Rates had hitherto been made on annual value—at what the property could be reasonably rented at from year to year. The Bill had in view assessing the rate on the capital value of land, which was a very different thing. He considered that would be most unreasonable and unjust. Why should a particular kind of property be selected from all other kinds to be taxed on its capital value? No one liked paying rates. Why should different kinds of property be unequally treated? A large amount of property was now not charged rates at all. On the average it was supposed that what was inside a house was twice the value of the house itself, but there was an Act which was renewed from year to year by which all that kind of property was exempted altogether from liability for rates. Why not rate that if any change was to be made? He could conceive nothing more unfair than to charge land rates on its capital value while all other kinds of rated property were rated on their annual value. He was very glad to think that this revolutionary system was to begin in Scotland if at all. The Scottish people were good economists and possessed of sound common sense, and he believed that when they came into close quarters with the Bill they would not put it in practice. At any rate the Bill should only be put in practice in those localities which agreed to adopt it. As an English Member and having an eye to what might come to England if the Scottish people liked the Bill—although he did not think they would when they came to know what it involved—he was in favour of the new clause because it would minimise the opening effect of the measure. If the Scottish people, speaking generally, did not wish to incur a good deal of expense in taking the first step on this new and dangerous road, it could be tried in the first instance on a limited scale only. Fortunately this was not a party question, and he would vote for the Amendment.

    *

    said that anyone listening to the debate would not imagine for one moment that they were discussing a Bill the object of which was to ascertain land values in Scotland. All those who had taken part in the discussion, except the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment, were English Members who, with all respect to them, did not understand the system of Scottish valuation. The right hon. Member for South Dublin paid a tribute to the method of Scottish valuation, and during a previous Administration had introduced a Bill to bring the English system up to the Scottish system. Did the right hon. Gentleman imagine that Scotland was to be kept standing still until England was brought up to the existing Scottish system? He would say to the right hon. Gentleman that they in Scotland were desirous of forging ahead and taking a further step. The right hon. Gentleman would admit that hitherto they had been able to demonstrate that the Scottish system of valuation was one of uniformity and simplicity. Any Amendment to the Bili like that proposed by the hon. Member for Preston would cut at the root of that uniformity and simplicity which had hitherto obtained. He knew that all those who supported the Amendment did not do so because they were in favour of local option in adopting the Bill, but because they were opposed to the Bill altogether. The Leader of the Opposition had made a most extraordinary statement. He had listened to many speeches from the right hon. Gentleman, especially in the last Parliament, notably those on the fiscal question, but he had never heard a more extraordinary statement than the right hon. Gentleman had made that day, viz., that the cost of land valuation in Scotland under the Bill would amount to £2,000,000. He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had been supported in that view by the hon. Baronet the Member for Taunton, who said that it would cost £4,500,000. The hon. Baronet might just as well have said £10,000,000 or £20,000,000. The sums stated were altogether absurd.

    *

    asked if the hon. Gentleman would make a calculation showing where he was wrong?

    *

    said he would. He understood that the hon. Baronet was a great authority on rating. They had had his assistance in the Committee upstairs, but whatever experience the hon. Baronet might have in England—and no doubt it was great—he was quite sure that he had not come to close quarters with the system in Scotland. The hon. Baronet made his calculation on the basis of the employment of expert witnesses. That was not the system in Scotland. There the assessors had the confidence of those who rated and the people who paid the rates, and they proceeded in a much simpler and cheaper way. The assessor of the City of Glasgow, who actually made the valuation of that city, stated before the Committee that the cost of this Bill if put in operation would amount to £6,000.

    *

    .

    *

    And the assessor for the City of Edinburgh calculated that it would cost the public to make a similar valuation in that city £4,000,

    *

    *

    The hon. Member knows nothing about Scottish valuation or he would not have made that interruption.

    *

    *

    said that the assessors were paid by the public. Taking Glasgow and Edinburgh, the cost would amount to £10,000; that would of course be exclusive of any sum paid by private owners who wished to contest the assessor's valuation. He could assure the House that in Scotland they had very few appeals from the valuation of the assessors, who had the confidence of the community. He was sowewhat astonished by the speech of the hon. Member for North Paddington, who was an authority on questions of taxation. Before the Income Tax Committee the hon. Member and others complained seriously as to the lack of statistics in this country. One witness before the Committee went so far as to say that there was no country in the world so lacking in statistical information as Great Britain. He would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been delighted to see a Government which was trying to obtain accurate statistics. He was sure that the hon. Member did not want that the land should bear no taxation. When they remembered that the valuation of land in this country was made in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, he thought it was time that a new valuation should be made as the basis of a reform, not only of local but Imperial taxation. If they were to have reform they must know what were the different elements which were to compose the subject of taxation. The hon. Member for Preston had said that there was no money in this Bill, but he did not seem to have much faith in his own view. If there was no money in it, the Bill would demonstrate the fact. The hon. Member for Preston was more lucid on other questions of taxation, but on this he was like his distinguished predecesor who always brought in King Charles's head. The hon. Member had got a wrong view of the question which was not supported by political economists. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that John Stuart Mill went very much further than the lines of this Bill; he recommended that all the increased value given to land by public improvements should not only be taxed but confiscated. The hon. Member for Preston seemed to think that he had scored a point when he referred to the English Land Holdings Bill, and said that difficulties would arise with the county councils, but he might point out that this was a Bill for the valuation of land in Scotland, and they would have no such difficulties in that country as the hon. Gentleman anticipated if the Bill passed this House and another place. Not only so, but they had a practical demonstration of the soundness of the view which the Government were putting forward in this measure by the system of taxation which exempted improvements and rated the land value only under the Crofters Act, which had been a success for twenty years. The passing of a Bill like this and the taxation consequent upon it, would be a relief to agriculture which hon. Members were so anxious to have put in a satisfactory position. The hon. Member for Preston put forward his case for local option because he said it was carried on in New Zealand, but that was not so. It was taxation of land value by municipalities that was optional in New Zealand. The valuation was made, and therefore that argument fell to the ground. He thought that the effect of the Bill would be to supply them with information which would be of the greatest possible benefit to the nation.

    said he would not have risen but for the fact that the hon. Member referred to him as not knowing anything about the system which prevailed in Scotland, and he had jumped up and said that he did understand it. He thought that one might live a very long life and not understand a measure of this kind which, in his judgment, should not be rushed through, because it might revolutionise the land system of the United Kingdom. This was but the first stage of a very much larger measure, which might later on be made applicable to England. What was the case for the Bill, if, as was alleged, they intended to protect existing contracts, because they knew that it was the intention of the vast majority of the supporters of this Bill if it was passed to propose not only the breaking of existing contracts but also the taxing as far as they possibly could the landlord out of existence? On the Front Government Bench they had the Solicitor-General, who, if he was not actually a member of the Scottish League for the Taxing of Ground Values, which was brought into existence to support and carry out the proposals of Mr. Henry George, was a supporter of it. The Solicitor-General supported that league, and so did the Lord Advocate and three or four other members of the Front Bench opposite. If they were not members of it they spoke at its meetings. Three or four members of the Government were also members of the English League. He had been laughed at for calling Mr. Henry George a half-educated man, but he repeated the assertion, and he was sure that anyone who examined his works would agree with him; and no less a person than Mr. Gladstone, whose words in some quarters seemed now to be forgotten, although they should command respect, not only in this House, but throughout the country, on the 27th February, 1891, said that there were persons who viewed the proposals of Mr. Henry George as being of a very enlightened character and who very much resented the use of hard words with regard to him, but so far as his knowledge and examination of his proposals went it was difficult, he confessed, to exclude them or extricate them from the category of those plans to which hard words were commonly applied. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had objected to there being any idea that he would be a party to breaking existing contracts, and he had explained to the investors in the City the other day that they need not be afraid of there being any measure for breaking contracts passed by this House. He was afraid the City had not given the amount of weight to his words which they ought to have done, and the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to have shifted the feeling of unrest which everybody knew to exist. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, although now he said he did not wish to break existing contracts, had supported the Bill of the Glasgow Corporation which did so. How was the outside public to judge? Let them take the case of the London County Council. A bogie was started that London was owned by half-a-dozen great landlords. The Council ordered that a ground plan of London should be made, but it was not yet finished, although it had cost some thousands of pounds. Why was it not finished? Because it had been found that, instead of half-a-dozen landlords, there were thousands and thousands of owners and that there was no foundation for the statement. They were told by the statistical officer of the London County Council that he could value the whole of the land of London for £25,000 the first year, and £5,000 a year afterwards. Then why did he not make the ground plain at a fraction of that cost? The Lord Advocate knew perfectly well that the cost of the valuation would be much more than £25,000 if it was ever finished. If he could rely on his figures let him insert a fixed sum in his Bill and put in the words "not exceeding" before it, and he would soon see who was right and who was wrong. They could not make a register of the streets of Glasgow for less than £20,000. If this was made the subject of a non-party vote the right hon. Gentleman would find the result very different from what he anticipated.

    said he was glad to find himself in agreement with the Government in their endeavour to get this valuation for Scotland. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Preston that local option would be desirable, because what the people of Scotland wanted was a valuation of the land of Scotland, and they would not be satisfied until they had it. He agreed with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh that the cost would be small—£8,000 at the most. He was not quite in agreement with those who thought great results would be obtained from this valuation. He had given some thought to the matter and taken out some figures from the valuation rolls of Scotland. He found the total annual rateable value of the burghs of Scotland amounted to £17,000,000, whilst that of the agricultural land amounted to £15,000,000. He believed the land value of Edinburgh ranged from 20 to 33⅓ per cent. of the rateable value, but in order not to take too small an amount he would put it at 20 per cent. of the whole value of £6,000,000. He did not in this connection take into account site values, as they were not rated, but in order that there might be no discrepancy, he would add £1,000,000 for those, which would bring the capital value out at about £7,000,000. The hon. Member would be surprised to know that the assessments of the local authority in Scotland amounted to almost as much as the total annual land value. Therefore enthusiasts who regarded the taxation of land values as something which would mitigate all the evils under which we lived would admit, now that he had given them these figures, that they were labouring under an hallucination. There was one other point. Both the Lord Advocate and the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that they could not break contracts and could not tax feu duties. There was no method at present of taxing them, and he could not find what the total amount of the feu duties was. If there was any possibility of getting at that, then he thought it ought to be obtained, because then they could easily estimate what a tax of 20 per cent. on the land value of Scotland would bring in.

    said that although the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down was in favour of the Bill, it had given them a serious object lesson as to the result of the Bill if it passed. But he wished to put two considerations before the House very shortly, which applied solely to the real point of this Amendment, and not to the general principles of the Bill—to the question of option. The best argument in favour of option was found in the speech of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, who said that this was not for local purposes only, but for Imperial purposes as well. There was a strong argument for option there, because if this was for Imperial purposes the Bill itself only applied to one part of the Empire. How was it to be used for Imperial purposes under those conditions? Were there not also differences in different localities which made option necessary? Let them take the small decaying burghs which were so frequent, unfortunately, in Scotland. In the case of those burghs, there was practically no land value. The buildings were let at a price at which they could not now be built, setting aside the value of the land on which they stood. With a diminishing value for rating purposes, and hardly touched by local taxation, surely some option must be given to them. And the same rule must be extended to urban areas where the property was constantly increasing in value. He would only quote one case to show how absolutely impossible it was to apply land values to all the are is. They knew quite well in watering places what was the value of a pier. He had in his eye one of the southern watering places, where the £1 shares in the pier were now selling for £13 or £14. The value was enormous. Almost the whole foundation was below high-water mark. Suppose they had to value that property which now gave an enormous return that was easily gained by the shareholders; suppose they were asked to estimate the land value of that property. What land value could they give? Not only was it almost impossible to value the land, but it should be remembered that all such properties as this absolutely claimed exemption from the rates altogether. The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General had said that the object of the Bill was to exempt all buildings and improvements, and solely to take the land value. But was there not in various localities a large amount of such property of which it would be absur to attempt to estimate the land value, and which it would be still more absurd and unjust to attempt to exempt from rating altogether? The fact was that the Bill had been promoted by extremists, like those who promoted the Glasgow Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had mistaken his interruption as to "the Glasgow Bill." It was not intended to interfere with the right hon. Gentleman's argument, because the Glasgow Bill, a measure which derived that description from the circumstance that it was promoted by Glasgow gentlemen, applied to the whole of Scotland, and not merely to Glasgow. In connection with this Bill they wanted to throw a sop to the followers of Henry George; it asked them to incur an unwarrantable expense, to attempt to do something which was almost impossible of accomplishment; in fact, they were holding out hopes which he, for one, contended could never be realised, while they would deprive the community of a valid rate which was now easily and readily and justly paid.

    rose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put. Question put, "That the question be now put." The House divided:—Ayes, 248; Noes. 51. (Division List No. 437.)

    AYES.
    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)Bertram, JuliusCampbell-Bannerman, Sir H.
    Adkins, W. Ryland D.Bethell, SirJ.H.(Essex,Romf'rdCarr-Gomm, H. W.
    Ainsworth, John StirlingBethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)Causton, Rt.HnRichardKnight
    Alden, PercyBirrell, Rt. Hon. AugustineCheetham, John Frederick
    Ambrose, RobertBoland, JohnCherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.
    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert HenryBowerman, C. W.Cleland, J. W.
    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)Brace, WilliamClough, William
    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.Bramsdon, T. A.Clynes, J. R.
    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)Branch, JamesCollins,Stephen (Lambeth)
    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)Brigg, JohnCollins, SirWm.J(S.Pancras,W.
    Barnes, G. N.Brodie, H. C.Condon, Thomas Joseph
    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs.,Leigh)Corbett, CH (Sussex,E.Grinst'd
    Beaumont, Hon. HubertBuchanan, Thomas RyburnCowan, W. H.
    Bell, RichardBurns, Rt. Hon. JohnCraig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)
    Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.Buxton, Rt. Hn.SydneyCharlesCremer, Sir William Randal
    Berridge, T. H. D.Byles, William PollardCrooks, William

    Crossley, William J.Kennedy, Vincent PaulPirie, Duncan V.
    Cullinan, J.Kilbride, DenisPower, Patrick Joseph
    Curran, Peter FrancisKing, Alfred John (Knutsford)Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central)
    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)Laidlaw, RobertPullar, Sir Robert
    Delany, WilliamLambert, GeorgeRadford, G. H.
    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)Lamont, NormanRainy, A. Rolland
    Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,NLardner, James Carrige RusheRea, Russell (Gloucester)
    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.Lea, Hugh Cecil(St.Pancras,E.Reddy, M.
    Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir CharlesLevy, Sir MauriceRedmond, John E. (Waterford)
    Donelan, Captain A.Lewis, John HerbertRedmond, William (Clare)
    Duckworth, JamesLloyd-George, Rt. Hon. DavidRichards, Thomas(W.Monm'th
    Duffy, William J.Lough, ThomasRichards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n
    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)Lundon, W.Rickett, J. Compton
    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)Lupton, ArnoldRidsdale, E. A.
    Elibank, Master ofLyell, Charles HenryRoberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
    Erskine, David C.Macdonald, J.M(FalkirkB'ghs)Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
    Essex, R. W.Mackarness, Frederic C.Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd
    Everett, R. LaceyMacnamara, Dr. Thomas J.Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
    Farrell, James PatrickMacNeill, John Gordon SwiftRobinson, S.
    Fenwick, CharlesMacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.Robson, Sir William Snowdon
    Ferens, T. R.MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.Rogers, F. E. Newman
    Ferguson, R. C. MunroM'Crae, GeorgeRowlands, J.
    Ffrench, PeterM'Hugh, Patrick A.Russell, T. W.
    Findlay, AlexanderM'Kean, JohnSamuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)
    Flavin, Michael JosephM'Kenna, Rt. Hon. ReginaldShaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir HenryM'Killop, W.Sheehy, David
    Fuller, John Michael F.M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)Shipman, Dr. John G.
    Gibb, James (Harrow)Maddison, FrederickSilcock, Thomas Ball
    Gill, A. H.Manfield, Harry (Northants)Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
    Ginnell, L.Markham, Arthur BasilSmyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
    Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohnMarks, G.Croydon(Launceston)Snowden, P.
    Glover, ThomasMarnham, F. J.Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)
    Goddard, Daniel FordMassie, J.Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)
    Gooch, George PeabodyMeehan, Patrick A.Steadman, W. C.
    Grant, CorrieMenzies, WalterStewart, Halley (Greenock)
    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)Micklem, NathanielStrachey, Sir Edward
    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir EdwardMolten, Percy AlportStrauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
    Gulland, John W.Money, L. G. ChiozzaSummerbell, T.
    Gurdon, RtHn.SirWBramptonMontagu, E. S.Taylor, John W. (Durham)
    Halpin, J.Mooney, J. J.Tennant, SirEdward(Salisbury)
    Hammond, JohnMorgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)Toulmin, George
    Harmsworth,R.L. (Caithn'ss-shMorgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthe)Trevelyan, Charles Philips
    Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire,N.E.Morrell, PhilipUre, Alexander
    Haworth, Arthur A.Morse, L. L.Verney, F. W.
    Hayden, John PatrickMorton, Alpheus CleophasVivian, Henry
    Hazel, Dr. A. E.Muldoon, JohnWalsh, Stephen
    Hazleton, RichardMurphy, John (Kerry, East)Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
    Healy, Timothy MichaelMurphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
    Hedges, A. PagetMyer, HoratioWard, John (Stoke-upon-Trent
    Helme, Norval WatsonNapier, T. B.Wardle, George J.
    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)Nicholls, GeorgeWaring, Walter
    Henry, Charles S.Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doncast'rWaterlow, D. S.
    Higham, John SharpNolan, JosephWedgwood, Josiah C.
    Hobart, Sir RobertNuttall, HarryWeir, James Galloway
    Hogan, MichaelO'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary,MidWhite, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
    Holland, Sir William HenryO'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)White, Patrick (Meath, North)
    Holt, Richard DurningO'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)Whitehead, Rowland
    Horniman, Emslie JohnO'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
    Howard, Hon. GeoffreyO'Doherty, PhilipWiles, Thomas
    Hyde, ClarendonO'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
    Idris, T. H. W.O'Grady, J.Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
    Illingworth, Percy H.O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
    Jardine, Sir J.O'Shee, James JohnWilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
    Johnson, John (Gateshead)Parker, James (Halifax)Yoxall, James Henry
    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)Paulton, James Mellor
    Jowett, F. W.Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
    Joyce, MichaelPearce, William (Limehouse)Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
    Kekewich, Sir GeorgePearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk,Eye)Pease.
    NOES.
    Acland-Hood, Rt Hn.SirAlex.F.Balcarres, LordBarrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)
    Ashley, W. W.Balfour, RtHnA.J.(CityLond.)Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks

    Bowles, G. StewartFetherstonhaugh, GodfreyRawlinson, John FrederickPeel
    Boyle, Sir EdwardFletcher, J. S.Remnant, James Farquharson
    Bull, Sir William JamesForster, Henry WilliamRoberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall
    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)Ronaldshay, Earl of
    Carlile, E. HildredGibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)Salter, Arthur Clavell
    Cavendish, Rt.Hn.Victor C. W.Gretton, JohnSloan, Thomas Henry
    Cecil, Lord John P. JoiceyHamilton, Marquess ofStaveley-Hill, Herny (Staff'sh)
    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)Harris, Frederick LevertonTalbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
    Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.A(Wore.Harrison-Broadley, H. B.Valentia, Viscount
    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.Hay, Hon. Claude GeorgeVincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
    Collings, Rt. Hn J.(Birmingh'mHills, J. W.Younger, George
    Courthope, G. LoydHunt, Rowland
    Craig, CharlesCurtis(Antrim, S.Kennaway, Rt.Hn. Sir John H.TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
    Craik, Sir HenryKimber, Sir HenryFrederick Banbury and Mr.
    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-Long, Rt.Hn.Walter (Dublin,S.Mitchell-Thomson.
    Du Cros, HarveyMagnus. Sir Philip
    Fell, ArthurPease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

    Question put accordingly "That the Clause be read a second time."

    AYES.
    Acland-Hood,RtHn.SirAlex.F.Collings, Rt.Hn.J.(Birmingh'mLong, Rt. Hn. Walter( Dublin,S.)
    Ashley, W. W.Courthope, G. LoydMagnus, Sir Philip
    Balcarres, LordCraig,CharlesCurtis (Antrim,S.)Parkes, Ebenezer
    Balfour,RtHn. A. J. (City LondCraik, Sir HenryPease,HerbertPike(Darlington)
    Banbury, Sir Frederick GeorgeDouglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-Rawlinson,John FrederickPeel
    Banner, John S. Harmood-Du Cros, HarveyRemnant, James Farquharson
    Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry, N.)Everett, R. LaceyRoberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)
    Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh HicksFell, ArthurRonaldshay, Earl of
    Bertram, JuliusFetherstonhaugh, GodfreySalter, Arthur Clavell
    Bowles, G. StewartFletcher, J. S.Sloan, Thomas Henry
    Boyle, Sir EdwardForster, Henry WilliamStaveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
    Bull, Sir William JamesGardner, Ernest (Berks, East)Talbot, Lord E. (Chicester)
    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.Gretton, JohnTennant,SirEdward (Salisbury)
    Carlile, E. HildredHamilton, Marquess ofThomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
    Cavendish, Rt. Hn.Victor C.W.Harris, Frederick LevertonValentia, Viscount
    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-Harrison-Broadley, H. B.Vincent, Col. Sir C. E.Howard
    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.Hay, Hon. Claude George
    Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J.A.(Worc.Hills, J. W.TELLERS FOR THE AYES-Mr.
    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. HenryHunt, RowlandHarold Cox and Mr. Younger.
    Cheetham, John FrederickKennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir JohnH.
    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.Kimber, Sir Henry
    NOES
    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs.Leigh)Davies, Timothy (Fulham)
    Adkins, W. Ryland D.Buchanan, Thomas RyburnDelany, William
    Ainsworth, John StirlingBurns, Rt. Hon. JohnDewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)
    Asquith,Rt. Hn. HerbertHenryBuxton, Rt.Hn.Sydney CharlesDickinson,W.H.(St. Pancras, N
    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)Byles, William PollardDickson-Poynder, Sir John:P.
    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E)Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)Carr-Gomm, H. W.Donelan, Captain A.
    Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnightDuckworth, James
    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.Duffy, William J.
    Barnes, G. N.Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
    Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)Cleland, J. W.Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
    Beaumont, Hon. HubertClough, WilliamElibank, Master of
    Bell, RichardClynes, J. R.Erskine, David C.
    Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets, S.Geo.Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)Essex, R. W.
    Berridge, T. H. D.Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W)Farrell, James Patrick
    Bethell,Sir J.H. (Essex,Romf'rdCondon, Thomas JosephFenwick, Charles
    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'dFerens, T. R.
    Birrell, Rt. Hon. AugustineCory, Clifford JohnFerguson, R. C. Munro
    Boland, JohnCowan, W. H.Ffrench, Peter
    Bowerman, C. W.Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)Findlay, Alexander
    Brace, WilliamCremer, Sir William RandalFlavin, Michael Joseph
    Bramsdon, T. A.Crooks, WilliamFowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
    Branch, JamesCrossley, William J.Fuller, John Michael F.
    Brigg, JohnCullinan, J.Gibb, James (Harrow)
    Brodie, H. C.Curran, Peter FrancisGill, A. H.

    The House divided:—Ayes, 58; Noes, 248. (Division List No. 438.)

    Ginnell, L.Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
    Gladstone,Rt,Hn.Herbert JohnMacNeill, John Gordon SwiftRedmond, William (Clare)
    Glover, ThomasMacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.Richards, whomas (W.Monmth
    Goddard, Daniel FordMacVeigh, Caries (Donegal, E.)Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n
    Gooch, George PeabodyM'Crae, GeorgeRickett, J. Compton
    Grant, CorrieM'Hugh, Patrick A.Ridsdale, E. A.
    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)M'Kean, JohnRoberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir EdwardM'Kenna, Rt. Hon. ReginaldRoberts, G. H. (Norwich)
    Gulland, John W.M'Killop, W.Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd
    Gurdon,RtHn.Sir W.BramptonM'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard R.Maddison, FrederickRobinson, S.
    Halpin, J.Manfield, Harry (Northants)Robson, Sir William Snowdon
    Hammond, JohnMarkham, Arthur BasilRogers, F. E. Newman
    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. LewisMarks,G.Croydon (Launceston)Rowlands, J.
    Harmsworth,R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh.Marnham, F. J.Russell, T. W.
    Harvey, W.E. (Derbyshire,N.EMassie, J.Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
    Haworth, Arthur A.Meehan, Patrick A.Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
    Hayden, John PatrickMenzies, WalterSheehy, David
    Hazel, Dr. A. E.Micklem, NathanielShipman, Dr. John G.
    Hazleton, RichardMolteno, Percy AlportSilcock, Thomas Ball
    Healy, Timothy MichaelMoney, L. G. ChiozzaSinclair, Rt. Hon. John
    Hedges, A. PagetMontagu, E. S.Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
    Helme, Norval WatsonMooney, J. J.Snowden, P.Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)Henry, Charles S.
    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.Higham, John SharpMorrell, Philip
    Steadman, W. C.Hobart, Sir RobertMorse, L. L.
    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)Hogan, MichaelMorton, Alpheus CleophasStrachey, Sir Edward
    Holland, Sir William HenryMuldoon, JohnStrauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
    Holt, Richard DurningMurphy, John (Kerry, East)Summerbell, T.
    Horniman, Emslie JohnMurphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)Taylor, John W. (Durham)
    Howard, Hon. GeoffreyMyer, HoratioToulmin, George
    Hyde, ClarendonNapier, T. B.Trevelyan, Charles Philips
    Idris, T. H. W.Nicholls, GeorgeUre, Alexander
    Illingworth, Percy H.Nicholson,CharlesN. (Doncast'rVerney, F. W.
    Jardine, Sir J.Nolan, JosephVivian, Henry
    Johnson, John (Gateshead)Nuttall, HarryWalsh, Stephen
    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)O'Brien,Kendal( TipperaryMid)Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
    Jowett, F. W.O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
    Joyce, MichaelO'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
    Kearley, Hudson E.O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)Wardle, George J.
    Kekewich, Sir GeorgeO'Doherty, PhilipWaring, Walter
    Kennedy, Vincent PaulO'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)Waterlow, D. S.
    Kilbride, DenisO'Grady, J.Wedgwood, Josiah C.
    Kng, Alfred John (Knutsford)O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,NWeir, James Galloway
    Laidlaw, RobertO'Shee, James JohnWhite, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
    Lambert, GeorgeParker, James (Halifax)White, Patrick (Meath, North)
    Lamont, NormanPaulton, James MellorWhitehead, Rowland
    Lardner, James Carrige RushePearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
    Lea, Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras,E.Pearce, William (Limehouse)Wiles, Thomas
    Levy, Sir MauricePearson,W.H.M. (Suffolk,Eye)Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
    Lewis, John HerbertPirie, Duncan V.Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. DavidPower, Patrick JosephWilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
    Lough, TamasPrice, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
    Lundon, W.Pullar, Sir RobertYoxall, James Henry
    Lupton, ArnoldRadford, G. H.
    Lyell, Charles HenryRainy, A. RollandTELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
    Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkBg'hs)Rea, Russell (Gloucester)Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
    Mackarness, Frederic C.Reddy, M.Pease.

    on Clause 1 moved to leave out the words "and of each subsequent year," the effect being to confine the making of the new entry in the valuation roll—capital land value—to one year. He said that anyone who had listened to the debate must be convinced that the fewer times these operations had to be gone through in order to add the third column to the valuation roll, the better it would be for Scotland. The Lord Advocate had told them that the object of this Bill was to get certain facts. He submitted that once they had got those facts they did not need to repeat the inquiry every year. Once the facts were obtained that ought to be sufficient for the object they had in view. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that this Bill was required solely for the purpose of obtaining information, and the Solicitor-General had told them that one of its objects was to simplify land transfer, At any rate all would agree that the information should be accurate, but the facts they would obtain under the Bill would obviously be inaccurate. The right hon. Gentleman had taken pains to point out that no rating was to ensue until a Rating Act had been passed, Surely that would be the proper time to renew the valuation. Although the Lord Advocate required all this information, he was not prepared to pay for it out of Government funds. The right hon. Gentleman wished to drink deep at the spring of the unfortunate owner. This expense would fall in many cases on persons who could ill afford to bear it. A large landowner would be perfectly safe, because he had got his factors; but what would happen to the small landowners? A much larger proportion would fall on the small man than upon the large man. As to the question of cost, how was it that no estimate had been placed before the House? Before rushing into this scheme it would only have been proper for the Lord Advocate to have taken some means of ascertaining what the cost was going to be. He concurred with the Leader of the Opposition that the cost to Scotland of the valuation roll would be something like £2,000,000. No attempt appeared to have been made to ascertain the cost. In the county of Aberdeen, including the city of Aberdeen, there were upwards of 92,740 voters on the valuation roll. He wished to know whether the Government could give any estimate of the cost of the surveys which would be necessary when this Bill became law? He ventured to say that an enormous cost would be thrown on the county of Aberdeen. It had been stated that a Glasgow assessor had expressed the opinion that it could all be done for £5,000 or £6,000. Glasgow had made up a register which had already cost £20,000, and there were still 5,000 appeals oustanding against the assessor. Any hon. Member who had had to do with such appeals knew how costly they were. An hon. friend had informed him that one of these appeals cost from £100 to £1,000. This was an expenditure which the Government proposed to put on, not once, but year after year. Ac cording to the evidence of Mr. Marwick it would take thirty valuators working six days a week for four and a half years to make a valuation of Edinburgh alone, but an enthusiastic Glasgow assessor had said that after the first valuation had been made the others could be made in five minutes. Could any hon. Member really imagine that valuations made at that rate would not necessarily be the subject of appeal. The Bill said that it was to come into force in respect of Whitsunday, 1909. The Lord Advocate seemed to think that he had made a concession when he altered the date from 1908, but the same difficulty would arise in 1909 as if the measure came into operation in 1908. The only advantage of altering the date would be that the public would have a little more time to become acquainted with the terms of the Bill. When Whitsunday, 1909, came, notices would have to be sent out by the assessors, and as the valuation roll had to be returned by 15th August, all the time available for the making up of the roll would be three months. The assessor retained the valuation roll till 8th September, and then it was transmitted to the county clerk, and the appeals had to be heard by 25th September. That was a totally inadequate time to attend to the appeals which would arise. The voters roll had to be made up between 25th September and 15th October. All this work had to be done by the same assessors at the same time. An impossible task was being thrown upon them. The Association of Assessors said that it would take two years to carry out the work. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had announced through the Lord Advocate that in regard to the expense he would give fair consideration to the cost that might be imposed on the assessors. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose to give fair consideration to the cost that would be imposed on the owners as well? These costs would be of an extremely onerous character. It had been suggested that we ought to copy the New Zealand system, but he would point out that the valuation there was not made annually. It could not be made at a less interval than two years. Why should the valuation roll be revised every year in the case of unfortunate Scotland? What changes did the right hon. Gentleman expect to take place from Year to year? He admitted that probably a change of Government would increase the capital value of land in Scotland. The legislation of the present Government had had a most depressing effect on feu duties. At one time they were absolutely unsaleable, and it was only after the intervention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister that it was possible in Glasgow to sell feu duties at any price at all. Enormous difficulty would be experienced by the owners and occupiers who desired to carry out their duties in regard to valuations. Whit Sunday was the common period at which properties were handed over when sales took place. There would be a valuation placed on the roll in respect of a property at that date, but under the scheme of the Lord Advocate the new owner would be responsible for the accuracy of the valuation, and he would be liable to a penalty of £50 for an inaccurate valuation. That would throw an unnecessary burden on the individual. Once the valuation had been given that should be sufficient for all reasonable purposes. In Glasgow, for example, there would be complicated issues at stake and it would be three or four years before the valuation column could be made at all accurate. There were small counties in which it might he done in a year. Power was given in the Bill to delay in certain cases, but where that power was not applied this valuation would be made from year to year at great cost. He submitted that the object the Government desired would be served if one valuation was made, and that then from time to time as it became necessary a revision could be made by Order in Council. His desire was not to put the country to the expense and inconvenience every year of the preparation of a valuation roll. He hoped the reasonableness of his proposal would appeal to the Lord Advocate. He begged to move. Amendment proposed—

    "In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words 'and of each subsequent year."'—(Mr. Cochrane.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

    *

    said he was sorry that the Government did not see its way to accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. The House had already settled that there should be a valuation roll made up for the first year, viz., the year beginning Whit Sunday, 1909. That being so, and if by universaladmission, the expense, of which so much had just been made, would be very largely in excess in the first year of any expense which would be incurred in subsequent years, the deletion of the words "each subsequent year" would be most inadvisable. It was altogether out of the question that in a Bill so fashioned as to adapt itself to the system of the valuation of land in Scotland they should add a column departing from that system which had answered so well for more than fifty years. That was the broad ground on which the Government adhered to the Bill as it stood. He knew that there was a quin-quennial system which obtained in London. Such a system had never been, and he hoped would never be, applied to Scotland. The precedent of New Zealand had also been quoted, but when that was set up for the first time in the Colony it was from motives which did not apply in Scotland. The motive of the Government was to dovetail into the Act of 1854, which had by common consent worked so smoothly and effectively, the proposals in the Bill. Calculations of a most fantastic nature had been made as to the enormous expense which would be incurred. The hon. Baronet the Member for Taunton had said that the cost would be £4,000,000, but by way of being very generous he reduced that sum to £2,000,000. An estimate had been made with regard to the cost to Edinburgh and Glasgow. His hon. friend the Member for East Edinburgh had put the cost for that city at £4,000. As a matter of fact it would only cost £2,000, He would throw the £2,000 to his hon. friend, just as he had taken the reduced estimate of the hon. Baronet at £2,000,000. Assume that it would cost Edinburgh and Glasgow £10,000, let them work it out by the rule of three. The valuation of Edinburgh and Glasgow amounted to £8,000,000 per annum. The cost of valuation which the hon. Baronet would reach on his estimate, would be £160,000. The people on the spot, the most skilled valuers in the United Kingdom, told them that that was a most fantastic statement, that the cost of valuation of the land in Edinburgh and Glasgow would be £10,000 and that a figure of £160,000 was sheer nonsense.

    *

    *

    said that his experience, both as arbitrator and as counsel, in the course of a long professional life showed him that the assessors were most skilled valuers. This matter of expense did not terrify them in Scotland at all. The valuation, though it might appear large for the first year, would be taken advantage of each subsequent year, and the expense would consequently be diminished. He asked the House not to sterilise the Bill by accepting the Amendment. What they wanted to get at was the valuation each year showing any increment or decrement. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the value would be repeated and the assessor would say that he saw no change in the value.

    said that the hon. and learned Gentleman asked them not to sterilise his Bill by accepting the Amendment. He failed to see from the explanation given by the Lord Advocate that the Amendment, if carried, would do the least harm. If the object of the Government was what they had told the House, to get some notion of what the value of the land in Scotland was for the purpose of guiding them in future legislation, then he thought that one valuation would be enough, and there could be no object in an annual valuation. If the Bill was to have some operative character and the information obtained was to be purely academic, for which, however, the proprietors of Scotland would be asked to pay, then the experiment should be made as cheap as possible. He agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the cost in the valuation in the subsequent years would not be as great as in the first year, but he did not agree with him as to the cost of the first year. On the contrary, he thought that the right. hon. and learned Gentleman had greatly underrated it, and that he was wrong when he stated that the amount of the expense to the individual proprietors would be negligible, It would involve landed proprietors going through all the accounts of their estates for more than twenty years to see when certain improvements had commenced, and there would require to be continual revision of the valuation. That could not be done without some cost, and he earnestly suggested that all the information required could be obtained if he and his successors were content with the valuation for one year.

    heartily supported the Amendment. What was the object of the Bill? As stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Bill was introduced in order to collect statistics merely for the pleasure of collecting them, but obviously the object was to obtain figures which would justify the imposition of a rate. In Committee they could get no information as to the nature of the rate, and when the Lord Advocate first introduced the Bill he indicated that was a fishing and exploring measure in order to see whether legislation could be introduced. The Government under this Bill were not going to impose any rate, and before they did so they must introduce another Bill. Meanwhile what did this Amendment suggest? The Amendment was that when they had got that information they should stop and consider whether they should go on, and if it was found possible to bring in a rating Bill they should do so. But what was the position of the right hon. Gentleman? It was that this valuation should be made every year, a proceeding which would be most unfair. Let them take the case of two adjacent counties, Peebles and Lanark. Peebles was a small county and was likely to finish its valuation quickly while, Lanarkshire being a large county, the work in it would take a longer time. What would be the result? Lanarkshire would probably make one valuation, while Peebles, the work being lighter, would make two, three, or four. The result would be not to give the right hon. Gentleman any valuation which he could go upon in founding a rating Bill, because the dates of the valuations would vary. If the right hon. Gentleman said that after the first valuation was made the process should be annual, there might be something to be said for the proposal, but there was nothing to be said for a suggestion that while one county was to make half a dozen valuations other counties were to only make one. The right hon. Gentleman had been pleased to say that the estimate of the Leader of the Opposition that this valuation would cost £2,000,000 was a fantastic figure, and that for the City of Glasgow the cost would be from £6,000 to £8,000. What he wanted to ask the House was to consider whether, when they were making an estimate, it was not a fair basis to take ¼ per cent. to ½ per cent. as the cost of the valuation; and if they did so the estimate of £6,000 to £8,000 was totally inadequate. The annual rental of Glasgow was £5,750,000. Taking the capitalised value of that not at twenty years purchase, but at only fifteen years, would give them a capital value of £86,000,000. The remuneration of £6,000 or £8,000 to those who had to make the valuation of that amount of property would work out at 160th of one per cent. Was that reasonable? The right hon. Gentleman would not venture to offer such a rate of remuneration to any assessor, or if he did he would hear a very strong opinion from the assessor in question. He asked whether there was any precedent—he knew of none—for making valuations apart from rating an annual obligation. He therefore suggested to the right hon. Gentleman, as this was simply a Bill for inquiry on which to base future legislation, provision should be made safeguarding those counties which had got through their valuations quickly from being compelled to go on making valuations until those counties which had moved more slowly and less skilfully had completed theirs.

    *

    said that as he understood it, these assessors were not to be professional men, and yet they were the gentlemen who would have to work out one of the most difficult calculations that it was possible to think of. They had not only the superficial area of the land to deal with, but the miners and other values which pertained to it. If the Lord Advocate thoroughly be lieved in the proposal which he had brought forward and thought the expenses would be only the amount which he had indicated, why not say in the Bill that the cost should not exceed £6,000, £8,000, £10,000, or even £100,000, because he was sure the last-named figure mentioned would not cover the cost. The whole virtue of the valuation depended upon the man who made it, and if these valuations were to be made not by experts but by novices who were unacquainted with the work so far as capital and rental values were concerned, their estimates would not be worth the paper upon which they were written.

    hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would receive favourably the suggestion that the Treasury should bear some of the cost about which they were hearing such varying statements. Leaving out the question of necessity and for this purpose admitting that it was necessary to make such a valuation, it seemed to him unreasonable that it should be made every year. His hon. friend the Member for Lanark had advanced unanswerable arguments as to one county making the valuation more quickly than another, and had therefore demonstrated that it was unreasonable to have this valuation every year. What good did the Lord Advocate think was going to come from this annual valuation? He quite agreed that the valuation should be made at recurrent periods, but he did not see why it should be annual. In London we had a quinquennial valuation, but in country districts and other large towns the valuation was not made so frequently. If the Lord Advocate had proposed a quinquennial valuation he did not know that he would have had much to say against it, but he did not see the necessity for an annual valuation. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that property in Glasgow was going to fluctuate appreciably every year? He did not think that that would be the case, and he trusted it would not be, in spite of the extraordinary legislation which was going to be triel upon that city. Evidently the fluctuations could not be very great, and even the unearned increment of which they heard so much would take some years to accrue. As to the question of expense, he altogether failed to grasp the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, and he thought that his statement of £6,000 or £8,000 could not be made seriously. The Lord Advocate seemed to have omitted altogether the consideration that the people whose property was going to be valued had already made some valuation on their own behalf and might or might not accept the valuation of the assessor. It was inevitable that an expert must be called in and that a considerable expense would be entailed on that account; because if the unfortunate man sent in an inaccurate valuation and the Corporation asked on what it was founded, and he said it was a guess, they would not accept it, and he would have to employ an expert in order that the valuation should be founded on a proper basis. He agreed that the work would not be so difficult the second year. If it was necessary to include a fixed date he hoped the Lord Advocate would make it a longer period than a year.

    *

    said having had considerable experience in the valuation of property, he might be able to throw some light on this matter. The annual assessment was an absolute necessity. During the last thirty years, the property in Cripplegate Without had grown in annual value from £70,000 to £230,000. During the whole of that period the annual valuations for rating purposes had passed under his hand. The revision of assessments and valuations took place every year and the quinquennial assessments had been arrived at from the annual valuations. The rental value of the property in that district being £230,000, the capital value might be put at £4,000,000, and during the whole thirty years, all the valuations, including the quinquennial revisions, had only cost £200 a year, or less than a hundred and sixtieth of the 1 per cent. which had been spoken of as an impossible figure. He himself would be glad to undertake the valuation of the whole of Scotland at that impossible figure, and would guarantee that it would be properly done. If it was done annually, it was a comparatively easy thing to do.

    pointed out that in this case they would have to make a hypothetical situation. They would have to divest the site of its building and value it not for the purposes of the building upon it, but for the purposes of the building which the assessor thought ought to be upon it. Under such conditions it was obvious that the valuation would have to be much more carefully made, and would take a much greater time.

    said it appeared to him that those who opposed this Amendment lost sight of the fact that there was no precedent for going to the expense of a valuation of land without the intention of making immediate and practical use of the information obtained. It was proposed in this case to make a valuation of the capital value of the land of Scotland, first, for the purpose of determining whether or not it was expedient or judicious to base fresh taxation, Imperial or local, on the information obtained, and secondly, to base the taxation on the figures obtained. For the second purpose he admitted that the information must be substantially accurate, but for the purpose for which this information alone was sought, rough general information was sufficient. To decide whether or not it was expedient, judicious, or just to impose fresh taxation of the kind suggested, it was not necessary to know the exact value of the land; an approximate estimate would be sufficient. No one could deny that the cost of the annual revision would be considerable, and it appeared to him, having regard to the purpose for which the valuation was wanted, that the cost of the annual revision would be a waste of money. Question put. The House divided:—Ayes, 238; Noes, 51. (Division List No. 439).

    AYES.
    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)Ginnell, L.Menzies, Walter
    Adkins, W. Ryland D.Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert JohnMicklem, Nathaniel
    Ainsworth, John StirlingGlover, ThomasMolteno, Percy Alport
    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)Goddard, Daniel FordMoney, L. G. Chiozza
    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.Gooch, George PeabodyMontagu, E. S.
    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)Grant, CorrieMorgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)Morse, L. L.
    Barnes, G. N.Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir EdwardMorton, Alpheus Cleophas
    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.Gulland, John W.Muldoon, John
    Beaumont, Hon. HubertGurdon,RtHnSirW.BramptonMurphy, John (Kerry, East)
    Bell, RichardGwynn, Stephen LuciusMurphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)
    Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.Halpin, J.Myer, Horatio
    Berridge, T. H. D.Hammond, JohnNapier, T. B.
    Bethell,SirJ.H.(Essex,Romf'rdHarcourt, Rt. Hon LewisNicholls, George
    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)Harvey, W.E.(DerbyshireN.E.Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r
    Birrell, Rt. Hon. AugustineHaworth, Arthur A.Nolan, Joseph
    Boland, JohnHazel, Dr. A. E.Nuttall, Harry
    Brace, WilliamHazleton, RichardO'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid.
    Bramsdon, T. A.Healy, Timothy MichaelO'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
    Branch, JamesHedges, A. PagetO'Doherty, Philip
    Brigg, JohnHelme, Norval WatsonO'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
    Brodie, H. C.Henderson, Arthur (Durham)O'Grady, J.
    Brunner,J.F.L.(Lancs.,Leigh)Henry, Charles S.O'Kelly,James (Roscommon,N
    Buchanan, Thomas RyburnHigham, John SharpO'Malley, William
    Burns, Rt. Hon. JohnHobart, Sir RobertO'Shee, James John
    Buxton, Rt. Hn.SydneyCharlesHogan, MichaelParker, James (Halifax)
    Byles, William PollardHolland, Sir William HenryPearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)
    Carr-Gomm, H. W.Holt, Richard DurningPearce, William (Limehouse)
    Causton,RtHnRichard KnightHorniman, Emslie JohnPearson,W.H.M.(Suffolk,Eye)
    Cheetham, John FrederickHoward, Hon. GeoffreyPirie, Duncan V.
    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.Hyde, ClarendonPower, Patrick Joseph
    Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)Idris, T. H. W.Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central)
    Cleland, J. W.Illingworth, Percy H.Pullar, Sir Robert
    Clough, WilliamJardine, Sir J.Radford, G. H.
    Clynes, J. R.Johnson, John (Gateshead)Rainy, A. Rolland
    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
    Collins,Sir W. J.(S.Pancras,W.)Jowett, F. W.Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'
    Condon, Thomas JosephJoyce, MichaelReddy, M.
    Corbett,C. H. (Sussex,E.Grinst'dKearley, Hudson E.Redmond, William (Clate)
    Cowan, W. H.Kennedy, Vincent PaulRichards,Thomas(W.Monm'th
    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)Kilbride, DenisRichards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n
    Cremer, Sir William RandalLaidlaw, RobertRickett, J. Compton
    Crooks, WilliamLambert, GeorgeRidsdale, E. A.
    Crossley, William J.Lamont, NormanRoberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
    Cullinan, J.Lardner, James Carrige RusheRoberts, G. H. (Norwich)
    Curran, Peter FrancisLehmann, R. C.Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd
    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)Lever,A.Levy(Essex,Harwich)Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
    Delany, WilliamLevy, Sir MauriceRobinson, S.
    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)Lewis, John HerbertRobson, Sir William Snowdon
    Dickinson, W.H. (St.Pancras,NLloyd-George, Rt. Hon. DavidRogers, F. E. Newman
    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.Lough, ThomasRowlands, J.
    Donelan, Captain A.Lundon, W.Runciman, Walter
    Duckworth, JamesLupton, ArnoldRussell, T. W.
    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)Lyell, Charles HenrySamuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)Macdonald,J.M. (Falkirk B'hs )Seely, Colonel
    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
    Elibank, Master ofMacNeill, John Gordon SwiftSheehy, David
    Erskine, David C.MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.Sherwell, Arthur James
    Essex, R. W.MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.Shipman, Dr. John G.
    Esslemont, George BirnieM'Callum, John;M.Silcock, Thomas Ball
    Everett, R. LaceyM'Crae, GeorgeSinclair, Rt. Hon. John
    Farrell, James PatrickM'Hugh, Patrick A.Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.
    Fenwick, CharlesM'Kenna, Rt. Hon. ReginaldSnowden, P.
    Ferens, T. R.M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)
    Ferguson, R. C. MunroMaddison, FrederickStanley,Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.)
    Ffrench, PeterManfield, Harry (Northants)Steadman, W. C.
    Findlay, AlexanderMarkham, Arthur BasilStewart, Halley (Greenock)
    Flavin, Michael JosephMarks,G.Croydon (Launceston)Strachey, Sir Edward
    Fuller, John Michael F.Marnham, F. J.Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
    Gibb, James (Harrow)Massie, J.Summerbell, T.
    Gill, A. H.Meehan, Patrick A.Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,EWardle, George J.Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)
    Toulmin, GeorgeWaring, WalterWilson, John (Durham, Mid)
    Trevelyan, Charles PhilipsWaterlow, D. S.Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
    Ure, AlexanderWedgwood, Josiah C.Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
    Verney, F. W.Weir, James GallowayYoxall, James Henry
    Vivian, HenryWhite, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
    Walsh, StephenWhite, Patrick (Meath, North)TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
    Walters, John TudorWhitehead, RowlandWhiteley and Mr. J. A.
    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)Whitley,John Henry (Halifax)Pease.
    Ward, John (Stoke upon TrentWiles, Thomas
    NOES.
    Ashley, W. W.Courthope, G. LoydMagnus, Sir Philip
    Balcarres, LordCraig,CharlesCurtis(Antrim.S.)Parkes, Ebenezer
    Balfour,RtHn.A.J.(CityLond.)Craik, Sir HenryPease, Herbert Pike(Darlington
    Banbury,Sir Frederick GeorgeDouglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-Rawlinson, John FrederickPeel
    Banie,H.T. (Londonderry, N.)Du Cros HarveyRemnant, James Farquharson
    Beach,Hn.MichaelHughHicksFell, ArthurRoberts,S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)
    Bertram, JuliusFetherstonhaugh, GodfreyRonaldshay, Earl of
    Boyle, Sir EdwardFletcher, J. S.Salter, Arthur Clavell
    Bull, Sir William JamesForster, Henry WilliamSloan, Thomas Henry
    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
    Carlile, E HildredGretton, JohnTalbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
    Cave, GeorgeHamilton, Marquess ofThomson,W.Mitchell-(Lanark)
    Cavendish, Rt. Hon. VictorC. W.Harris, Frederick LevertonYounger, George
    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-Hay, Hon. Claude George
    Cecil,Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)Hills, J. W.TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
    Chamberlain, RtHn.J. A. ( Wore.Hunt, RowlandAlexander Acland-Hood
    Coates,E.Feetham(Lewisham)Kennaway,RtHon.SirJohnH.and Viscount Valentia.
    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.Law,Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)
    Collings, Rt.Hn.J. ( Birmingh'm)Long,RtHn.Walter(Dublin,S)

    in moving an Amendment to limit the operation of the clause to burghs, said the Amendment was one which he would have thought the Government would find no difficulty in accepting. The question of the taxation of ground values in towns had long excited much interest, and it had been dealt with in many different ways. As far as he knew, the Government suggested that the same system should be adopted with regard to agricultural land as was adopted in towns. There had been inquiries into the land system in the towns, there had been Commissions and Committees of Inquiry, but so far as he was aware it had never been suggested that the policy which might seem possible and advisable in towns should be applied equally to agricultural districts. No reason had yet been given by any member of the Government for this new and singular innovation, that methods adopted with regard to urban areas should be extended to other areas of a wholly different character, and governed by very different economic considerations. He wondered whether it was a mere love of doctrinaire uniformity. Otherwise, what was their reason? Nobody for a moment sup posed that the bare, unimproved agricultural land of this country was going to be a mine of wealth. He could understand, though he did not agree, that the land of our great towns was regarded as an untaxed source of revenue which might come to the relief of overburdened ratepayers; but no human being had ever for a moment dreamt that in the unimproved value of any agricultural district there was a mine of wealth. The only doubt was whether, if they suddenly cleared land on which a great deal of money had been spent and left it derelict, it would be worth anyone's while to make any improvements upon it at all. If that were true, and he did not think anyone would deny its truth, the idea that there was any financial gold mine in agricultural land was wholly absurd. Then in the case of agricultural land they were asking the owners to answer a perfectly absurd question. They were putting to them a conundrum as to the value of unimproved land to which he believed there was no rational answer at all. When he suggested that point to friends of his, they replied that a valuer could always be got to value anything they liked. Let them ask a valuer to put a value on anything in the world and, of course, he would put it. If a man's trade was to give an opinion for money he would give an opinion for money on whatever question they chose to ask him. But they had no right to ask him, through any owner of land, to answer a question to which there was no rational reply whatever. It should be remembered that when they were dealing with a bare, neglected site in a town they were dealing with a thing which came into the market every day in the week. Everyone knew that where a house had been pulled down there was a site of which they might estimate the value, and the difficulty which was experienced in regard to agricultural land did not arise. No one had ever seen the arable tracts in Argyllshire and Fifeshire in the unimproved condition which might be hypothetically supposed; and they were, therefore, asking first the owner, and then the valuer, to make a hypothetical judgment on a subject on which they had, from experience, no means of gaining any information whatever. He would very much like to know how the Government themselves thought the valuation ought to be carried out. He was not now thinking of the valuer who was obliged to give an opinion for money. He was asking the right hon. and learned Gentleman how he would proceed to value the bare soil of a Fifeshire arable farm. The Government themselves did not believe in their own theory, for in this Bill, as originally brought in, there was no bare agricultural value; on the contrary, everything was included — draining, fencing, plantations, water supply and other things. How that matter stood now he did not know. The Government made some Amendments in Committee, but whether those Amendments went the full length of clearing the land in imagination of everything upon it, he was not aware. He rather doubted it. He though simpler language ought to have beet used if the Government really mean what they said in regard to the land which was to be subject to this land value system. They had a great many qualifications in the third clause, but he did not know whether they covered all improvements. It was possible to draft a subsection in the third clause in such a way as to apply to what they had said in all their speeches they meant, namely, the absolute and unimproved value of the land. The problem in the country was quite different from the problem in the town in this respect. The value of sites in towns was according to the best kind of buildings which could be put upon them, and one of the objects of this Bill, according to the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland and the Lord Advocate also, was to induce people who owned houses in towns on sites where better buildings could be erected, to pull down those houses and erect those better buildings. But the view of the Lord Advocate and the Government was that the man who was not putting on the ground that he owned in the town the most vaulable building suitable to that site, was so far robbing the public of some wealth that ought to belong to it. He did not argue that proposition now, but he thought it plainly inapplicable to the country districts. There was a vital difference in the state of things in the country. He did not know on what principle the Government meant the valuers to proceed, but at all events, nobody wished to have buildings put on a farm which would leave the land of no value at all. They had to consider for what sum they could replace all the buildings, drains, hedges, and other things, and allow interest on that sum in order to get at the unimproved value of the soil. If they were not going to take the farm as equipped, including the cost of equipment, what other principle were they going to adopt? There was plenty of unimproved land, and they knew what grew upon it, but in the case of the rich land they never saw what grew upon it, and it was ludicrous to ask the House to base a system of valuation upon this remote and unfounded hypothesis. He wished to know what view the Government took as to the effect of the Bill on their own scheme. Hon. Members opposite talked as if the Bill was in thorough harmony with previous legislative proposals dealing with the crofters. It was clear that if the Bill passed it would have a disastrous effect on the crofters. The crofter improvements, which now escaped taxation altogether, would cease to do so. It appeared to him that the Government were indirectly raising a question which when thoroughly understood, would produce in the crofting counties a very startling effect as to the genuineness of the Government's desire to help the struggling population in those parts of the Highlands. He was at a loss to understand why the Government had taken so many unnecessary difficulties upon their shoulders. They had brought upon themselves all the difficulties of their scheme in connection with agricultural land, and deprived themselves of all the advantages to be hoped from it in those places which were already built over or likely to be built over in the next few years. He thought they would do well to lighten the series of strange proposals they were putting before the House. Amendment proposed—

    "In page 1, line 7, to leave out the words 'county and.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

    *

    did not think the case which had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman would arise under the proposals of the Bill. He totally differed from the view presented as to the distinction between the town and the country cases. He quite acknowledged that short as the Amendment was it raised a serious question of principle, and he wished to deal with it in a proper spirit. The right hon. Gentleman was wrong in his first proposition that this proposal was being made by the Government without any consideration of the problem. The Bills which had dealt with this topic in the House of Commons in the past had been confined to urban areas, but in view of the overwhelming vote in the House of Commons last year it was necessary to remit the whole of the question to a Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman would quite understand that he was not going into certain matters contained in the body of that Report, but it was only right that he should refer to the particular recommendation which bore upon the point raised in the Amendment. The recommendation laid down that the moment they confined the operation of a principle of this kind to urban areas they would find themselves, as it were, at the dividing line between burgh and county, and they would meet cases of such extreme difficulty that the only way to ease the situation was to make a uniform system. The second recommendation was that a measure should be introduced making provision for a valuation of land in the burghs and counties of Scotland apart from the buildings and improvements upon it, and that no assessment should be determined upon until the amount of that valuation was known and considered. He had gone to this length to show that it was a mistake to suggest that no inquiry had been made upon the subject, it had been a matter of the most anxious inquiry. One of the advantages of the Bill was that at all events it would show all investigators of the subject and all local authorities exactly how the balance of valuation stood. He agreed that it was extremely important that they should proceed upon prudent lines before assessing for taxation. The scheme would not produce a new gold mine, but it would effect a certain readjustment. He did not wish to pose as a prophet, but one could not study this problem for a long period of years without feeling that the readjustment would enure to the advantage of thebona-fide agricultural proprietor in Scotland. If the scheme of this Bill was carried out all those improvements effected upon purely agricultural properties would henceforth be improvements with regard to which thebona fide owner would know that he would not be penalised by taxation. In the county area the man who would be relieved would be thebona-fide agricultural holder, and the man who would be hit would be the land speculator who bought in the county area land which was in the ambit of a town. The effect would be that instantaneous relief would be given to the class of ratepayers in Scotland whom he called thebona-fide landowners. To the extent to which the speculators would be hit others would be relieved, and therefore, in the respect which he had indicated, the benefit in country districts would be of the greatest kind. He had thought it necessary to give that explanation, because there seemed to be a misapprehension on the subject. Of course, the Government had no wish to discourage building. They wished to encourage all kinds of improvements upon property, and the best of all inducements to make such expenditure would be the consciousness that people would not be penalised for making improvements. The right hon. Gentleman was very anxious to get an opinion from him without a fee. When a question of that kind was asked he always remembered what the late Lord Young said, "Whenever you get the opinion of counsel for nothing, it is worth just exactly what you pay for it." Accordingly he was not going to enter into that barren country. If the valuation were to be done by a skilled witness he would not attach much importance to it, but when the first step was to be taken by the proprietor himself, he thought that was a good starting fact. The exclusion of every county in Scotland under the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would mean a very great deal even on the site value basis, the cogency of which was admitted. The exclusion of the county areas would be the exclusion at one swoop of all those acute cases of suburban areas which had really provoked this question year after year, and made it become a great issue of State. Then there was the case of villages and the land surrounding them. Sometimes most extraordinary examples were given of how great was the value of land in the estimation of the proprietor. One case which he had in his mind affected a burgh where a riparian owner compelled the burgh to purify a river. The burgh could only purify the river by obtaining land for filtration purposes from the very proprietor who compelled the carrying out of the purification works. The burgh had to pay an enormous price for the land; he could not say how much it was in excess of what might be regarded as its real value. If the Amendment were carried, suburban land would be excluded from the operation of the Bill, and serious cases would slip through. Under the law of Scotland there was a far more acute case than any which had been mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to be aware that all the police burghs of Scotland, which represented the modern side of urban energy in country places, and which did not send or contribute to sending a Member to Parliament, were for valuation purposes reckoned in the county. Therefore, under the Amendment there would be excluded not only suburban land, village land, and the land surrounding villages, but actually the police burghs to which he referred.

    said that no evidence was laid before the Select Committee last year in regard to the inclusion of county areas. The evidence dealt entirely with urban areas, and the conclusion come to by the majority was forced on the Committee without their having an opportunity of hearing evidence or being told on what facts the Committee proceeded. The hon. and learned Gentleman had avoided all reference to the great difficulty of valuing sites in the country. The third clause defined "improvements." He thought the clause now before the House would be improved by the adoption of the Amendment. It was extremely difficult in valuing land to divorce it from improvements in the way the Bill suggested. An extremely difficult task was placed on the assessors and little guidance was given to them as to how they were to perform their duty in allowing for improvements. During the debates in the Committee he understood the Lord Advocate to promise that he would prepare some directions for the assessors. He did not know whether the directions were to be incorporated in the Bill or whether they were to be issued in another form. The House was in entire ignorance on that matter, but much of the success of the assessors in making the valuations would depend on the directions. There was, for example, the difficult question of minerals which lay beneath properties. Who was to make the return in that case? Was it the man who owned thesolum and not the minerals. Similar problems arose in regard to fishing and shooting rights, and no direction was given in the Bill to help towards a solution. Hon. Members were aware that in Scotland, and he presumed the same thing occurred in England, as soon as suburban land became building land, the boundaries were so adjusted at the instance of the town council as to include the land which was ripe for building purposes. That suburban land, therefore, would come within the four corners of the Bill. The Lord Advocate claimed that he was proceeding on prudent lines, but he could not agree with him. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had begun by confining the Bill to urban areas he would have been proceeding on prudent lines, but when he included the mountains and glens and asked that a land value should be placed upon them, he thought that the lines were not particularly prudent. He concurred with what had been said by the Leader of the Opposition as to the difficulty which would arise under the Bill in relation to the valuation of holdings occupied by crofters. The result would be that on such land the value would remain, but on ordinary farms the cost of the equipment was so great that the land value would disappear altogether. If this Bill were carried out to its logical result, certain proprietors would pay no rates at all, while the crofters would pay four or five times their present rate. Therefore, instead of a boon being given to the new small landowner and the wretched crofters, they would be in a very much worse position under the new than under the old system. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had given an instance of a sewage farm near Edinburgh; but the price paid there was paid in respect of the diminution in value of the neighbouring land. Nobody was likely to build a house near a sewage farm. Another case quoted by the Lord Advocate was Rosyth, but everybody knew that Lord Linlithgow and his predecessors had paid a fancy price for the land there, in order to maintain the amenity of Hopetoun House, and he was entitled to have that taken into account in the valuation. Another case quoted was that of the gas-works at Granton. Anything more hideous than the erections there could not be conceived. He himself had lived within an area of ten or twelve miles from the gasworks, and they were an eyesore to him, while they had spoiled the land for feuing purposes. Therefore the Duke of Buccleuch was entitled to receive a large price for that land. He did not suppose that the Lord Advocate would change his mind on this subject; his mind was obsessed with this idea of land values. He was glad to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman admit that there was not a gold mine in the business; but on the other hand he thought that having respect to the future, while the Bill might reduce the present value of building land, at any rate it would not produce a very large sum in additional rates. He was very sorry that the Lord Advocate still adhered to his determination to refuse to accept the Amendment. He thought that the chances were that the Bill would extend the principle of the valuation of the land values to where valuation was difficult, especially when no proper line had been laid down for the direction of the assessor.

    *

    said he desired to support the Amendment. The Bill was not originally intended to include county areas, but to confine its operations to towns and cities. The reason for the admission by the Lord Advocate that he did not expect the Bill would prove a gold mine was that the Prime Minister had resolutely refused to include existing feus and contracts within its scope. Another reason why the Amendment should be accepted was that there was ample undeveloped land available to test the new basis of valuation proposed to be set up. He had listened with considerable astonishment to the Lord Advocate when he said that this measure would be a benefit to agricultural property. He utterly failed to appreciate that suggestion. His belief was that where they had land used for farming purposes within the hypothetical building zone, the operation of the new valuation would be in the highest degree detrimental to agriculture. He knew of a considerable estate which had been bought in the hope that it would turn out of some value as a building property. For many years it was occupied as a purely agricultural holding, and in the course of time a few villa sites were taken off the property, but owing to the demand for such sites not continuing, and to the demand extending to other suburbs, the value of that estate had never increased. To-day it had nothing but a purely agricultural value. No doubt, that was a contention which would be disputed by the assessor, because that particular property lay within five miles of the largest city in Scotland. It was a moral certainty that the assessor would insist on adding a hypothetical "building" value to the agricultural one. That was an illustration of the fallacy that this this Bill would be of value to the agricultural community. The Lord Advocate went on to deal with the building speculator. He wondered if the right hon. and learned Gentleman was acquainted with the broad facts of the present position of the city of Glasgow. He found from a Return recently issued that the area available for building amounted to 8,786 acres. Deducting for public spaces, streets, etc., 4,000 acres, there remained available for building purposes over 4,600 acres. These figures were brought out before the Select Committee, of which he was a member. The city assessor of Glasgow stated to the same Committee that at the present moment there were within the city boundaries 3,600 acres of agricultural land, and that the average amount of land called for annually for building purposes was only 60 acres. A very elementary calculation showed that within the city boundaries there was a sufficient acreage to satisfy the demand for building purposes for sixty years. He felt that on the whole, until they had more evidence of a demand for legislation of this kind from elsewhere than the city of Glasgow and the county of Lanark, the Lord Advocate would be well advised to accept the Amendment of the Leader of the Opposition. He was satisfied that if it had been thoroughly understood that the existing feu duties were not to be taken within the scope of the Bill they would have had very little demand from any part of Scotland other than Glasgow and Lanarkshire for the measure.

    said that the one and only point was whether a Bill which included the whole area of Scotland should include the counties of Scotland or whether they should be excluded from its operation and only burghs included. The representatives of the counties who were members of the Committee over which he presided proposed an Amendment opining the operation of the Bill to burghs, but every witness who gave evidence in favour of the Bill was of opinion that if the proposals were going to have any effect at all they must not be confined at burghs but must also be extended to counties. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] He insisted upon that and for this reason, that he had the evidence before him and he challenged his hon. friend to point to any passage in the evidence of any witness who said that if the proposals of this Bill were passed they should be confined to the burghs. All the evidence was in favour of including the counties as well as the burghs and for this reason: that if the course now proposed were adopted they would be establishing a purely artificial line, because many large areas were included within the counties of Scotland which were purely building areas and which any man visiting the large towns of that country would suppose to be part of those towns. Every witness either for or against the Bill said that if they were to apply the principles contained in this measure they could not as rational men confine them to the burghs but must extend them to the counties and as he had pointed out that was singularly obvious for the reason that a large portion of the building land and the land ripe for building was outside the burghs in Scotland and was in the counties. He thought it would be obvious to any man who thought for a moment about this matter that to confine the Bill to the boundaries of burghs would be to introduce a difficulty which nothing in the conditions and circumstances of the soil would justify. All the members of the Committee were agreed upon this point, although they differed seriously on other points, that this measure could not be confined to areas around which artificial boundaries were drawn and which did not indicate the use to which the land was to be put. All those who were in favour of the Bill admitted that there was no Eldorado and no gold mine to be found in it, and nobody who really thought on the subject could entertain such an opinion. As had been said by an hon. friend of his, a plot of land never fumbled in his pocket for a coin. It was the owner who had to find the money, and he had never for a single moment denied that what they were in search of here was nothing more nor less than a test of a different standard of rating. What they were seeking was some measure of what the contribution of the ratepayers should be to the rates. Therefore they proposed to secure the valuation of the whole of the land in Scotland, and if they missed out the counties the valuation would be of no use whatever. The hon. Member for North Londonderry had said he did not believe that the Bill would ever have been brought forward or that so large an area would have been included but for the rich plum which was to be found in the taxation of the feu duties—which were not included in the Bill. A great misapprehension seemed to prevail as to the taxation of feu duties. The difference between himself and his colleagues on this question was easily stated. They proposed to leave the definition of owner in the Act of 1854 untouched. He proposed to extend that definition to include not only the owner who granted a 999 years lease, but the owner who granted a lease in perpetuity. He agreed with the principle of this Bill whole-heartedly, but he certainly wished to carry it further than his colleagues. He believed, however, that public opinion was not ripe in regard to his views, and on this subject he and his colleagues were exactly in the same position now as the Party opposite were in in 1905 in regard to the taxation of food excluding bacon, when their political life was endangered and their political fortunes were in jeopardy through the differences of opinion which prevailed amongst them. All he could say was that without any sacrifice of principle he was ready to give his colleagues his full co-operation with a view to setting up a standard although they did not agree with him in the primary principle to which he adhered. He thought, however, that it was right that the public information on this subject should be extended. He knew perfectly well what the views of his colleagues were when he drafted his Report. They never concealed them. This Bill came before the House four times and on each occasion they expressed their views on the principle and safeguarded themselves from extending its application to feu duties. All he was concerned with at the present moment was the fact that he knew their views, and they never swerved from the views they held at any time. He came to the conclusion he did as Chairman of the Committee after very carefully considering the evidence, and in the speeches he made on the subject, commencing in January of the present year, he preserved a strict silence upon this question, and never opened his mouth during the hearing of the evidence or during the time he was preparing his Report. He delivered those speeches as a member of the Committee and refused to take counsel with the members of the Administration or to speak to any member with regard to the evidence which was being given before the Committee. He was appointed Chairman of the Committee by the usual courtesy which gave the Chairmanship to a member of the Government if he was serving as a member of the Committee, and he would never have continued to hold office if this Bill had been contrary to any view he held on the subject. He, however, only rose to point out that if this Bill was to be operative it was impossible to exclude counties in Scotland where the same conditions prevailed and the same use was made of the land as was made of it in great industrial centres, and that if it was to serve a national purpose such counties could not be excluded from its provisions.

    said the House had listened to the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman with the greatest interest. He had tried to divest himself of the position he held in the Committee as a member of the Government, and he offered neither excuse nor apology. As a member of the Government he was appointed Chairman of the Committee on whose Report this Bill was to some extent based,and on him devolved the responsibility for calling the witnesses. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated his point of difference with his colleagues, and he congratulated him upon his courage, which might, however, have been greater if he had taken up the challenge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had said he would never support the principle of the taxation of feu duties. The hon. and learned Gentle man's colleagues proposed to leave the definition of owner in the Act of 1854 untouched, the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to include in it the owners of feu duties, which was in diametrical opposition to the statement made by the Prime Minister to the deputation which waited upon him on the subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman held those views knowing that they were opposed to the views of his colleagues, yet he ventured to take the Chairmanship of the Committee which was to lay down the rules—

    said the facts were patent to the House. A year ago what was called the Glasgow Bill as introduced dealing with the question of land values, and the Lord Advocate said the Government would only permit the Second Reading on the understanding that the feu duties were not to be taxed. Notwithstanding that fact the hon. and learned Gentleman accepted the Chairmanship of the Committee and directed its deliberations in a sense which he knew was contrary to the policy and opinions of his seniors in the Government. He, however, left the hon. and learned Gentleman to fight his own battle with his colleagues. What was the justification of the hon. and learned Gentleman for his Report? It was that the land owed its value to the expenditure, energy, and enterprise of the surrounding community and not to the owner. That justification was obviously intended to deal with the feu duties. Could anybody say that in the crofting districts the value of the land was due to the enterprise of the surrounding community when they could walk for miles without seeing a soul, or could they say it with regard to the moor and heather land? In regard to agricultural land in Scotland the value of it was due to the capital of the landlord and the labour and capital of the tenant. [An HON. MEMBER: And the market.] It was as much due to the foreign market as the home market. Did the hon. Member say that if there were not a foreign market competing the value of the land might not he still greater than it was at the present moment? Then as to unearned increment. He would take the case of a man who had invested money in land in the city of Glasgow, and it had increased in value owing—to what? Owing to the fact that the trade of the city was improved by the trade of foreign countries; by shipping coming up the Clyde, for example, from Australia, Canada, America, and other parts of the world. Trade had come in and had developed the value of the land. Let them take a converse case in Argyllshire, where the man purchased an estate for £7,000. He built a house upon it worth £20,000, and £4,000 for a farm building, and received only £11,000 when he sold the property. Where was the unearned increment? If they were going to tax the man who had made a profitable speculation in the city of Glasgow, what were they going to allow him for the bad speculation which he had made in Argyllshire? If they bought Consols while they were down, with a Radical Government in power, and they went up four or five points when a Unionist Government came into power, were they, on the same basis, to consider that as unearned increment to be handed over to some other person? The whole question of unearned increment to which they attached so much importance seemed to buzz round in the heads of hon. Members opposite, and they quoted with great freedom Minority Reports when they thought those Minority Reports suited their particular view. They quoted the Minority Report of Lord Balfour of Burleigh whenever it suited their purpose, and when it did not they did not quote it. On an earlier Amendment that afternoon the Lord Advocate had quoted the Report of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, but had entirely forgotten to quote that part of the Report in which Lord Balfour of Burleigh said that—

    "It might be well to apply a scheme of option and limit the introduction of it to urban places with a population in excess of a given number."
    That argument was directly germane to the Amendment before the House. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and no less authorities than Sir. G. Murray, Professor Stuart, Mr. J. B. Balfour, and others, in their Report, said that misconception and exaggeration were especially prevalent on this subject. They went on to say that if proper regard were had to equitable considerations the amount capable of being raised by special site value rates would not be large, and there was not much undeveloped source of taxation available for local purposes, and still less for national purposes. And when quoting Lord Balfour of Burleigh he thought that they ought to quote his letter upon this subject of the Report. Lord Balfour said that from the beginning to the end of their Report there would not be found the slightest argument in favour of the Bill as it stood, and still less of those for which it was obviously a preparation. It said#x2014;
    "In fact, it omits every one of the conditions to which we attach the greatest importance, and on the faith of which we signed our Report."
    He submitted that letter to the Lord Advocate as being the real opinion of Lord Balfour of Burleigh on this Bill. In conclusion, he would say that he was only sorry that the Lord Advocate was not present when the Solicitor-General for Scotland told them of the difference of opinion between him and the right hon. Gentleman. He would not repeat his observations; he only wished that the two hostile forces had both been present on the bench at the same time. Then the Lord Advocate might have delivered his fire into the Solicitor-General. The obvious and only result, so far as he could see, was that the Solicitor-General was absolutely unrepentant; he adhered to his own view. The Lord Advocate, who had stated his view with perfect honesty and freedom, said an existing contract should be maintained. The Solicitor-General hardened his heart to the views of the Prime Minister, who had stated them to a deputation, and also to the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had endeavoured to reassure public opinion by the statement which he made not many days ago. The Solicitor-General left them to believe that, so far as his opinion was concerned, not only as Chairman of the Select Committee, but in any view of the case in which he was free to assert his opinion, that opinion was diametrically opposed to the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister.

    said he rose to express his decided satisfaction with the Government for standing by the clause including counties in the scope of the Bill. Speaking as a county Member and as one who was interested in the Report to which reference had been made, he ventured to think that perhaps the best answer which could be made to the strictures which had been offered by the hon. Gentleman opposite was to read the words of the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland#x2014;

    "There can be no doubt that when the Bill received the Second Reading it was expressly stated by a member of the Government that existing contracts would be untouched, and that Clause 7 would be struck out in Committee. It is impossible for your Committee to say to what extent votes were affected by this declaration. As your Committee have come to the conclusion that the Bill ought not to be further proceeded with#x2014;"

    *

    pointed out that while it was true that the Solicitor-General had referred to his own record on feu duties by way of personal explanation, and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire was allowed to comment on the matter in reply, the question did not seem relevant to the Amendment now under discussion, and should not be further dealt with.

    said in that case he would confine his remarks to the question in its relation to the Scottish counties where there were precisely the same difficulties in many ways as in the towns. In many of their country districts the housing of the people was notoriously bad, and this was largely due to the evils of the present system of land tenure and of rating. They found that if they wanted to get additional ground to build upon they had to pay prices far above the value at which it was rated; and that was one of the fundamental circumstances which stopped building; in fact it was one of the things which had caused the development of those high buildings which they saw in many parts of Scotland, because as it was impossible to extend outwards there was a tendency to extend upwards. They desired that the people in country districts should be able to get the land at a fair price to build upon. In Scotland they also laboured under this disadvantage that, whatever building they put up, except it were a crofter's in a crofting county, the better the building the higher it was rated and the heavier it was taxed. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] He was one of those who thought that that principle was fundamentally unsound. They desired that the people should be well housed; they wished that every opportunity should be given to the people to invest their money in houses, and that all steps should be encouraged which would prevent overcrowding. He would remind hon. Members that, notwithstanding the sparse population of Scotland in the country districts, overcrowding in that country was far worse than in England. They had that problem to deal with in the Scottish counties. He would give the House a few instances which had occurred in his own county. It so happened that in one place overlooking the Clyde there were fifty-two acres of land which were required for the defence of the Clyde. The rateable value of the fifty-two acres was £60 a year. The War Office had bought that land for £14,500, or something like 240 years purchase; and yet they were told that land in the counties had no value at all. In another district of the same county there was a thriving industrial community which was steadily expanding. They required two acres of land for a school, and they acquired two acres out of a five-acre field. The rateable value of the land was £12 a year or about £2 an acre. The school authorities paid £1,200 an acre for those two acres of land, or 600 years purchase. He gave that as an illustration showing the absolute necessity of applying the principles of this Bill to Scottish counties. They had to consider not only the question of obtaining land for housing, but also for small holdings. It was said that although the land might be rated at a low value it had a great feuing value. If the feuing value was to be a factor in the valuation for purchase, it should also, on the same principle, be a factor in the valuation for rating purposes. They wanted not only to exempt houses from the penalising effect of rating, but also to do the same thing for agricultural improvements. Although Scottish agriculture had made great progress the soil was not so rich or the climate so favourable as in England, and therefore they wanted the best possible rating system they could get. In his own county a considerable amount of agricultural produce was raised under glass, and he had heard these people complain that as soon as they had laid the brick foundations of their greenhouses and put the glass on up went their assessments, and their efforts were penalised in that way. They wished to relieve those things from taxation, and then they would be able to do a great deal for the Scottish farmers in the counties. There was no difficulty about applying this principle to agricultural land outside as well as inside burghs, and he declined to divide Scotland into watertight compartments. They recognised that the depopulation of the country had led to overcrowding in the towns, and nothing would relieve the pressure but the development of the country districts. If they wished to apply this system properly they must apply it throughout Scotland to the counties and burghs alike. He was glad that the Government were holding to this clause, and he hoped in the long run it would be the foundation for rating not only in the burghs but also in the counties.

    *

    said the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire had complained that the War Office were unable to buy land in the instance he had quoted at the bare site value. That gave them the key to what was really intended by this Bill. They could not consider this Bill alone, and until they knew the wild schemes of the wild men behind it they could not support it. In land reform they were all interested, but they could not have anything to do with spoliation. It had been argued in favour of the Bill that the burgh boundary was an entirely artificial line, and he agreed with that contention. It was rather odd that in the Scottish Land Bill it was treated as a fixed line, although it was now admitted that agricultural land was often to be found inside the burgh area. They were casting very great burdens upon the assessor, who would have to be a man of the highest skill. It had been argued that all the evidence given before the Select Com mittee supported the inclusion of rural land. Of course it did. All the witnesses were summoned by the hon. Gentleman himself, and if the Government formed the Court themselves and called the evidence they could get any sort of conclusion they liked. He did not attach very great weight to that argument. They had to rate or tax not things but persons. When it was said that they were going to rate a certain class of land what they meant was that they were going to measure the owner's capacity to pay according to the value of the land he owned. If he owned a large amount of land he would pay more and if he owned a small amount he would pay less, and they were proposing to have a system of land valuation for the purpose of forming a basis whereby they could arrive at the capacity of the owner to pay. If rural land had no value, then it was no use as such basis, and the carrying out of this principle meant that the man who owned rural land would pay no rates at all. It was common knowledge that over a large part of these islands the value had gone out of agricultural land entirely, and all that was paid was a low rate of interest on the money sunk in the land in buildings and improvements. All the rental value had gone, and how could they form a scheme of taxation on the basis of taxing a man according to the value of something which had no value at all? That surely was areductio ad absurdum. He should vote for the Amendment if it was pressed to a division.

    said nothing had delighted him so much as the frank speech of the Solicitor-General on this queston. He happened to be the only Liberal member of the Committee who opposed the taxation of which he spoke, and he was the only member who supported the Lord-Advocate in the decision he gave to the House on the introduction of the Bill of last year. All the rest forsook him. and he had been looked askance at because he took up that line which had turned out to be the right line. The House would now see the class of argument which was at the back of all this agitation. Exceptional instances should not be taken as the foundation for a general policy. He was going to vote against the Amendment because he wished to see counties included, and for the reason that when the county returns were brought before the House of Commons it would be seen that they were putting the counties to an expense—large or small it did not matter—which would prove there was absolutely nothing to rate. If they struck out buildings and improvements in counties, drainage and fencing which had been done within the last twenty years, and so forth, they would have very little land value left, and all the trouble and expense so far as counties were concerned would result in nothing. There was one thing certain—all wanted the Government to pay. When they considered that in Aberdeenshire there were 43,000 entries on the roll it was manifest that there must be considerable expense occasioned not to the assessors alone but to every one of the landholders. That was an expense which ought to be considered. They all hoped to get it from the Government, and there he left them. He opposed the Amendment because he wished to see this return made from the counties. It would show how foolish it was so far as the counties were concerned. Question put. The House divided:—Ayes, 241; Noes, 54. (Division List No. 440.)

    AYES
    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)Bell, RichardBranch, James
    Ainsworth, John StirlingBelloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.Brigg, John
    Ambrose, RobertBenn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo.Brunner,J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)
    Asquith,Rt.Hn. Herbert HenryBerridge, T. H. D.Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn
    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)Bethell,Sir J.H.(Essex,R'mf'rdBurke, E. Haviland-
    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)Burns, Rt. Hon. John
    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)Birrell, Rt. Hon. AugustineByles, William Pollard
    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)Boland, JohnCampbell-Bannerman, Sir H.
    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)Brace, WilliamCarr-Gomm, H. W.
    Barnes, G. N.Bramsdon, T. A.Causton,RtHn.Richard Knight

    Chance, Frederick WilliamIllingworth, Percy H.Pearson,W. H. M. (Suffolk,Eye)
    Cheetham, John FrederickJardine, Sir J.Pirie, Duncan V.
    Cherry, Rt. Hon. B. R.Johnson, John (Gateshead)Power, Patrick Joseph
    Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
    Cleland, J. W.Jowett, F. W.Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
    Clough, WilliamJoyce, MichaelRea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'
    Clynes, J. R.Kearley, Hudson E.Reddy, M.
    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)Kennedy, Vincent PaulRedmond, John E. (Waterford)
    Collins,Sir Wm.J.(S.Pancras,W.Laidlaw, RobertRedmond, William (Clare)
    Corbett,C H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'dLambert, GeorgeRichards, Thomas (W. Monm'th
    Cowan, W. H.Lamont, NormanRichards,T. F. (Wolverh'mpton
    Cremer, Sir William RandalLardner, James Carrige RusheRickett, J. Compton
    Crooks, WilliamLehmann, R. C.Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
    Crosfield, A. H.Lever,A. Levy (Essex, HarwichRoberts, G. H. (Norwich)
    Crossley, William J.Levy, Sir MauriceRobertson,Sir G.Scott(Br'df'rd
    Curran, Peter FrancisLewis, John HerbertRobertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)Lough, ThomasRobinson, S.
    Delany, WilliamLundon, W.Robson, Sir William Snowdon
    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)Lupton, ArnoldRoe, Sir Thomas
    Dickinson,W.H. (St.Pancras,N.Lyell, Charles HenryRogers, F. E. Newman
    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.Lynch, H. B.Rowlands, J.
    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir CharlesMacdonald,J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs)Runciman, Walter
    Donelan, Captain A.Mackarness, Frederick C.Russell, T. W.
    Duckworth, JamesMacnamara, Dr. Thomas J.Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-FurnessMacNeill, John Gordon SwiftScott,A.H (Ashton-under-Lyne
    Dunn, A. Edward(Camborne)Macpherson, J. T.Seely, Colonel
    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)MacVeagh,Charles (Donegal,E.Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)M'Callum, John M.Sherwell, Arthur James
    Erskine, David C.M'Crae, GeorgeShipman, Dr. John B.
    Essex, R. W.M'Hugh, Patrick A.Silcock, Thomas Ball
    Esslemont, George BirnieM'Kean, JohnSimon, John Allsebrook
    Everett, R. LaceyM'Kenna, Rt. Hon. ReginaldSinclair, Rt. Hon. John
    Farrell, James PatrickMaddison, FrederickSmyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, .)
    Fenwick CharlesManfield, Harry (Northants)Snowden, P.
    Ferens, T. R.Markham, Arthur BasilStanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)
    Ffrench, PeterMarks,G.Croydon (Launceston)Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
    Field, WilliamMarnham, F. J.Steadman, W. C.
    Findlay, AlexanderMassie, J.Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
    Flavin, Michael JosephMeehan, Patrick A.Strachey, Sir Edward
    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir HenryMenzies, WalterStrauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
    Freeman-Thomas, FreemanMicklem, NathanielSummerbell, T.
    Fuller, John Michael F.Molteno, Percy AlportTaylor, John W. (Durham)
    Gibb, James (Harrow)Montagu, E. S.Thompson,J. W. H. (Somerset, E
    Gill, A. H.Montgomery, H. G.Toulmin, George
    Ginnell, L.Mooney, J. J.Trevelyan, Charles Philips
    Glover, ThomasMorgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)Ure, Alexander
    Goddard, Daniel FordMorgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)Verney, F. W.
    Gooch, George PeabodyMorrell, PhilipVivian, Henry
    Gulland, John W.Morse, L. L.Walsh, Stephen
    Gurdon,Rt Hn.Sir W.BramptonMorton, Alpheus CleophasWalters, John Tudor
    Gwynn, Stephen LuciusMuldoon, JohnWalton, Joseph (Barnsley)
    Halpin, J.Murphy, John (Kerry, East)Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent
    Hammond, JohnMurphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)Ward,W.Dudley (Southampt'n
    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. LewisMyer, HoratioWardle, George J.
    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)Napier, T. B.Waring, Walter
    Harvey,W.E.(Derbyshire, N.E.Nicholls, GeorgeWaterlow, D. S.
    Haworth, Arthur A.Nicholson,Charles N.(D'nc'st'r)Wedgwood, Josiah C.
    Hayden, John PatrickNolan, JosephWeir, James Galloway
    Hazel, Dr. A. E.Nuttall, HarryWhite, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
    Hazelton, RichardO'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid.White, Patrick (Meath, North)
    Hedges, A. PagetO'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)Whitehead, Rowland
    Helme, Norval WatsonO'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)O'Doherty, PhilipWiles, Thomas
    Higham, John SharpO'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
    Hobart, Sir RobertO'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.O'Grady, J.Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
    Hogan, MichaelO'Malley, WilliamWilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
    Holt, Richard DurningO'Shee, James John
    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)Parker, James (Halifax)TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
    Horniman, Emslie JohnPearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
    Hyde, ClarendonPearce, William (Limehouse)Pease.
    Idris, T. H. W.Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

    NOES.
    Ashley, W. W.Collings,Rt.Hn,J.(Birmi'gham)Magnus, Sir Philip
    Balcarres, LordCourthope, G. LloydNield, Herbert
    Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J.(CityLond)Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.)Parker,Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
    Banbury, Sir Frederick GeorgeCraik, Sir HenryParkes, Ebenezer
    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington
    Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh HicksDu Cros, HarveyRawlinson,John Frederick Peel
    Bowles, G. StewartFell, ArthurRemnant, James Farquharson
    Boyle, Sir EdwardFetherstonhaugh, GodfreyRoberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall
    Bridgeman, W. CliveFletcher, J. S.Ronaldshay, Earl of
    Bull, Sir William JamesForster, Henry WilliamSalter, Arthur Clavell
    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffsh.)
    Carlile. E. HildredGibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
    Cave, GeorgeGretton, JohnThomson,W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
    Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.Hamilton, Marquess ofYounger, George
    Cecil, Lord John P. Jokey-Harris, Frederick Leverton
    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)Harrison-Broadley, H. B.TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
    Chamberlain,Rt Hn.J.A.(Wore.Hills, J. W.Alexander Acland-Hood and
    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. HenryHunt, RowlandViscount Valentia.
    Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)Kennaway,Rt.Hn. Sir John H.
    Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    moved to leave out the word "capital" in order to insert the word "annual," the object of the Amendment being to provide that the valuation arrived at should be that of the annual land value. He held that the amount to be inserted in the extra column should not be the capital value, which was purely hypothetical, but the annual value which was a totally different thing. The annual land value was its value to the owner on the one hand, and to the tenant on the other, for its use simply or with its improvements. By this Bill it was sought to arrive at the capital value, which was a hypothetical value, and what was proposed to be rated was not that value, but some fraction of it when it had been arrived at. He would suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that was a very roundabout way of achieving his object. Supposing it was wished to arrive at the capital value, when they went to buy a holding they did not look into the air to seek there the capital value, but they asked what was the annual value, and that spread over so many years was the capital value. He did not believe that even when the Bill came into operation they would get away from annual value. Let them take the case of joint owners which had been discussed in Committee. In arriving at the proportion of the feu duty which had to be allocated to each of them, they had to consider what proportion of the annual value would fall on each. If the rating had to be imposed on an annual value, why not boldly state it at once, and take the actual figures on which they could estimate the capital value. He begged to move.

    seconded the Amendment. Amendment proposed—

    "In page 1, line 9, to leave out the word 'capital,' and to insert the word 'annual.'"
    —(Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.) Question proposed, "That the word 'capital' stand part of the Bill."

    *

    said that his hon. friend had admitted that if his Amendment had been rental value it would have been out of order; but he suggested that what the hon. Gentleman proposed was still more hypothetical, viz., to divest the land of the improvements, then to get the capital value, then to take 5 per cent. of that and imagine what somebody would give for it per annum. What the Government proposed was simpler; it was to ask, what would a man give for the land? That was the capital value.

    thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had mistaken one of the strongest points of the hon. Member for North West Lanarkshire. The contention of the Government was that they ought to get at the capital value, and then deduce the annual value. His hon. friend said let them get the annual value, because everybody would decide what the capital value was on the basis of the annual value. That was the universal practice of mankind. If someone was going to buy improved land, he would form an estimate of the annual value, and on that he would estimate the capital value by the number of years purchase which would be given for it. That must depend in part not only upon how much a man would receive from it, or get out of it, each year, but upon his estimate of the security of that income. Supposing the unimproved value was £100, what was the capital value of that unimproved value? That depended upon a great number of circumstances. How on earth was a valuer to estimate the number of years purchase of property which was subject to Parliamentary and Governmental attack? Let them take as an illustration what was regarded as the most sacred of private property in Scotland. He meant feu duties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord Advocate had both made speeches explaining that it was a fundamental proposition of honest legislation and of honest administration of the law that feu duties and contracts should be respected. They went out of the House, the demands of human nature had to be satisfied, and the Solicitor-General for Scotland got up and said he adhered to every word he had ever said about the taxation of ground values and the breaking of those contracts which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord Advocate had regarded as sacred. He had never heard different views uttered by different members of the Government in a more shameless manner. He had never heard from the same bench, on the same evening, on the same subject, on the same Bill, and on the most important part of the Bill, two statements so diametrically opposite in their character. How was a valuer to estimate the capitalised value of an annual income when he had got to deal with such uncertain quantities as the moods and tenses of a divided Government? At one time, under the Chancellor of the Exchequer, land might be worth thirty-five years purchase or perhaps twenty-five years purchase, but under the learned Solicitor-General it might be worth only fifteen or ten years purchase. He hoped the House would accept his hon friend's Amendment.

    *

    speaking from life-long experience, said that to fix the capital value first was to put the cart before the horse, and it could only mean, when logically worked out, chaos. Question put. The House divided:—Ayes, 239; Noes, 254. (Division List No. 441.)

    AYES.
    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)Burke, E. Haviland-Davies, Timothy (Fulham)
    Abraham, William (Rhondda)Burns, Rt. Hon. JohnDelany, William
    Ainsworth, John StirlingByles, William PollardDewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S. )
    Ambrose, RobertCampbell-Bannerman, Sir H.Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N
    Asquith, Rt.Hn. HerbertHenryCarr-Gomm, H. W.Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)Causton,RtHn.Richard KnightDilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
    Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)Chance, Frederick WilliamDonelan, Captain A.
    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)Cheetham, John FrederickDuncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)
    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)
    Barnes, G. N.Cleland, J. W.Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.Clough, WilliamErskine, David C.
    Bell, RichardClynes, J. R.Essex, R. W.
    Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.)Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)Esslemont, George Birnie
    Berridge, T. H. D.Collins,SirW. J.(S.Pancras, W.)Everett, R. Lacey
    Birrell, Rt. Hon. AugustineCondon, Thomas JosephFarrell, James Patrick
    Boland, JohnCooper, G. J.Fenwick, Charles
    Bowerman, C. W.Corbett,CH (Sussex,E.Grinst'd)Ferens, T. R.
    Brace, WilliamCory, Clifford JohnFerguson, R. C. Munro
    Bramsdon, T. A.Cowan, W. H.Ffrench, Peter
    Branch, JamesCremer, Sir William RandalField, William
    Brigg, JohnCrooks, WilliamFindlay, Alexander
    Brunner,J.F.L. (Lancs.,Leigh)Crossley, William J.Flavin, Michael Joseph
    Buchanan, Thomas RyburnCurran, Peter FrancisFreeman-Thomas, Freeman

    Fuller, John Michael F.MacNeill, John Gordon SwiftRoberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
    Gibb, James (Harrow)Macpherson, J. T.Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
    Gill, A. H.MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)Robertson, SirG. Scott ( Bradf'rd
    Ginnell, L.MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal,E.)Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
    Glover, ThomasM'Callum, John M.Robinson, S.
    Goddard, Daniel FordM'Crae, GeorgeRobson, Sir William Snowdon
    Gooch, George PeabodyM'Hugh, Patrick A.Roe, Sir Thomas
    Gulland, John W.M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. ReginaldRogers, F. E. Newman
    Gwynn, Stephen LuciusMaddison, FrederickRowlands, J.
    Halpin, J.Manfield, Harry (Northants)Runciman, Walter
    Hammond, JohnMarkham, Arthur BasilRussell, T. W.
    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. LewisMarks, G.Croydon(Launceston)Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)Marnham, F. J.Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne
    Harmsworth,R.L.(Caithn'ss-shMassie, J.Seely, Colonel
    Harvey,W.E.(Derbyshire, N.E.Meehan, Patrick A.Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.
    Haworth, Arthur A.Menzies, WalterSherwell, Arthur James
    Hayden, John PatrickMicklem, NathanielShipman, Dr. John G.
    Hazel, Dr. A. E.Molteno, Percy AlportSilcock, Thomas Ball
    Hazleton, RicardMontgomery, H. G.Simon, John Allsebrook
    Healy, Timothy MichaelMooney, J. J.Sinclair. Rt. Hon. John
    Hedges, A. PagetMorgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
    Helme, Norval WatsonMorgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)Snowden, P.
    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)Morrell, PhilipStanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
    Higham, John SharpMorse, L. L.Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)
    Hobart, Sir RobertMorton, Alpheus CleophasSteadman, W. C.
    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
    Hogan, MichaelMyer, HoratioStrachey, Sir Edward
    Holland, Sir William HenryNapier, T. B.Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
    Holt, Richard DurningNicholls, GeorgeSummerbell, T.
    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)Nicholson,CharlesN. (Doncast'rTaylor, John W. (Durham)
    Horniman, Emslie JohnNolan, JosephThompson,J. W. H. ( Somerset, E
    Hyde, ClarendonNuttall, HarryToulmin, George
    Idris, T. H. W.O'Brien,Kendal (Tipperary MidTrevelyan, Charles Philips
    Illingworth, Percy H.O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)Ure, Alexander
    Jardine, Sir J.O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)Verney, F. W.
    Johnson, John (Gateshead)O'Doherty, PhilipVivian, Henry
    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)Walsh, Stephen
    Jowett, F. W.O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)Walters, John Tudor
    Joyce, MichaelO'Grady, J.Ward, John(Stoke-upon-Trent)
    Kearley, Hudson E.O'Malley, WilliamWardle, George J.
    Kennedy, Vincent PaulO'Shee, James JohnWaring, Walter
    Laidlaw, RobertParker, James (Halifax)Waterlow, D. S.
    Lambert, GeorgePaulton, James MellorWedgwood, Josiah C.
    Lamont, NormanPearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)Weir, James Galloway
    Lardner, James Carrige RushePearce, William (Limehouse)White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
    Lehmann, R. C.Pearson, Sir W.D. (Colchester)White, Patrick (Meath, North)
    Lever, A. Levy (Essex,HarwichPearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)Whitehead, Rowland
    Levy, Sir MauricePirie, Duncan V.Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
    Lewis, John HerbertPower, Patrick JosephWiles, Thomas
    Lough, ThomasPrice, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central)Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
    Lundon, W.Rea, Russell (Gloucester)Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
    Lupton, ArnoldRea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
    Lyell, Charles HenryReddy, M.Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
    Lynch, H. B.Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
    Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghsRichards, Thomas(W.Monm'thTELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
    Mackarness, Frederic C.Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Peese.
    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.Rickett, J. Compton
    NOES.
    Acland-Hood,Rt. Hn.SirAlexF.Carlile, E. HildredFetherstonhaugh, Godfrey
    Ashley, W. W.Cave, GeorgeFletcher, J. S.
    Balcarres, LordCavendish, Rt. Hn.VictorC.W.Forster, Henry William
    Balfour, Rt.Hn.A.J.(City Lond.Cecil, Lord John P. JoiceyGardner, Ernest (Berks, East)
    Banbury, Sir Frederick GeorgeCecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)
    Banner, John S. Harmood-Coates, E. Feetham (LewishamGretton, John
    Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry,N.)Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.Hamilton, Marquess of
    Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicksCourthope, G. LoydHarris, Frederick Leverton
    Bowles, G. StewartCraig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.)Harrison-Broadley, H. B.
    Boyle, Sir EdwardCraik, Sir HenryHay, Hon. Claude George
    Bridgeman, W. CliveDouglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-Hills, J. W.
    Bull, Sir William JamesDu Cros, HarveyHunt, Rowland
    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.Fell, ArthurKennaway,Rt.Hn. Sir John H.

    Kimber, Sir HenryRemnant, James FarquharsonValentia, Viscount
    Long, Rt.Hn. Walter (Dublin,SRoberts, S. (Sheffield,Ecclesall)
    Nield, HerbertRonaldshay, Earl ofTELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)Salter, Arthur ClavellMitchell-Thomson and Mr.
    Parkes, EbenezerStaveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.Younger.
    Pease, HerbertPike (DarlingtonTalbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
    Rawlinson, John Frederick PeelTennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

    moved an Amendment for the purpose of altering the expression "capital land value" in Subsection 2 of Clause (1), where the new entry to be made in the valuation roll is described to "capital unimproved land value." The object of his Amendment was to carry out more strictly the definition of the clause. He was not sure whether it directly carried out the theory upon which the advocacy of this proposal rested, namely, that they should divest the land of every possible expenditure made upon it and deal with it as the remnant that was left. They wanted something more than was defined by Clause 3 before they could arrive at the simple and absolute value of land to its owner. Before that could be arrived at all money or labour spent upon that land must in justice to the owner be deducted, although it need not be expenditure that was to prove useful after the land had been sold by the owner and purchased for a different purpose. There might be land which, in the opinion of the assessors, should be valued as building land, and an enhanced value put upon it, but supposing the owner of that land had spent money upon it in planting trees, or in chemical manures for agricultural purposes, or in levelling it for the purpose of laying down a bowling green, as might easily be the case in a suburban area, all that expenditure must be deducted before the land was valued for building purposes in order to reach the true value of the land. He asked by this Amendment that they should be saved from any trickery, doubt,or dubiety on this point: that any money spent on the land should be deducted before they began to rate the owner of the land upon its value. It was in order to be strictly logical and to insure that the subsequent clause rose to that highly logical point which the advocates of this Bill had always put forward that he begged to move.

    *

    in seconding, said he hoped the Government would accept this Amendment. They had persistently throughout the various stages of the Bill sought to impress upon the House the fact that what they wanted to do was to free anything in the shape of industry from the taxes from which at present they were supposed to be suffering, and by this Amendment they were trying to carry out what they understood the Government intended to do. They now had the definition clause extended to include "improvements of whatever nature, on, in, or under the soil, woods, fixed or attached machinery, and work of reclamation, making up, levelling and the like, where such work has been executed not more than twenty years preceding." That was one of the results of their deliberations upstairs, and the Lord Advocate, although there was nothing in the Bill to show it, had said that he was going to consider whether he could not improve the provision still further by leaving out the word "structural" in that clause. They had heard nothing from the Lord Advocate to indicate that he had considered the subject as he had promised to do when in Committee. It was on the faith of his promise that a good deal of the discussion was cut short in Committee. He hoped that the Lord Advocate would carry out his promise to give a fuller meaning to the word "improvements." They were asked at the fag end of the session to carry the Bill through on Report in one night. He thought that the House would agree that the discussion that night had not been in vain, certainly it had been to the point; and the longer they proceeded with the discussion the more necessary it appeared that they should safeguard the many phrases used in the Bill which were likely to lead them into considerable difficulty. He hoped the Lord Advocate, after what had occurred in Committee, would see his way to accept this Amendment. Amendment proposed—

    "In page 1, line 12, after the word 'capital,' to insert the word 'unimproved.'"
    —(Sir Henry Craik.) Question proposed, "That the word 'unimproved' be there inserted."

    *

    said that substantially this matter was one of drafting. It was proposed to introduce the word "unimproved," but this would interfere with the much better form of the draftsman, who used the words "capital land value," and then gave with great precision all the elements which were to be included and excluded from that definition. They would prejudice that definition if they introduced the word "unimproved," a general term which might be dangerous. Upon the whole, although there was no difference in substance, he preferred to keep to the form in which the clause stood.

    *

    said it was far more than a matter of drafting; it was the essence of the Bill. They had been told over and over again that the policy of the Bill was to shift the rate off the improvement and put it on the land. If that were so the land on which they put the rate must be unimproved land, and there could, therefore, be no objection to accepting the word. Let them take a concrete case. Supposing a man carried out irrigation works on his land. These would not be structural, or an "erection," or "fixed machinery," yet they would improve the value of the land from, say, a few shillings to several pounds an acre. As the Bill stood now they were professing to value the land alone, and yet that value would be the value of the land itself, plus the improvements; so that they would be rating a man on his improvements. That was a thing which he thought merited very serious attention; and if the point was not dealt with now, it was quite clear that subsequently Subsection (1) of Clause 3 must be amended. Question put. The House divided:—Aye, 48; Noes, 238. (Division List No. 442).

    AYES.
    Acland-Hood,RtHn.SirAlex.F.Courthope, G. LoydLong,Rt.Hn.Walter(Dublin, S)
    Ashley, W. W.Craig,CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S.Nield, Herbert
    Balcarres, LordDouglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-Parkes, Ebenezer
    Balfour,RtHn.A.J.(CityLond.)Du Cros, HarveyPease,HerbertPike (Darlington
    Banbury, Sir Frederick GeorgeFell, ArthurRemnant, James Farquharson
    Banner, John S. Harmood-Fetherstonhaugh, GodfreyRoberts,S. (Sheffield,Ecclesall)
    Barrie,H.T.(Londonderry,N.)Fletcher, J. S.Ronaldshay, Earl of
    Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh HicksForster, Henry WilliamSalter, Arthur Clavell
    Boyle, Sir EdwardGardner, Ernest (Berks, EastStaveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
    Bridgeman, W. CliveGibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
    Bull, Sir William JamesGretton, JohnThomson,W.Mitchell-(Lanark)
    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.Hamilton, Marquess ofValentia, Viscount
    Carlile, E. HildredHarris, Frederick LevertonVincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
    Cavendish,Rt.Hon.VictorC.W.Harrison-Broadley, H. B.Younger, George
    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-Hay, Hon. Claude George
    Coates,E.Feetham(Lewisham)Hunt, RowlandTELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.Kimber, Sir HenryHenry Craik and Mr. Hills.
    NOES
    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)Brace, WilliamClough, William
    Abraham, William (Rhondda)Bramsdon, T. A.Clynes, J. R.
    Ainsworth, John StirlingBranch, JamesCollins, Stephen (Lambeth)
    Ambrose, RobertBrigg, JohnCollins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W
    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)Brunner,J.F.L.(Lancs.,Leigh)Condon, Thomas Joseph
    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)Buchanan, Thomas RyburnCooper, G. J.
    Baring,Godfrey(Isle of WightBurke, E. Haviland-Corbett,CH (Sussex,E.Grinstd)
    Barlow, Sir John E. (SomersetBurne, Rt. Hon. JohnCowan, W. H.
    Barnes, G. N.Byles, William PollardCremer, Sir William Randal
    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.Crooks, William
    Beaumont, Hon. HubertCarr-Gomm, H. W.Crossley, Wiliam J.
    Bell, RichardCauston,Rt.Hn.RichardKnightCullinan, J.
    Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.Chance, Frederick WilliamCurran, Peter Francis
    Berridge, T. H. D.Cheetham, John FrederickDavies, Timothy (Fulham)
    Birrell, Rt. Hon. AugustineCherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.Delany, William
    Boland, JohnClarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh,S.)
    Bowerman, C. W.Cleland, J. W.Dickinson,W.H.(St.Pancras,N-

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.Lamont, NormanRea, Russell (Gloucester)
    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir CharlesLardner, James Carrige RusheRea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'
    Donelan, Captain A.Lehmann, R. C.Reddy, M.
    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-FurnessLever, A. Levy (Essex,HarwichRedmond, John E. (Waterford)
    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)Levy, Sir MauriceRichards,Thomas(W.Monm'th
    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)Lewis, John HerbertRichards,T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)
    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)Lough, ThomasRickett, J. Compton
    Erskine, David C.Lundon, W.Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
    Essex, R. W.Lupton, ArnoldRoberts, G. H. (Norwich)
    Esslemont, George BirnieLyell, Charles HenryRobertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd
    Farrell, James PatrickLynch, H. B.Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
    Fenwick, CharlesMacdonald,J.M.(FalkirkB'ghsRobinson, S.
    Ferens, T. R.Mackarness, Frederic C.Robson, Sir William Snowdon
    Ferguson, R. C. MunroMacnamara, Dr. Thomas J.Roe, Sir Thomas
    Ffrench, PeterMacNeill, John Gordon SwiftRowlands, J.
    Field, WilliamMacpherson, J. T.Runciman, Walter
    Findlay, AlexanderMacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.Russell, T. W.
    Flavin, Michael JosephMacVeigh,Charles(Donegal,E.)Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
    Freeman-Thomas, FreemanM'Callum, John M.Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne
    Fuller, John Michael F.M'Crae, GeorgeSeely, Colonel
    Gibb, James (Harrow)M'Hugh, Patrick A.Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
    Gill, A. H.M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. ReginaldSheehy, David
    Ginnell, L.Maddison, FrederickSherwell, Arthur James
    Glover, ThomasManfield, Harry (Northants)Shipman, Dr. John G.
    Goddard, Daniel FordMarkham, Arthur BasilSilcock, Thomas Ball
    Gooch, George PeabodyMarks,G.Croydon(Launceston)Simon, John Allsebrook
    Gulland, John W.Massie, J.Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
    Gurdon,RtHn.SirW. BramptonMeehan, Patrick A.Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
    Gwynn, Stephen LuciusMenzies, WalterSnowden, P.
    Halpin, J.Micklem, NathanielStanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)
    Hammond, JohnMolteno, Percy AlportStanley,Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.)
    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. LewisMontgomery, H. G.Steadman, W. C.
    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)Mooney, J. J.Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
    Harmsworth,R.L.(Caithn'ss-shMorgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)Strachey, Sir Edward
    Harvey,W.E.(Derbyshire,N.E.Morgan,J.Lloyd(Carmarthen)Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
    Haworth, Arthur A.Morrell, PhilipSummerbell, T.
    Hayden, John PatrickMorse, L. L.Taylor, John W. (Durham)
    Hazel, Dr. A. E.Morton, Alpheus CleophasThompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E
    Hazleton, RichardMuldoon, JohnToulmin, George
    Healy, Timothy MichaelMurphy, John (Kerry, East)Trevelyan, Charles Philips
    Helme, Norval WatsonMurphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)Ure, Alexander
    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)Myer, HoratioVerney, F. W.
    Higham, John SharpNicholls, GeorgeVivian, Henry
    Hobart, Sir RobertNicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'rWalsh, Stephen
    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.Nolan, JosephWalters, John Tudor
    Hogan, MichaelNuttall, HarryWard,John (Stoke upon Trent)
    Holland, Sir William HenryO'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMidWardle, George J.
    Holt, Richard DurningO'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)Waring, Walter
    Horniman, Emslie JohnO'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)Waterlow, D. S.
    Hyde, ClarendonO'Doherty, PhilipWedgwood, Josiah C.
    Idris, T. H. W.O'Donnell,'C. J. (Walworth)White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
    Illingworth, Percy H.O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)White, Patrick (Meath, North)
    Jardine, Sir J.O'Grady, J.Whitehead, Rowland
    Johnson, John (Gateshead)O'Malley, WilliamWhitley, John Henry (Halifax)
    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)O'Shee, James JohnWiles, Thomas
    Jowett F. W.Parker, James (Halifax)Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
    Joyce, MichaelPaulton, James MellorWilson, John (Durham, Mid)
    Kearley, Hudson E.Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
    Kekewich, Sir GeorgePearce, William (Limehouse)Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
    Kennedy, Vincent PaulPearson,SirW.D.(Colchester)
    Kilbride, DenisPearson,W.H.M.(Suffolk,Eye)TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
    King, Alfred John (KnutsfordPirie, Duncan V.Whiteley and Mr, J, A.
    Laidlaw, RobertPower, Patrick JosephPease.
    Lambert, GeorgePrice, C.E. (Edinb'gh,Central)

    moved an Amendment designed to exclude from the operation of the Bill land which was prohibited from sale by reason of its being vestel in trustees or life renters. On the Committee the Lord Advocate led them to hope that this was an Amendment which he might accept.

    seconded. Amendment proposed— "In page 1, line 13, after the word 'heritages,' to insert the words 'not being lands and heritages belonging to any person or persons who have no power of sale.'"—(Mr. Nield.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

    *

    said he had very carefully considered this point since it was raised in Committee and it appeared to him to be quite impossible to accept the Amendment. It would involve an investigation by the assessor as to the title on which land was held.

    said he was rather perturbed by the view expressed by the Lord Advocate. He asked the House to compare the attitude taken up by the Government on this question with their policy in connection with lands under "building restrictions or servitude." When lands were of the latter kind those restrictions were taken into account in estimating the capital value. If they were taking the capital value of land apart from the conditions on which it was held, then they ought not to introduce the phrase about restrictions. If, on the other hand, they were thinking of the position of the owner of land, then surely they ought to consider whether he was a limited owner or not.

    *

    said there was this difference. The proposal in the Amendment was one with reference to a quality of the title inherent in any land, but it did not affect at all the value of the land as land. But when they came to building restrictions the value of land as land was subject to the real burden imposed not only on one holder, but upon all holders. It went with the land.

    *

    moved an Amendment to Subsection (2) with the object of including railways within the Bill. He realised perfectly well why railways had been specially excluded when the Bill was being drafted. There was very great difficulty in valuing land on which rail way lines were placed. He referred to the land on which the running lines were placed, and not to the sites on which stations stood. The making of a valuation of that land would give very great difficulty to the assessor. He moved this Amendment in order to call the attention of the House to the fact that the moment the right hon. Gentleman came against an extremely difficult position he proceeded to get out of it by making an exception in its favour. If the promoters of the Bill were honest in saying that they desired to remove improvements from taxation, he could not conceive any improvements more entitled to be exempted than those which were effected by railway companies. Railways were at present assessed by a special assessor in respect of their commercial value, and the effect of this Bill would be that it would be necessary to have one basis of valuation for the purpose of rating railways and another for the purpose of indicating the value of the land. The Solicitor-General had said they would be charged at a different poundage rate, but he would point out to the Solicitor-General that the difficulty could not be got rid of in that way, because in every parish and every town in Scotland the land value would bear a different proportion to the composite value of the subject. Under the circumstances, he held that if the principle of the proposal in the Bill was sound it ought to be equally applicable to all, and there should be no exceptions. There was no reasonable ground for exempting railways from the operation of the Bill except the difficulty of valuing the sites. But that difficulty must be faced; and he submitted that if it could not be overcome then the whole principle and object of the Bill broke down. He moved his Amendment in order to raise the whole question. He hoped the House would agree with him that if they were going to have a Land Values Bill they should not have land values on one class of subjects, with commercial values on another. He begged to move.

    seconded the Amendment. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh had waxed eloquent on platforms and in the House as to the extreme merits of the valuation system in Scotland, on the ground of its uniformity and simplicity, and the hon. Gentleman added that they were going to take a step forward by this Bill. He thought that it was more of the nature of avolte face. At any rate, uniformity would be conspicuous by its absence when they found two different systems of valuation, two different systems of rating, and two different systems of poundage. Amendment proposed—

    "In page 1, line 14, to leave out from the word 'roll,' to end of Subsection (2).'"
    —(Mr. Younger.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

    said he did not suppose that if they were to write on a clean slate a system of valuation for Scotland it would include the value of railways and canals in the same scheme as other property. Since the Valuation Act of 1854 was passed they had had a scheme of valuation for railways and canals which was totally separate from that of other property; and every Parliamentary inquiry had since then upheld that distinction. The last Parliamentary inquiry showed clearly that it was impossible to include railways and canals, which were valued on a different system altogether, under the existing scheme. In Scotland they had in every local authority an assessor who made the valuation according to the Act of 1854; but his work was completely different from that of the assessor for railways and canals, the entries in whose book, which involved very complicated calculations, did not appear in the valuation roll. The theory was well founded that railways and canals could not be treated except as a commercial unity, the land itself having been disposed of by Parliament for a particular purpose, and put beyond the range of ordinary valuation. He submitted that it would be rash to introduce a differentiation here in a system which had gone on for more than half a century.

    said he was sure the Lord Advocate himself would admit that the defence just given for this anomalous provision in the Bill was wholly inadequate. Let the House remember that the general contention was that all local taxation should be based upon the ground of capital land value, and not on annual return. It was clear, therefore, that if they were to carry out that system railways and canals should be brought under it. Why should they be exempted? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that in connection with other property capital value was right, but in connection with railways and canals capital value was not right, but that it should be annual value. The Lord Advocate should have something better to say than such a mere restatement of his case. If all local taxation was to be based on capital and value and not annual value, why should railway, gas, water, and other companies be based on a different principle? Here was a gas company, and next door to it a mill. The gas company, because it supplied gas under an Act of Parliament to more than one parish, was not to be assessed upon capital value, but upon annual value. The mill which supplied perhaps the whole country was to be assessed not on the annual, but on the capital value. How could the anomaly be justified, and why should not the undertakings in question be brought under the new system? The Government should either frankly admit the great differences between different kinds of property or say that this was a universal Bill to apply to everything in Scotland; but when they came to the vast undertakings embodied in railway, gas, water, and canal undertakings, it was found that the Government were so systematic, so logical, so anxious to establish a coherent proposition that they suddenly shrank from the inevitable consequences of their principle!

    did not think that the answer of the Lord Advocate to the Amendment was a very convincing one. The right hon. Gentleman said that for fifty years railways and canals had been rated in a different way from other classes of property, because in regard to rent, that was arrived at by considering what a hypothetical tenant might pay to a hypothetical landlord. The whole basis was, however, wrong. The intention, he understood, of this proposed new system of taxation was to relieve the taxes upon industry. Railways were the bed rock of our commercial system, but he thought they were mulcted and sweated from the moment they introduced a Bill till they got it through both Houses. Hon. Members also cried out for lower rates, although they knew they were asking for what was absolutely impossible. He did not consider that the rates on railways should be doubled, but thought they ought to get the benefit which should be given to a useful industry.

    AYES.
    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)Devlin, JosephHenderson, Arthur (Durham)
    Abraham, William (Rhondda)Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)Henry, Charles S.
    Ainsworth, John StirlingDickinson,W.H.(St. Pancras,N.Higham, John Sharp
    Asquith, Rt. Hn.HerbertHenryDickson-Poynder, Sir John P.Hobart, Sir Robert
    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)Donelan, Captain A.Hobhouse, Charles E. H.
    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)Duffy, William. J.Hogan, Michael
    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)Holt, Richard Durning
    Barnes, G. N.Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
    Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)Horniman, Emslie John
    Beaumont, Hon. HubertEdwards, Enoch (Hanley)Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
    Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.Elibank, Master ofHyde, Clarendon
    Boland, JohnErskine, David C.Illingworth, Percy
    Bowerman, C. W.Essex, R. W.Jardine, Sir J.
    Brace, WilliamEsslemont, George BirnieJohnson, John (Gateshead)
    Bramsdon, T. A.Farrell, James PatrickJohnson, W. (Nuneaton)
    Branch, JamesFenwick, CharlesJowett, F. W.
    Brodie, H. C.Ferens, T. R.Joyce, Michael
    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., LeighFerguso, R. C. MunroKekewich, Sir George
    Buchann, Thomas RyburnFfrench, PeterKilbride, Denis
    Burke, E. HavilandField, WilliamLaidlaw, Robert
    Burns, Rt. Hon. JohnFindlay, AlexanderLambert, George
    Byles, William PollardFlavin, Michael JosephLamont, Norman
    Cambell-Bannerman, Sir H.Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir HenryLea. Hugh Cecil (St.Paneras,E,
    Carr-Gomm H. W.Fuller, John Michael F.Lehmann, R. C.
    Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnightGibb, James (Harrow)Lever, A.Levy (Essex,Harwich
    Chance, Frederick WilliamGill, A. H.Levy, Sir Maurice
    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.Ginnell, L.Lewis, John Herbert
    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston, S.Gladstone,RtHn.Herbert JohnLloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
    Clough, WilliamGlover, ThomasLough, Thomas
    Clynes, J. R.Goddard, Daniel FordLundon, W.
    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)Gooch, George PeabodyLupton, Arnold
    Collins, Sir W. J. (S.Pancras,W.Gulland, John W.Lyell, Charles Henry
    Condon, Thomas JosephGurdon,Rt Hn.SirW.BramptonLynch, H. B.
    Cooper, G. J.Gwynn, Stepen LuciusMacdonald,J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs
    Corbett,CH (Sussex,E.Grinst'dHalpin, J.Mackarness, Frederic C.
    Cory, Clifford JohnHammond, JohnMacNeill, John Gordon Swift
    Cowan, W. H.Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)Macpherson, J. T.
    Cremer, Sir William RandalHarmsworth,R.L.(Caithn'ss-shMacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E.
    Crooks, WilliamHarvey, W.E.(Derbyshire, N.EM'Callum, John M.
    Crossley, William J.Haworth, Arthur A.M'Crae, George
    Cullinan, J.Hayden, John PatrickM'Hugh, Patrick A.
    Curran, Peter FrancisHazel, Dr. A. E.M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)Healy, Timothy MichaelM'Killop, W.
    Delany, WilliamHelme, Norval WatsonM'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    said that this Amendment was the test of the whole Bill, and it was impossible to discuss it properly without knowing what superstructure was to be reared on it. Before they agreed to the exclusion of railways and canals they ought to know what was the scheme of the Government to be presented to the House for the taxation of land in Scotland. This Amendment was a test of the Parliamentarybona fides of the promoters of the Bill. Question put. The House divided:—Ayes, 227; Noes, 57. (Division List No. 443.)

    Maddison, FrederickPaulton, James MellorSnowden, P.
    Manfield, Harry (Northants)Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.
    Markham, Arthur BasilPearce, William (Limehouse)Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
    Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk,Eye)Strachey, Sir Edward
    Massie, J.Pirie, Duncan V.Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
    Meehan, Patrick A.Power, Patrick JosephSummerbell, T.
    Menzies, WalterPrice, C.E.(Edinburgh,Central)Taylor, John W. (Durham)
    Micklem, NathanielRadford, G. H.Thomson, J.W.H. (Somerset, E
    Molteno, Percy AlportRainy, A. RollandToulmin, George
    Montgomery, H. G.Rea, Russell (Gloucester)Trevelyan, Charles Philips
    Mooney, J. J.Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'Ure, Alexander
    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)Reddy, M.Verney, F. W.
    Morgan,J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)Redmond, John E. (Waterford)Vivian, Henry
    Morrell, PhilipRichards,Thomas (W.Monm'thWalsh, Stephen
    Morse, L. L.Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'nWalters, John Tudo
    Morton, Alpheus CleophasRickett, J. ComtonWard, John (Stoke upon Trent)
    Muldoon, JohnRoberts, G. H. (Norwich)Wardle, George J.
    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)Robertson,SirG.Scott (Bradf'rdWaring, Walter
    Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)Waterlow, D. S.
    Nicholls, GeorgeRobinson, S.Wedgwood, Josiah C.
    Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doncast'rRoe, Sir ThomasWeir, James Galloway
    Nolan, JosephRowlands, J.White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
    Norton, Capt. Cecil WilliamRunciman, WalterWhitehead, Rowland
    Nuttall, HarryRussell, T. W.Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
    O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMidSamuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)Wiles, Thomas
    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
    O'Doherty, PhilipSheehy, DavidWilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)Sherwell, Arthur JamesWilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
    O'Grady, J.Shipman, Dr. John G.
    O'Malley, WilliamSilcock, Thomas BallTELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
    O'Shee, James JohnSinclair, Rt. Hon. JohnWhiteley and Mr. J. A,
    Parker, James (Halifax)Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim,S.)Pease.
    NOES.
    Acland-Hood,RtHn. SirAlex.F.Courthoz, G. LoydKennaway,Rt. Hn. Sir JohnH.
    Arkwright, John StanhopeCraig, CharlesCurtis (Antrim,S)Kimber, Sir Henry
    Ashley, W. W.Craik, Sir HenryNield, Herbert
    Balcarres,LordDouglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-Parkes, Ebenezer
    Balfour, RtHn. A. J. (CityLond.)Everett, R. LaceyPease, Herbert Pike(Darlington
    Banner, John S. Harmood-Fetherstonhaugh, GodfreyRemnant, James Farquharson
    Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry, N.)Fletcher, J. S.Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)
    Beach, Hn. MichaelHughHicksForster, Henry WilliamRonaldshay, Earl of
    Bowles, G. StewartFreeman-Thomas, FreemanSalter, Arthur Clavell
    Boyle, Sir EdwardGardner, Ernest (Berks, East)Simon, John Allsebrook
    Bridgeman, W. CliveGibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
    Bull, Sir William JamesGretton, JohnTalbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.Hamilton, Marquess ofTennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury
    Carlile, E. HildredHarris, Frederick LevertonThomas, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
    Cavendish, Rt. Hn. VictorC.W.Harrison-Broadley, H. B.Valentia, Viscount
    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.Hay, Hon. Claude GeorgeVincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
    Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A. (Wore.Hedges, A. Paget
    Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen,W.TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.Hills, J. W.Younger and Sir Frederick
    Collings,Rt.Hn. J. (Birmingh'mHunt, RowlandBanbury.

    *

    moved to insert at the end of the subsection a proviso to the effect that land occupied as a pleasure garden or pleasure grounds in connection with a dwelling-house should be valued together with the site of the dwelling-house on the assumption that it continued in its existing state. He said that this was a point which would have been dealt with in Committee had it not been for the Lord Advocate undertaking to deal with it when it came before the House. The Bill as reported to the House did not touch this question of open spaces, pleasure grounds, and pleasure gardens in our great centres. They heard a great deal about the preservation, as far as possible, of open spaces, and, speaking as one closely acquainted with the London County Council, he knew that they did their best to extend those open spaces, because on them depended to a large extent the healthy conditions of the people who inhabited the neighbourhoods of those open spaces. Nothing was mentioned about them in the Bill. If it was not proposed to rate them, why go to the expense of valuing them? They had heard a great deal during the debate about the intention of the promoters of the Bill to stop, as far as posible, land speculation. That was a question which had a great deal to do with the subject of open spaces in our great centres. With the leave of the House he would refer to the report of Dr. Wallace, who spoke of the conditions which he found in existence in New York, a place to which frequent reference had been made during these discussions on the question of taxation of capital values. New York rates were levied on capital values, and there was a valuation of real as well as personal property. As regarded the valuation and taxation of real property Dr. Wallace, on the state of affairs which he found in New York, used words which had a bearing more particularly on this question of gardens and open spaces. Dr. Wallace, who was President of the Land Nationalisation Society, said—

    "The results are very curious. To begin with, land speculation, which we think is bad enough with us, is but a trifle here compared with what it is in America. In America land speculation is everywhere excessive. It is the great mode of making money, and it exists more or less all over the country, wherever land is for sale and is not monopolised by great capitalists. This taxation on full values, however, usually causes very rapid changes of ownership. Men buy land on speculation for the purpose of selling it again quickly. They will not hold it long, because if it is not used the taxes will eat it up. Then somebody else buys it and sells it again pretty quickly, and thus land is continually changing owners until it is used for occupation or cultivation or for building. But the result of this rapid change of ownership, of each person trying to make a profit, is that land very rapidly acquires in America a price as high as in old settled countries like England, and very often even higher. Then, again, the result of these speculations is that in the cities—in the suburbs of the cities, in the places where working-men live—we find the land cut up into smaller strips than in England, and the houses are built still more closely together. Notwithstanding all the great advantages they possess, we find houses crowded together, rents enormously high, and no gardens to the houses. One of the most disagreeable features of American houses to Englishmen is that there are no gardens; where there is a little plot of land it is usually grass with a few trees or shrubs, but no flowers or vegetables.."
    He would make hon. Members opposite a present of the argument as to the experience of America, upon which this Bill was founded. He hoped at any rate that the House would be warned by the experience which New York had had in regard to this question. The information he had been able to obtain from Germany bore out exactly what he had stated in regard to America. He was anxious to preserve as many open spaces as possible and he wished to know did the Government want them? Were they going to tax open spaces? Paris started the same idea as that which was contained in this Bill, with the result that a very large open space owned by a private individual and kept open by him for the use of the public had to be sacrificed because the owner could not afford to provide an open space free for the public use and pay taxes upon it as well. If hon. Members were really in favour of these open spaces he appealed to them not to tax them out of existence.

    seconded, and said that if the Lord Advocate could not see his way to accept these words he hoped he would be able to suggest others which would have the same effect. He gathered that the Lord Advocate was fully alive to the importance of this question. This Bill seemed to threaten the existence of open spaces, and there were a good many of them in Glasgow. Amendment proposed—

    "In page 1, line 15, at the end, to insert the words, 'Provided that land occupied as a pleasure-garden or pleasure-grounds in connection with a dwelling-house shall be valued together with the site of the dwelling-house on the assumption that it continues in its existing state.'"
    —(Mr. Remnant.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

    said he regretted that he was unable to accept this Amendment. What the hon. Member wished to be done was on the assumption that the space occupied by pleasure grounds or pleasure gardens was appropriately used as such. If that was the appropriate use to which the land should be put in the opinion of the assessor, then no change or harm could come at all, because there would be no assumption that there should be any other use than the perfectly appropriate one which realised the fair and proper value of the land. The cases which too often occurred in Scotland were of a different character. They were cases of communities which were extremely anxious to get land for the erection of workingmen's houses, or ordinary flatted tenements. He could illustrate the position by giving a single example. The case which he had in his mind was the estate of Sir George Warrender in the south of Edinburgh. That estate was exactly covered by this Amendment. It was land used as pleasure-gardens or pleasure-grounds in connection with the adjoining Mansion-house. The proposal in the Amendment was that it should be treated on the assumption that it continued in that state because that was its appropriate use, whereas in point of fact it continued to be so used notwithstanding an enormous rise in the value of land for tenement houses and working men's houses in the locality. That pleasure-garden now released for building already yielded no less than £8,000 per annum, and the proposal of the Bill was to put the real valuation on land occupied in that way so that the owner would not be able to hold it as long as he liked, keeping down its actual value. That kind of case, which was quite apart from the case of the ordinary public space, would be covered by the Amendment, which the Government could not sanction in a Bill for the ascertainment of the real value of the land. If any of these open spaces were to be put under public control, he could not imagine that any Parliament or any Government would propose to put assessments on land which substantially belonged to or was controlled by the community. When they came to the question of rating they would deal with what he would call the "public lungs" of the population. Under a valuation scheme they must have an exact valuation of these open spaces, and not a valuation of pleasure-gardens or pleasure-grounds by which proprietors were enabled to hold up land against the requirements of the community.

    said he regarded the speech of the Lord Advocate as very important. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was in the habit of founding a general proposition on a single case, and that single case not a representative one. He based his argument here on an instance in Edinburgh of a garden or pleasure ground which was once a park on the south side of the city. It was perfectly true that the Amendment would cover that case, and he perfectly understood that the Government might well have an objection to that, because that land was capable of becoming, and he thought had become, a building estate. That was not the object of his hon. friend's Amendment, nor was this estate characteristic of the case he had in view. His hon. friend had in view a general principle of which the Amendment was only a particular example. The whole effect of this Bill, together with the rating Bill which was to be founded on it, was to compel every owner of land in towns to use it as soon as ever he could for the most profitable purpose to himself. This was a Bill for stimulating owners of land in or near large towns to rush upon the market, to run up tenement houses, or whatever it might be, and to do anything so long as it gave him the biggest immediate profit. The question which he wanted most earnestly to ask the House was whether that would or would not improve the general conditions of urban life in Scotland or in any country where it was carried out. He emphatically said it would not. He heard an hon. Gentleman below the gangway cheer the Lord Advocate and express general approval of the line he was taking up. He ventured to say that those who were deeply interested in the urban problem, which was the great problem—it was not the country problem which was the great problem—must look with the profoundest misgiving on any driving of the urban owner into using his land for certain purposes just because of the immediate income. There were other parallel difficulties which would be raised by a later Amendment, but he would confine himself at present to the question of gardens. Had the right hon. and learned Gentleman ever heard of the attempt which had been made—he hoped the attempt was going to be successful—in the shape of garden cities, as they were called? It was an attempt to combine the advantages of town life and country life, of industry, fresh air, oxygen, and rural surroundings. The principle of valuation proposed by the Bill made every undertaking of that kind impossible to begin with. It could not be done if they insisted that within the limits of a garden city every square foot was to be used, not for the general effect, or for light, air, verdure, foliage and beauty, but in order that the owner might extract the extreme annual value from the land. The Bill would make impossible all these attempts to beautify cities, except by public expenditure, and to brighten urban life. In the case of the suburban villa, of course the garden would be destroyed absolutely under the Bill. It was quite true that they might say that the garden of a suburban villa was confined to the gratification of a single man, or his family, or the friends of the owner. But who denied that small suburban houses in their own grounds beautified the surroundings? Who denied that they added to the air space? Who denied that they gave a healthy existence to those, not usually belonging to the wealthy class, whose business required them to live near the scene of their occupation? All those they were going to penalise under the Bill of which this measure was to be the foundation. They were going to say to every man: "Never shall you have a garden without being rated, not on its value, but on the use you might put it to if you run up a factory or a warehouse." Was that the way in which the Government were going to deal seriously with the urban problem of the country? It was absolute lunacy. He could not understand a Government which professed to have so profound an interest in these questions recklessly running against the most obvious facts and tendencies. That was not the only point on which he believed this was going to mean ruin to the urban classes. He thought they would be able to show, when they came to the appropriate part of the Bill, that this would drive the working classes in every case from the centre of the town and far from the scene of their work. It would, however, be out of order were he to attempt to discuss that point now, and he only alluded to it because he firmly believed that this method of dealing with values was going to put an artificial pressure on the owners of every kind of land in urban districts, which would militate against the interests of the entire community. Not satisfied with that, the Government were going absolutely to destroy all that was in the nature of verdure, all that was in the nature of natural beauty; they were going to make the pleasant surroundings now found in parts of our great cities absolutely impossible by the conditions they sought to impose under the Bill. It was a lamentable state of things which he deeply and profoundly regretted, that the Lord Advocate, who, he was sure, was as keenly interested as any man in that House in the solution of the urban difficulties which they had to face, should be the mouthpiece of the Government on that occasion in carrying through a measure which he (Mr. Balfour) was convinced was going to be more injurious to our urban populations and more hampering to any efforts at urban reform than any other measure which had been brought forward in the House of Commons in his memory. He should certainly support the Amendment.

    *

    said that out of courtesy to the Leader of the Opposition he felt it necessary to rise without delay in order to make what he thought was a necessary protest against the somewhat heated language which the right hon. Gentleman had employed. He though the right hon. Gentleman, who would understand what he was referring to, had misapprehended the view expressed in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had said very properly that in the case of garden cities it would be deplorable if any taxation was to hinder their establishment and development. Might he point out, however, that garden cities were a typical case in which land was set out under a building restriction. If land was set out under a building restriction that was precisely the case which they were endeavouring to meet under Subsection (2) of Head 3 of this Bill. He wanted to make this absolutely clear, because he was quite sure there was no desire to misrepresent in any sense the view expressed by this clause. If they took the Bill as a whole, and looked at the clause, they would see that the building restrictions were fairly made, not for the purpose of defeating the Act, but to protect the value of the land. He was bound to say that he thought the language of the right hon. Gentleman was somewhat extreme, having regard to the very great care which had been taken in this matter.

    said that it was with a good deal of hesitation that he intervened in a discussion on a Scottish Bill, but the principle underlying this Bill was, he supposed, to be applicablemutatis mutandis to the English Valuation Bill. If he rightly understood the position, he could not see that the Lord Advocate's answer to his right hon. friend was satisfactory. The Lord Advocate said that if there were conditions which limited the use of the land for building purposes those were to be taken account of under another clause of the Bill. Let them consider the case of two men, one of whom had either rented or purchased a house subject to the condition that he should not build on the garden land attached to it, while the other had an exactly similar house with an exactly similar garden, but it was a freehold of his own. Why was one of these men to be treated differently from the other? If the object of the Government was to make a man build on every inch of land which he had a conceivable right to cover with buildings, then they were right; but if their object was to preserve open spaces, which were the lungs of our towns, even if they were not open for perambulation to every dweller in the town, then the Government were proceeding on wholly wrong lines. Applying the system to England—and it was England primarily that he had in his mind—the Government absolutely destroyed once and for all, in all districts with a building value, any prospect of any results coming from their small holdings and allotments legislation. He submitted to the Government that if they could not accept the words of the Amendment of his hon. friend they should find words of their own to meet these cases where it was to the interests of the public that the landlord should keeps his land from being built upon as long as possible. Under the Bill the Government would penalise the owner for having taken some thought for the interests of the public, and not solely consulted the interests of his own pocket. If the Government maintained the Bill in its present form they would make it necessary for the owner to extort the largest possible profit he could from his land, irrespective of any public interest which he might otherwise have beneficially served.

    said that the more they listened to the debates on the Bill the more they began to see, not the reasons for it, because they were non-existent, but the extraordinary motives and theories on which it was based The framers of the Bill seemed to think that the owners of land had only one object, namely, to obtain the highest financial benefit they could get out of the land; and that their interests would necessarily be in conflict with those of the community living around them. He wanted to know, was that a real description of his fellow-countrymen in Scotland? He denied it altogether. A man might have many motives for keeping a piece of ground unbuilt upon round his house. It might be the house in which his family had lived for generations and had earned the thanks of neighbours by keeping an open space round it for the benefit of their fellow men. Nowhere was this more frequently the case than in the city of Glasgow. Mention had been made of the Wander family, and he would like to ask, did anybody not think that the possession of the land held by that family on the Morning-side had not been of enormous advantage to the city of Edinburgh? No doubt that land had gained an enhanced value since it first came into the possession of the family, but land was not the only kind of capital investment that was enhanced in value by being held. Surely the citizens of large cities like Edinburgh and Glasgow might be trusted to study to some extent, as they had done in the past, the advantages of their fellow citizens as well as their own particular interests. Let them take this case. A man had a villa with an acre of ground. As long as he held it so it might be considered that the ground might develop into valuable land. One of these villa holders was forced by the stress of the tax to realise. He realised in the best market available. He erected factories or other undesirable subjects. What was the consequence? All the neighbouring properties fell in value. The valuation upon which the tax would be based would then be a false valuation. Were they going to restore the tax paid on that false valuation? It was not the fault of the other villas that their neighbour had reduced the value of the property. The Bill endeavoured to introduce an artificial system. If a man held up his land for a future market he held it up because it would become more valuable,otherwise he would be fit for a lunatic asylum. But that land would be more valuable in rates and taxes to the community. On the other hand the man who was forced to realise because he was threatened by the Bill fixed a permanent disability upon the whole quarter. The House ought to get rid of the idea that by forcing men into one particular course, telling them they must use the property in a particular way or they would be taxed on some fictitious value, they were benefiting the community. They would crowd the cities with undesirable buildings, and drive the poor into the back slums. That would be the result of that attempt to stamp out what had hitherto been open spots preserved often from motives of conscience and a sense of duty to fellow citizens.

    *

    said he had very great sympathy for the ideas and motives which, he believed, lay behind the Amendment, but he had listened to hon. Members opposite, and he had the feeling that they had overlooked Sub-section 4 of Clause 1 of the Bill, which ran—

    "Until Parliament otherwise determines no person shall be liable to be taxed or rated in respect of the entry prescribed under this Act,"
    and, in view of this, he did not think there was any immediate urgency in regard to the question. In common with a great many Members, he protested against the idea of gardens and perks, contiguous to or even in the centre of towns, being cut up for building purposes. He would suggest to the Lord Advocate that the views of the hon. Member opposite might be met by adding to his Amendment the words "provided that such land is not alienated from the use on which it is valued, without being first offered to the local authority (or the community) at such valuation."

    said he rose for a moment only in regard to the explanation of the Lord Advocate with reference to the meaning of the clause as it was expressed by the Leader of the Opposition. The Lord Advocate said that if they looked at Clause 3 the case to which the Leader of the Opposition had referred was met. What were the facts? The only case where the value was not to be taken into account was building servitudes. In Scotland, both in large cities like Glasgow and in smaller towns, land was held out and out by the proprietors. At present it was true that when they disposed of the land they did put building restrictions upon it, but that rested entirely upon themselves. If the motive for putting these restrictions was taken away they would not put them on, and that particular exception would not exist. The effect, therefore, and the Leader of the Opposition did not in the least misunderstand, of making it the interest of the proprietor to get an immediate profit would be in a large number of cases to prevent land being sold with building restrictions, which would do precisely what it was sought to prevent.

    said the hon. Member was misapprehending the meaning of the Bill. If he (Mr. Ure) shared the view of the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the effect of the measure he would have joined with him in denunciation of it in language fully as strong as the language he used. It would be a very unwise thing to induce men to cover, say, with five-storey buildings, land which, in the interests of the community, would be much better suited for other uses, such as suburban dwellings. The only question they had to consider was how they could value a certain piece of ground on the assumption that the villa was removed. In nine cases out of ten, probably ninety-nine cases out of 100, the valuator would value it as land suitable for a cottage or villa and garden, for the very obvious reason that the use to which it was being put was the proper use, every proprietor being anxious to put his ground to the best possible use. And in ninety-nine cases out of 100 these very building restrictions which had been referred to did not diminish, but increased the value of the ground, and also enormously increased the value of the ground round about. Wherever they had an ordinary case of a villa and garden at the present moment they were valued as one. What the Amendment suggested was that they should always be valued as if it would always be in the condition in which they found it. They would be so valued so long as the ground remained, in the opinion of the assessor and valuator, ground suitable for a villa or cottage and garden, and so long as the environment suggested to the valuator suburban ground devoted to its best objects. He would only value it as building land where, as in many instances, it would be put to its best use when tenements were erected, where they found, as they did find in towns, men holding up a bit of garden ground with a house which was practically unsaleable simply because it was surrounded by streets and the owner was waiting until he found a purchaser at a high figure. That was the only case where garden ground with a villa would be valued as building land.

    said that the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was extraordinary. He took the case of a villa or a cottage with a garden attached and said that that was perfectly safe under the operation of the Bill because it was certain that the assessor in nine cases out of ten would value it as being put to its best possible use. The whole case on which the Bill rested, he thought, was that land was not being put to its best use, and the Bill was going to remedy that. What was the best possible use? Its most productive use for the owner and for the community. If they took the case of rows of tenements which had been erected in Glasgow they would see what it meant. The owner had erected rows of workmen's houses, some of them two storeys, some of them single storey buildings with a garden in front. What was going to be the position in regard to those houses under the Bill? Did they suppose for one moment that the owner was going to continue those houses in the state in which they now were? Did the Solicitor-General say that any assessor would not increase the assessment in respect of that land? The local authority would have to get as broad a basis for rating as possible, and did the hon. and learned Gentleman suppose for one moment that when the assessment was increased those single storey workmen's cottages with a garden in front would be the best possible use for the land. If that was the basis of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument he could not agree with him. Question put. The House divided:—Ayes, 49; Noes, 199. (Division List No. 444.)

    AYES.
    Arkwright, John StanhopeCraik, Sir HenryLong,Rt.Hn.Walter (Dublin, S.
    Ashley, W. W.Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-Nield, Herbert
    Balfour,RtHn.A.J.(City Lond.)Everett, R. LaceyPease,Herbert Pike (Darlington
    Banner, John S. Harmood-Fetherstonhaugh, GodfreyRemnant, James Farquharson
    Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry, N.)Fletcher, J. S.Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)
    Beach Hn. Michael Hugh HicksForster, Henry WilliamRonaldshay, Earl of
    Bowles, G. StewartGibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)Salter, Arthur Clavell
    Bridgeman, W. CliveGretton, JohnSloan, Thomas Henry
    Bull, Sir William JamesHamilton, Marquess ofStaveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh)
    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.Harris, Frederick LevertonTennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury
    Carlile, E. HildredHarrison-Broadley, H. B.Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
    Cavendish,Rt.Hon.Victor C.W.Hay, Hon. Claude GeorgeVincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
    Cecil, Lord John P., Joicey-Henderson,J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)Younger, Gorge
    Chamberlain, RtHn.J.A. (Wore.Hills, J. W.
    Cheetham, John FrederickHunt, RowlandTELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.Kennaway,Rt. Hn. Sir John H.Alexander Acland-Hood and
    Courthope, G. LoydKimber, Sir HenryViscount Valentia.
    Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    NOES.
    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)Gladstone, RtHn.Herbert JohnO'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
    Abraham, William (Rhondda)Glover, ThomasO'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
    Ainsworth, John StirlingGoddard, Daniel FordO'Doherty, Philip
    Ambrose, RobertGurdon,Rt.Hn.SirW.BramptonO'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
    Asquith,RtHn.HerbertHenryGwynn, Stephen LuciusO'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)Halpin, J.O'Grady, J.
    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)Hammond, JohnO'Malley, William
    Barnard, E. B.Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)Parker, James (Halifax)
    Barnes, G. N.Harmsworth,R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh)Paulton, James Mellor
    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.)Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire, N.EPearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
    Beaumont, Hon. HubertHaworth, Arthur A.Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk,Eye)
    Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.)Hayden, John PatrickPirie, Duncan V.
    Birrell, Rt. Hon. AugustineHazel, Dr. A. E.Power, Patrick Joseph
    Bowerman, C. W.Hazleton, RichardPrice, C.E.(Edinburgh, Central)
    Brace, WilliamHealy, Timothy MichaelRadford, G. H.
    Branch, JamesHelme, Norval WatsonRainy, A. Rolland
    Brigg, JohnHenry, Charles S.Reddy, M.
    Brodie, H. C.Higham, John SharpRedmond, John E. (Waterford)
    Brunner,J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)Hobart, Sir RobertRichards, Thomas (W.Monm'th
    Buchanan, Thomas RyburnHobhouse, Charles E. H.Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n
    Burns, Rt. Hon. JohnHogan, MichaelRickett, J. Compton
    Byles, William PollardHolt, Richard DurningRoberts, G. H. (Norwich)
    Carr-Gomm, H. W.Howard, Hon. GeoffreyRobertson,SirG.Scott(Bradford
    Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnightIllingworth, Percy H.Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
    Cawley, Sir FrederickJardine, Sir J.Robinson, S.
    Chance, Frederick WilliamJohnson, John (Gateshead)Roe, Sir Thomas
    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)Rowlands, J.
    Clough, WilliamJowett, F. W.Russell, T. W.
    Clynes, J. R.Joyce, MichaelSamuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)Kekewich, Sir GeorgeScott,A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne
    Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W.Kennedy, Vincent PaulShaw, Rt. Hon. T.(Hawick B.)
    Condon, Thomas JosephLaidlaw, RobertSheehy, David
    Cooper, G. J.Lambert, GeorgeSilcock, Thomas Ball
    Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'dLamont, NormanSimon, John Allsebrook
    Cory, Clifford JohnLardner, James Carrige RusheSinclair, Rt. Hon. John
    Cowan, W. H.Lever, A.Levy (Essex,HarwichSmyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim,S.)
    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)Lewis, John HerbertStanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)
    Cremer, Sir William RandalLough, ThomasStanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)
    Crooks, WilliamLundon, W.Strachey, Sir Edward
    Crossley, William J.Lyell, Charles HenryStrauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
    Cullinan, J.Lynch, H. B.Summerbell, T.
    Curran, Peter FrancisMackarness, Frederic C.Taylor, John W. (Durham)
    Delany, WilliamMacNeill, John Gordon SwiftThompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E.
    Devlin, JosephMacpherson, J. T.Toulmin, George
    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.Trevelyan, Charles Philips
    Dickinson,W.H.(St.Pancras,N.MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.)Ure, Alexander
    Donelan, Captain A.M'Callum, John M.Verney, F. W.
    Duffy, William J.M'Crae, GeorgeVivian, Henry
    Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-FurnessM'Hugh, Patrick A.Walsh, Stephen
    Dunn, A. Edwards (Camborne)M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. ReginaldWard,W.Dudley(Southampton
    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)Maddison, FrederickWardle, George J.
    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)Markham, Arthur BasilWaring, Walter
    Elibank, Master ofMarks,G.Croydon (Launceston)Waterlow, D. S.
    Erskine, David C.Meehan, Patrick A.Wedgwood, Josiah C.
    Essex, R. W.Menzies, WalterWhite, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
    Esslemont, George BirnieMicklem, NathanielWhite, Patrick (Meath, North)
    Farrell, James PatrickMontgomery, H. G.Whithead, Rowland
    Fenwick, CharlesMooney, J. J.Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
    Ferens, T. R.Morgan, J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)Wiles, Thomas
    Ferguson, R. C. MunroMorrell, PhilipWilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
    Ffrench, PeterMuldoon, JohnWilson, John (Durham, Mid)
    Field, WilliamMurphy, John (Kerry, East)Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
    Findlay, AlexanderMurphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
    Flavin, Michael JosephNicholls, George
    Freeman, Thomas-FreemanNicholson,CharlesN. (DoncasterTELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
    Fuller, John Michael F.Nolan, Joseph Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
    Gill, A. H.Norton, Capt. Cecil William Pease.
    Ginnell, L.O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid

    *

    moved the following new subsection: "The capital value of the land on which no building is situated and which is not capable of being sold or disposed of with an obligation to build thereon immediately shall be estimated with reference to its fitness for purposes other than building purposes." The words were meant to afford some protection to land which was only of prospective building value and which should not be assessed too highly. The Solicitor-General placed a blind confidence in the assessor, but in that he could not share. He knew the kind of assessors sent down from London to Scotland. They were young men sent from Somerset House and they had not had much experience. He did not think they were people who ought to be let loose in that way unless the owners were given some kind of protection against them. The words he had proposed afforded that protection by which they would probably be able to avoid some cases of grave injustice. They had heard that in Glasgow alone there were 3,600 acres while all that was required annually were only sixty acres of land. When it was remembered that Glasgow had great schemes of further extension in hand, it seemed desirable that some notice should be taken of the difficulties of the situation. The Lord Advocate was well aware that, if a heavy tax were put on land which was not only not immediately ripe for building but which for many years would not be ripe for that purpose, he would make it impossible for the existing owner to hold the land for that time. The present owner would be the only man who would suffer loss, for the man who bought the land would discount the loss by allowing for the tax when he made the purchase. He would do as was done in New York; he would make a certain amount of profit on it and then sell it to someone else. Eventually the land would get into the hands of syndicates as in New York. One of the objects of that Bill was to make land cheaper for building purposes, but that object would be defeated, for in the hands of syndicates the result would be the same as in New York, the land would be dearer. That had been the effect in New York, and it would be the effect here unless some such words as he had proposed were added. He thought the Amendment was a very reasonable one, and he submitted it with some confidence to the right hon. Gentleman.

    seconded. Amendment proposed—

    "In page 1, line 15, at the end to insert the. words, 'The capital value of land on which no building is situate and which is not capable of being sold or disposed of with an obligation to build thereon immediately shall be estimated with reference to its fitness for purposes other than building purposes.'"
    —(Mr. Younger.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

    *

    said it was quite plain that the object of the Amendment was to keep out of the valuation land which was not now capable of being sold for building purposes. The proper test, he held, was the ordinary market test. There might be a possibility of the land being built on in the next year or in two or three years. The proper test was the market value. To try to keep the land out of the valuation by an artificial process and to make the valuation on the principle that it was only to be valued for agricultural purposes and as though buildings were not to be placed on it, was altogether contrary to the system under which land was sold in the open market.

    thought that the Lord Advocate had somewhat easily passed over the point. If he understood his hon. friend aright he meant that land should not have a fictitious value put on it which could not be obtained in the open market. Let them take the case of Glasgow, where there were some 5,000 acres of agricultural land within the borough boundaries. Of that quantity of land only about sixty acres was secured to be built over, and there were therefore nearly 3,000 acres of agricultural land in Glasgow which was ripening for building purposes.

    *

    said that if he might interrupt the hon. Gentleman for a moment he thought he could explain the point. All that the hon. Gentleman had said would necessarily be taken into account. The postponement of realisable value was always taken into account in the market value.

    continuing, said that the duties placed on the assessors under the Bill would necessitate the display of almost superhuman intelligence and ability. The Lord Advocate had quoted with approval the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on Taxation in 1901, but he only did so in so far as it suited his purpose. He (Mr. Cochrane) would call attention to the fact that the Minority Report of that Commission specifically and directly recommended that land which was only ripening for building purposes should not be estimated upon its capital value. He ventured to assert that the arguments which had been brought forward by his hon. friend had in no sense been answered. Great injustice would be done to a man if they valued his land at a price which it would not be possible for him to obtain for any reasonable number of years. Question put. The House divided:—Ayes, 41; Noes, 188. (Division List No. 445.)

    AYES.
    Acland-Hood,RtHn.SirAlex.F.Craig, CharlesCurtis (Antrim,S.Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)
    Arkwright, John StanhopeCraik, Sir HenryLong, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.
    Ashley, W. W.Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington
    Balfour, RtHn.A.J.(CityLond.)Everett, R. LaceyRemnant, James Farquharson
    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.Fetherstonhaugh, GodfreyRoberts, S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall)
    Beach, H. Michael Hugh HicksForster, Henry WilliamRonaldshay, Earl of
    Bowles, G. StewartGibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)Sloan, Thomas Henry
    Bridgeman, W. CliveGretton, JohnStaveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.Hamilton, Marquess ofTennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury
    Carlile, E. HildredHarris, Frederick LevertonThomson,W.Mitchell-(Lanark)
    Cavendish, Rt. Hn. VictorC.W.Harrison-Broadley, H. B.Valentia, Viscount
    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-Hills, J. W.
    Chamberlain, RtHn.J.A.(Worc.Hunt, RowlandTELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.Kennaway, Rt. Hn.Sir John H. Younger and Sir William
    Courthope, G. LoydKimber, Sir Henry Bull.
    NOES.
    Abraham, William(Cork,N. E.)Cowan, W. H.Gurdon,RtHn.Sir W. Brampton
    Abraham, William (Rhondda)Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)Gwynn, Stephen Lucius
    Ainsworth, John StirlingCremer, Sir William RandalHalpin, J.
    Ambrose, RobertCrooks, WilliamHammond, John
    Asquith,Rt.Hn. Herbert HenryCrossley, William J.Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)
    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)Cullinan, J.Harmsworth,R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh
    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)Curran, Peter FrancisHarvey,W.E.(Derbyshire,N.E.
    Barnard, E. B.Delany, WilliamHaworth, Arthur A.
    Barnes, G. N.Devlin, JosephHayden, John Patrick
    Barry,RedmondJ.(Tyrone, N.)Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)Hazel, Dr. A. E.
    Beaumont, Hon. HubertDickinson,W.H. (St.Pancras,N.Healy, Timothy Michael
    Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.)Donelan, Captain A.Helme, Norval Watson
    Birrell, Rt. Hon. AugustineDuffy, William J.Henry, Charles S.
    Bowerman, C. W.Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-FurnessHigham, John Sharp
    Brace, WilliamDunn, A. Edward (Camborne)Hobhouse, Charles E. H.
    Branch, JamesEdwards, Clement (Denbigh)Hogan, Michael
    Brigg, JohnEdwards, Enoch (Hanley)Holt, Richard Durning
    Brodie, H. C.Elibank, Master ofHoward, Hon. Geoffrey
    Brunner,J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)Erskine, David C.Illingworth, Percy H.
    Burke, E. Haviland-Essex, R. W.Jardine, Sir J.
    Burns, Rt. Hon. JohnEsslemont, George BirnieJohnson, John (Gateshead)
    Byles, William PollardFarrell, James PatrickJohnson, W. (Nuneaton)
    Carr-Gomm, H. W.Fenwick, CharlesJawett, F. W.
    Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnightFerguson, R. C. MunroJoyce, Michael
    Cawley, Sir FrederickFfrench, PeterKekewich, Sir George
    Chance, Frederick WilliamField, WilliamKennedy, Vincent Paul
    Cheetham, John FrederickFindlay, AlexanderLambert, George
    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.Flavin, Michael JosephLamont, Norman
    Clough, WilliamFreeman-Thomas, FreemanLardner, James Carrige Rushe
    Clynes, J. R.Fuller, John Michael F.Lewis, John Herbert
    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)Gill, A. H.Lough, Thomas
    Collins, Sir W. J.(S.Pancras, W.Ginnell, L.Lundon, W.
    Condon, Thomas JosephGladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn
    Cooper, G. J.Glover, ThomasLynch, H. B.
    Corbett,C. H.(Sussex, E.Grinst'dGoddard, Daniel FordMackarness, Frederic C.
    Cory, Clifford JohnGulland, John W.Mackarness, Frederic C.

    MacNeill, John Gordon SwiftParker, James (Halifax)Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)
    Macpherson, J. T.Paulton, James MellorStrachey, Sir Edward
    MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
    M'Callum, John M.Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)Summerbell, T.
    M'Crae, GeorgePirie, Duncan V.Taylor, John W. (Durham)
    M'Hugh, Patrick A.Power, Patrick JosephThompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E.
    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. ReginaldPrice,C.E. (Edinburgh,Central)Toulmin, George
    M'Killop, W.Radford, G. H.Trevelyan, Charles Philips
    Maddison, FrederickRainy, A. RollandUre, Alexander
    Manfield, Harry (Northants)Reddy, M.Verney, F. W.
    Markham, Arthur BasilRedmond, John E. (Waterford)Vivian, Henry
    Marks, G.Croydon (LauncestonRichards, Thomas(W.Monm'thWalsh, Stephen
    Meehan, Patrick A.Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'nWard,W.Dudley(Southampton
    Menzies, WalterRickett, J. ComptonWaring, Walter
    Montgomery, H. G.Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)Waterlow, D. S.
    Mooney, J. J.Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rdWedgwood, Josiah C.
    Morrell, PhilipRobertson, J. M. (Tyneside)White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
    Muldoon, JohnRobinson, J.White, Patrick (Meath, North)
    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)Rowlands, J.Whitehead, Rowland
    Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)Russell, T. W.Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
    Nicholls, GeorgeSamuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)Wiles, Thomas
    Nolan, JosephScott,A. H. (Ashton-under-LyneWilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
    Norton, Capt. Cecil WilliamShaw, Rt. Hon. T. (HawickB.)Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
    O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid.Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)Silcock, Thomas BallTELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)Simon, John Allsebrook Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
    O'Doherty, PhilipSinclair, Rt. Hon. John Pease.
    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
    O'Grady, J.Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

    moved after Subsection (4) to insert the words "but unless Parliament otherwise idetermines by the end of the year 1910, no county or borough shall be bound to continue to incur any expenses in the execution of this Act." He said that Subsection (4) which governed the whole Bill read as follows—

    "Until Parliament otherwise determines no person shall be liable to be taxed or rated in respect of the entry prescribed by this Act."
    Hon. Members had already had it brought home to them that the object of the Bill was one that was not described in the measure itself. It was not denied, or at any rate it was accepted by the Lord Advocate, that the Bill was intended to be the foundation of a future Act for rating purposes. Either the rating Bill would be passed, or it would not; and he imagined that if the Lord Advocate did not succeed in passing a Bill for rating he would have no further use for this Bill. If, after a certain time, the Lord Advocate came to the conclusion not to bring in a Bill for rating purposes, or if, having brought it in, the Bill did not pass, then there could be no object in maintaining this Bill in existence. No doubt the Lord Advocate would in that case be very glad to free the authorities from the expense of carrying out the provisions of this Bill, and he hoped therefore that the right hon. Gentleman would accept his very reasonable Amendment.

    *

    said it seemed to him that the language of this Amendment was in direct conflict with the decision of the House that there should be in each successive year a valuation roll. That, of course, involved incurring all necessary expenses, and he thought that the Amendment could not possibly be in order.

    said that the clause which he was proposing to amend distinctly contemplated the Act not coming into force until after a certain future event—that was to say, the passing of a Rating Bill.

    *

    said he thought that the Lord Advocate was right. The right hon. Gentleman's contention was that, whether any Bill be at a future time brought in or not, yet for all time the Scottish authorities were to incur this expenditure. He thought the House had already decided that.

    The Act contemplates the possibility of its not coming into operation till a certain further event.

    *

    I do not think the Bill contemplates that. What it says is that the Valuation Roll is to be made up until Parliament shall otherwise determine. The expenditure is to be incurred.

    asked if he would be in order in moving his Amendment in the form—"unless Parliament otherwise determine by the end of 1910, this Act shall henceforth," and so on.

    *

    If the hon. Member wishes to make it a temporary Bill that must be done by a separate clause at the end of the Bill. The time for the insertion of that clause has gone by.

    moved an Amendment to relieve a proprietor from being called upon by an assessor for a written statement of capital land value. Referring to the penalties for false return under the Bill, he said that when the thing they asked a man to do was easy such a provision might be proper. A man knew what annual value was, but to ask him to provide the capital value of unoccupied agricultural land was actually in some parts of the country to ask for something that did not exist. To demand that he should answer a conundrum which he believed to be insoluble, and punish him by fine or imprisonment if he did not answer, was unmeaning, unintelligent, and impossible of rational justification. If the Government thought this process of obtaining the capital value of cities was so easy and so simple that it could be done at the rate of 6d. per subject—he made a short calculation, and he found the Lord Advocate's estimate of the cost in these big towns worked out at less than 1s.—it was a great injustice to throw that elaborate return on private persons. Why should the official not do it and let the private individual object, if he thought it necessary, in the Courts and before the proper authority? At all events, let the private individual be relieved of the first burden of that new duty. Let the unfortunate proprietor be freed both from the cost which he would be compelled to undergo and the penalities to which he would have to submit, not only if he refused to answer that insoluble riddle, but if he gave an answer which in the opinion of the Courts happened to be wrong. Amendment proposed—

    "In page 2, line 11, after the first 'a,' to insert the word 'proprietor.'"
    —(Mr. A. J. Balfour.) Question proposed, "That the word 'proprietor' be there inserted."

    said the whole Scottish system began with the individual proprietor. He made a statement to the assessor and negotiated with the assessor. He could imagine very strong arguments proceeding from the right hon. Gentleman if it had been proposed to value a man's land behind his back or over his head by means of a public official. He would have said: "Why have you abandoned the ordinary Scottish system of asking the man who knows his own property?" The Government did not in the clause propose to ask for a statement of capital value from tenant or occupier. A very little negotiation and a few calculations between assessor and proprietor would settle the matter without lawyers or anybody else being employed. A man had usually a fair notion of the value of what belonged to him. With regard to the question of penalties, it was not so serious as the right hon. Gentleman made out. The seventh Clause of the Act of 1854, provided that a penalty of £20 should be imposed upon those who defied the law without any reasonable excuse and sent in no return at all. For a false return a penalty of £50 was imposed and quite rightly, but not in the ordinary case of valuation, because the language of the section which was adopted was that the falsehood must be to the knowledge of the person. He must "know the same to be false" before a fine could be inflicted. In short, the penalties need not frighten anybody. Neither expense nor any other reason could affect the fair and simple operation of the clause. In reference to the view that there might be a good deal of bustle and trouble imposed on the proprietor the first year on account of the limit of time, he had made a suggestion in regard to the next Amendment on the Paper which he thought reasonable, and that was to provide a period of six months before the proprietor had to put out his hand.

    said that in view of the manner in which the Lord Advocate had dealt with the matter he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman having said that nobody need be afraid of any penalties unless they made a return which they knew to be false. Frankly, though he (Mr. Balfour) would not make a return which he knew to be false, he certainly might make a return which he shrewdly suspected was not true. He would be asked a question to which no veracious answer could be given by any human being—what was the value of a piece of agricultural land which was supposed to be in a condition in which it had never been and in that condition to be put up for a sale which no human being supposed was a possible operation. He had to put himself in the position of the willing seller of that which he did not possess, namely unoccupied or unimproved land, which he was supposed to sell to some imaginary buyer in an imaginary market. A question of that kind was not a question to which an answer could be given, and under such a form of torture a man could not actually know whether he was inserting the truth or not. He honestly trusted that those frank admissions would not bring trouble upon him and that he would not languish in gaol for them.

    The hon. Gentleman may take comfort that he will not be tried by two removables. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    moved to insert after the word "value" the words "or to call upon a proprietor to furnish such written statement within a shorter period than six calendar months." Amendment proposed—

    "In page 2, line 12, after the word 'value' to insert the words or to call upon a proprietor to furnish such written statement within six calendar months.'"—(Mr. Staveley-Hill.)
    Question proposed, "That those words by there inserted."

    said that the first year was the crucial year. With regard to succeeding years, he did not doubt that the powers of the Secretary for Scotland would be exercised if it was necessary to widen the period. He had such power. The Government were quite willing to accept the six months' if it would suit his hon. friends.

    *

    said the reason why he moved the Amendment was that the period of fourteen days mentioned in the principal Act was far too short a period for the first or any other year. Question put, and agreed to.

    said the right hon. Gentleman had promised to give an explanation of the meaning of the words in page 2, line 22, from "roll" to the end of Subsection 1 which he (Mr. Cochrane) had an Amendment on the Paper to omit. The words in the Bill in the subsection of Clause 3 were, "'Valuation Acts' means the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, (in this Act referred to as the principal Act), and any Act (other than this Act) amending the same." The Lord Advocate had promised to clear the point up, and had said he would insert words on the Report stage to make the meaning clear. He understood that the Lord Advocate did not desire to alter the coming into force of the Valuation Act of 1854, for that would be obviously inconvenient, but he did desire to alter the coming into force of that particular Bill if it became an Act of Parliament. Amendment proposed—

    "In page 2, line 22, to leave out from the word 'roll' to end of Subsection 1 of clause 2."
    —(Mr. Cochrane.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

    said that on consideration by the drafting authority, it appeared to be clear that the references to the Valuation Act, though general and exclusive of that Bill, were safeguarded when they came to line 29 which declared that the Valuation Act was to apply for the purposes of that Act. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    *

    on behalf of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton, moved an Amendment which, he said, was to bring the clause within the ordinary principles of the law of rating. One of the elements of the law of rating was that rates should be paid in respect to occupancy. He wanted to know why it was they were going to lump together the various occupants of flats and tenements, and who was going to apportion the rateable value of each of those occupants. If there was to be any apportionment it should be under the Bill. Why was the law of rating to be different from that in London, where in the case of flats or tenements a separate assessment was made for the occupants? If no such assessment were made the occupant would have no right to appeal, for the only right to appeal existed through a person having his name on the rate book.

    seconded. Amendment proposed—

    "In page 2, line 42, at end, to add the words 'but the assessor shall in all cases as far as possible apportion the separate capital land value in respect of each occupancy, and, if he cannot do so, shall deliver to the valuation committee of each county, district, or burgh a de-detailed statement of the causes which have prevented him from so apportioning the capital land value in any case, and this statement shall be accessible to any proprietor or occupier of the lands and heritages affected thereby."
    —(Mr. Staveley-Hill.) Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."

    said he was not quite sure that the Amendment was in order in view of lines 11 and 12, which said "subject as hereinafter provided there shall be entered under the last named head the capital land value." He did not press that point, however. They conceived that the procedure the hon. Member proposed would be cumbrous. It would involve a detailed statement which would not be in consonance with the Scottish idea of rating. They preferred to let the valuation roll speak for itself.

    said he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had given a very satisfactory explanation of the situation. He had come in late, otherwise he would have moved an Amendment in another part of the Paper. That was a question in which they had the difficulty of valuing the rating in tenements where the different storeys were occupied or owned by different people. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to leave to the assessor the power of placing the value against one of those owners or occupants, selecting which he pleased and placing the whole value against him. That rule was most unfair, for each person was entitled to have his proportion placed against his own name so that he could understand his liability and what rates he had to pay. It was a very difficult question, as no one knew better than the Lord Advocate himself, who, as usual, looked it straight in the face and passed on. The assessor would take the easiest way out of the difficulty and never attempt to proportion the value at all. That was a very unsatisfactory position and something should be done to remedy it. Question put, and negatived.

    moved to leave out the words "by a willing seller." He said the Amendment was one which he thought his right hon. friend might well accept. The words which he proposed to leave out were not in the original Bill, but were put in on the motion of the hon. Member for Marylebone. The Bill said originally that the price was to be what the land might be expected to realise if sold in the open market, but the expression was put in—

    "If sold by a willing seller to a willing buyer."
    He could not understand why his right hon. friend could not agree to those words being struck out, for they meant nothing, though if they did mean anything they would put a great power in the hands of the assessor. The assessor might say to the owner of the land: "You value this property at £1,000, I assess it at £1,500. You cannot say you are not a willing seller at £1,500."

    seconded the Amendment. He said they were labouring under a disability in not having the Scottish Law Officers of the Crown to tell them what the meaning of the words was. The words were put in to save them from the assessor who might adopt some fictitious price. They had a case recently where £100,000 was given for an agricultural site under exceptional circumstances. Was the meaning of the clause in law that a willling seller was a person who was willing to sell his land without placing any fictitious value on it and who was willing to sell at the ordinary market price?

    said a willing seller was a man who was willing to place his property in the open market. The object they had in accepting the words was to satisfy the hon. Member who moved that they should be inserted and who seemed to be anxious that they should go in. None of the members of the Committee saw any objection to them. Now they rather liked the words and he proposed to retain them. Amendment proposed—

    In page 3, line 15, to leave out the words by a willing seller.'"
    —(Mr. John Henderson.) Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

    said he wished to move an Amendment which arose out of a discussion earlier in the evening as to the effect of the Bill on garden grounds attached to houses. After he and some of his friends had spoken the Solicitor - General gave his view of what the action of the Bill would be, and it was that view which he proposed to import into the clause. What he proposed to do was to insert after the word "valuations" in line 16, the words "for use in the way in which it is at present used if such use is reason able." The objection they had to the clause as it at present stood was that it would make it impossible to maintain gardens which were ordinarily attached to villa residences in the suburbs of our great towns, which were frequently attached to workmen's houses, and which they should desire to encourage rather than repress. The argument of the Solicitor-General was that the valuer would inquire whether the use to which the land was put was reasonable. Applying that test in nine cases out of ten or ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the valuer would say the use of the ground or garden ground attached to a villa or workman's house was not reasonable, and that it was to be valued at the rate a willing seller would take for it in the open market. The purchaser not being bound to retain it as garden ground would be willing to give a much larger sum for it than he possibly could do if it was to be used as a garden. He had taken the very words the Solicitor-General had used as to the meaning of the clause. They were not in the Bill as he read it. The Bill was in contradiction to what the Solicitor-General had said it was intended to mean. If the words were surplusage they were at least harmless surplusage. They carried out what the Solicitor-General said in explaining the intentions of the Government, and he hoped the Government would accept them. They applied not merely to the case of small gardens attached to villa residences or to workmen's cottages, but to other cases he had mentioned of land which had a building value, such as allotment gardens possibly within the limits of a borough, but certainly within an area where it would have a building value. He hoped that, as he had taken the words from the Solicitor-General, the Lord Advocate would accept the Amendment. Amendment proposed—

    "In page 3, line 16, after the word 'valuation' to insert the words 'for use in the way in which they are at present used if such use is reasonable."
    —(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

    said he hoped that in the observations he was about to make the right hon. Gentleman would not misunderstand him. He appreciated entirely the motives with which he had moved the Amendment, and he did not dissent from the view of the right hon. Gentleman as to the value of open spaces, whether large public parks or grounds attached to villas or workmen's houses. But that would all very properly arise on the question of rating. It need not arise on the question of valuation. The advantage of it arising on the question of rating was this. He could conceive an authority which had to assess values saying that it would not permit values to be depressed by reason of landowners withholding what were apparently "lungs" from a good municipal use, but, on the other hand, if the owner was reasonable in the matter of preserving public spaces the authority would assess on that lower value after making some arrangement for keeping the space open for public use.

    said he could not accept the reply of the Lord Advocate as being at all satisfactory. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had altogether appreciated his point, or else he (Mr. Chamberlain) had failed to appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's objection. He understood that the object in the Bill was to ascertain the facts concerning land values with a view to making those facts the basis of a reform in local rating. It followed that what the right hon. Gentleman wanted to ascertain were the values on which he could rate. The value which the Lord Advocate was now interested in obtaining for these grounds was a value on which he did not even pretend it would be fair to rate as it would be as land fully built over. Then the Lord Advocate suggested that he could conceive when they came to the Rating Bill that it might approve itself to the House, or to the people who were drafting such a Bill, that after they had brought all land within the ambit of the local authority—whatever that phrase might mean—the local authority might be empowered to grant an abatement of charge in respect of land of this character if they were able to secure that the land should be permanently so used. That did not meet his (Mr. Chamberlain's) case at all. He did not think that the discretion ought to be left to the local authority in any case, but that it ought to be settled by the House of Commons. He wanted to meet the case of land which was going to be built over. He knew of a case where there was land which some day or other would have to be built over, and the owner of it would undoubtedly get a much larger revenue from it if it was built over to-morrow. Some day or other that man, or his heirs, would be forced to put that land in the market as building land, but he (Mr. Chamberlain) contended that the Government ought not to want to force him to put it in the market a day before his own circumstances obliged him to do so. The Government should, on the other hand, make it easy for him to keep the land as garden land, allotment land, or as land attached to houses for gardening purposes as long as he could. He could not think that the Lord Advocate's suggested remedy in any way met the point he was raising.

    said that if the Lord Advocate was right in suggesting that questions of this kind should be left until the Rating Bill, there seemed to him to be no use at all in having a Valuation Bill. It had been suggested from that side of the House that as the Government only wanted to have a basis for assessment there would be no use in having an annual valuation. He was bound to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there never was a subject on which it was more important that there should be some line laid down on which the assessors should go. As the Bill stood, it appeared to be entirely a question of what an individual man thought was likely to be fair. If the Solicitor-General was in earnest in saying that what the assessors would do would be to value the land for the purpose for which it was used then he was bound to express that intention in the Bill. This was a matter well worth discussing, and if the law officers refused to consider the proposal he was afraid it would be a case of taking the readiest way of getting out of the difficulty which met them. They assumed that the opinion they held now was going to be the opinion of those who carried out the Act, but the Opposition had a right to contest that, and to sap that the intention of the Government should be clearly expressed in the Bill. Question put. The House divided:—Ayes, 35; Noes 177. (Division List No. 446.)

    AYES.
    Arkwright, John StanhopeCourthope, G. LoydLaw, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)
    Ashley, W. W.Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.Long,Rt.Hn.Walter (Dublin,S.
    Balfour,RtHnA.J.(CityLond.)Craik, Sir HenryRemnant, James Farquharson
    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.)Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-Roberts,S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall)
    Beach,Hn.Michael HughHicksFetherstonhaugh, GodfreyRonaldshay, Earl of
    Bowles, G. StewartGibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)Sloan, Thomas Henry
    Bridgeman, W. CliveGretton, JohnStaveley-Hill, Henry (Staffsh.)
    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.Hamilton, Marquess ofThomson,W.Mitchell-(Lanark)
    Carlile, E. HildredHarris, Frederick LevertonYounger, George
    Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.Harrison-Broadley, H. B.
    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-Hills, J. W.TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
    Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Wore.Hunt, Rowland Alexander Acland-Hood and
    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.Kennaway, Rt.Hn.Sir John H. Mr. Forster.
    NOES.
    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
    Abraham, William (Rhondda)Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)Lewis, John Herbert
    Ainsworth, John StirlingEdwards, Enoch (Hanley)Lundon, W.
    Ambrose, RobertElibank, Master ofLyell, Charles Henry
    Asquith,Rt.Hn.HerbertHenryErskine, David C.Mackarness, Frederic C.
    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)Essex, R. W.MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
    Barnard, E. B.Everett, R. LaceyMacpherson, J. T.
    Barnes, G. N.Farrell, James PatrickMacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.)
    Barry,Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)Fenwick, CharlesM'Callum, John M.
    Benn,W(TowerHamlets,S.GeoFerguson, R. C. MunroM'Crae, George
    Birrell, Rt. Hon. AugustineFfrench, PeterM'Hugh, Patrick A.
    Bowerman, C. W.Field, WilliamM'Kean, John
    Brace, WilliamFindlay, AlexanderM'Killop, W.
    Branch, JamesGladstone,RtHn.HerbertMenzies, Walter
    Brodie, H. C.John Glover, ThomasMontgomery, H. G.
    Brunner,J.F.L.(Lancs.,Leigh)Goddard, Daniel FordMooney, J. J.
    Burke, E. Haviland-Gulland, John W.Morrell, Philip
    Burns, Rt. Hon. JohnGwynn, Stephen LuciusMuldoon, John
    Byles, William PollardHaldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.Murphy, John (Kerry, East)
    Carr-Gomm, H. W.Halpin, J.Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)
    Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnightHammond, JohnNicholls, George
    Cawley, Sir FrederickHarmsworth,Cecil B.(Worc'r)Nolan, Joseph
    Chance, Frederick WilliamHarmsworth,R.L.(Caithness-shNorton, Capt. Cecil William
    Cheetham, John FrederickHarvey,W.E.(Derbyshire,N.E..O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid)
    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.Haworth, Arthur A.O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.Hazel, Dr. A. E.O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
    Clancy, John JosephHarmsworth,R.L.(Caithness-shNorton, Capt. Cecil William
    Clough, WilliamHarvey,W.E.(Derbyshire,N.E..O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid)
    Clynes, J. R.Haworth, Arthur A.O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)Hazel, Dr. A. E.O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
    Collins,Sir Wm.J(S.Pancras,W.Healy, Timothy MichaelO'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
    Cooper, G. J.Helme, Norval WatsonO'Doherty, Philip
    Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'dHenry, Charles S.O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
    Cowan, W. H.Higham, John SharpO'Malley, William
    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)Hobhouse, Charles E. H.Parker, James (Halifax)
    Crooks, WilliamHogan, MichaelParker, James (Halifax)
    Crossley, William J.Holt, Richard DurningPaulton, James Mellor
    Cullinan, J.Howard, Hon. GeoffreyPearce,Robert (Staffs, Leek)
    Curran, Peter FrancisIllingworth, Percy H.Pearson,W.H.M. (Suffolk,Eye)
    Delany, WilliamJohnson, John (Gateshead)Pirie, Duncan V.
    Devlin, JosephJohnson, W. (Nuneaton)Power, Patrick Joseph
    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)Jowett, F. W.Price,C.E.(Edinburgh,Central)
    Dickinson,W.H.(St.Pancras,N.Joyce, MichaelRadford, G. H.
    Donelan, Captain A.Kekewich, Sir GeorgeRainy, A. Rolland
    Duffy, William J.Kennedy, Vincent PaulReddy, M.
    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-FurnessLamont, NormanRedmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Redmond, William (Clare)Simon, John AllsebrookWalsh, Stephen
    Richards,Thomas (W. Monmt'hSinclair, Rt. Hon. JohnWaterlow, D. S.
    Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'nSmyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)Wedgwood, Josiah C.
    Rickett, J. ComptonStanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.White, Patrick (Meath, North)
    Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rdStrachey, Sir EdwardWhitehead, Rowland
    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
    Robinson, S.Summerbell, T.Wiles, Thomas
    Rowlands, J.Taylor, John W. (Durham)Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
    Russell, T. W.Tennant,SirEdward (Salisbury)Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)Toulmin, George
    Scott,A.H.(Ashton-under-LyneTrevelyan, Charles PhilipsTELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
    Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)Ure, AlexanderWhiteley and Mr. J. A.
    Silcock, Thomas BallVivian, HenryPease.

    moved to amend the definition clause, so that "capital land value" in reference to any lands and heritages should mean the sum which such lands and heritages might be expected to realise in the open market at the time of the valuation if—(1) divested of "all improvements in, under, or upon lands and heritages or treatment thereof, so as to equip them for occupation or use, without prejudice to the above generality,inter alia,buildings, erections or structures of whatever nature in, on, or under the soil, fixed or attached, machinery, reclamation, embanking, levelling, subsoiling, trenching, planting, clearing, cultivation, provision of water supply, drainage or sewerage, and formation of roads, footpaths, or fences." The Lord Advocate had already adopted some part of his definition of improvements. Now he proposed to put in the definition of improvements the value of which was to be excluded, the value of the land now put under drainage. This was a point of considerable importance. The object of the right hon. Gentleman he had stated was to facilitate rather than retard improvements. One of the greatest improvements was drainage when they were dealing with agricultural land, and so far the right hon. Gentleman had not included drainage. Now he put it in in a rather ambiguous form. What he desired to have was an assurance that the results of drainage should be considered when they wished to fix the selling price of prairie land. Then again, in his Amendment, he defined improvements generally. The right hon. Gentleman limited his improvements. He had promised to consider whether he would not leave out the words "structural improvements." As applied to improvements below ground that was a very inappropriate phrase. If the right hon. Gentleman meant he was going to divest land of all improvements why put in "structural"? The right hon. Gentleman had also these limiting words, "where such work has been executed not more than twenty years preceding." He would point out how undesirable it was if they really wished to improve land and to facilitate the process to put in limiting words of that kind. It was a premium on jerry building and putting up structures which would last only twenty years. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be guided in this respect by the precedent which he and his friends had quoted or even by the case of New Zealand. Would he not adopt similar words to those in the New Zealand Act of 1900? They would meet the case. The New Zealand Act provided in regard to the improvements on land by the expenditure of capital or labour by any owner or occupier that they must be such as to increase the value of the land and be unexhausted at the time of valuation. That was so fair that he hoped he would persuade the right hon. Gentleman to adopt it. Amendment proposed to the Bill—

    "In page 3, line 17, to leave out from the word 'of,' to the end of Subsection (1) of Clause 3, and insert the words 'all improvements in, under, or upon lands and heritages or treatment thereof, so as to equip them for occupation or use, without prejudice to the above generality,inter alia,buildings, erections, or structures of whatever nature in, on, or under the soil, fixed or attached machinery, reclamation, embanking, levelling, subsoiling, trenching, planting, clearing, cultivation, provision of water supply, drainage or sewerage, and formation of roads, footpaths, or fences,'"
    —(Mr. Cochrane.)—instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words buildings, erections, or' stand part of the Bill."

    said it was extremely difficult to put these things into a category. He had gone over Colonial legislation on the subject. The language his hon. friend had used was of a comprehensive and far-reaching description. At first, he was rather alarmed by it, but on further acquaintance he accepted not a little from him and he went a step further on Report. He had felt constrained to add in reference to a certain view of drainage put before him by hon. Members a reference to the work of drainage as well as reclamation. Now he would go the length of taking out the reference to twenty years. He was a good deal constrained to that course by an observation which had fallen from his hon. friend in the course of a speech with reference to the annual valuation in each successive year. He felt the pinch of the argument that they would have to reckon back two decades every year in order to appreciate the remanent value of the improvement. And so he made no bones about it, but would delete the words, "where such work has been executed not more than twenty years preceding" and insert words "that the benefit of the improvement must be unexhausted at the time of valuation." That was all the length he felt inclined to go with regard to "structural improvements"; the term had been the subject of a mass of judicial decisions. He wished to rope in the benefit of that, and not to have a fresh crop of litigation, and so he used the phrase. That was the only substantial difference between them. He objected to the use of general terms like "cultivation of the land," because the idea of going back in a long developing history of the land to some machinery of the time when there was no cultivation applied to the land would be altogether out of the question. He thought, however, that when they saw all those things they were impressed on their memories as instances in which the benefit was unexhausted. In regard to a good many other things, the functions were sometimes executed by public authorities, and the value of the land was increased by railways being made through the territory at the public expense. It would never do to say that the value of that was to be taken from land. That was one of the elements of site value that they wanted to get at. At the proper time, when they reached line 20, as part of the arrangement that had been made, he proposed to move on his own responsibility that words should be added relating to the twenty years term.

    said the Lord Advocate had shown a desire to meet the views of his hon. friends in the views they had expressed. He rather disliked the long catalogue which they had, for human ingenuity was often liable to lapses, and it might turn out that there was something which had not been thought of which might turn up and make the provision invalid. The position seemed to him to be perfectly clear and simple and incapable of any misunderstanding. He realised that it was almost too late in the evening to go into it fully or for counsels of perfection, and as the Lord Advocate had endeavoured to meet the views of his hon. friend the discussion of that particular point need not go to any great length.

    said that this point, and the case of valuation, were the two main points raised on the Bill, and the Lord Advocate had now gone a long way to meet the criticisms raised in Committee. The New Zealand Act was the best basis to work on. He did not like long categories, but he thought that what was now proposed would cover the case. They were anxious to secure that agricultural land should receive the same reductions as urban land, and that object, he thought, would be fairly well achieved. Under the clause as it was to be amended they would, he believed, get nearer to the truth than they would have done by the Bill before it was amended.

    said that when they pointed out in Committee that there was one point on which the Select Committee was unanimous, that when they levied a rate they ought to exempt land reclaimed from the sea or from moss, the Lord Advocate promised to consider it. The question he now wanted to ask was whether such land was exempt by the words in the right hon. Gentleman's clause. The point which they raised in Committee was whether land which had been reclaimed was to be exempt or only the land where reclamation works existed on the land. Would that class of land become exempt as a result of those words? The right hon. Gentleman had promised to bring his faculties to bear before the Report stage and he wished to know whether he had considered the matter and whether those words covered the situation.

    said he had considered the point. The work of reclamation might be taken to include reclaimed land.

    *

    moved an Amendment to exempt from rating improvements other than structural improvements, as for example, irrigation works, roads, and hedges. He reminded the House that the essence of the Bill was to take from the land the charge on improvements, and he could not see why all improvements should not be free from rating instead of only structural improvements. If they tool a concrete case he could make his meaning clear. If a man made a road over his land and increased the value of that land by that road, because the road was not building or erection or a structural improvement he would have to pay increased rates. It was an improvement, for if the road was made the land was more valuable, and yet if that Bill passed with the word "structural" in the clause the man who had made the road and improved his land by making that road would be forcing his own rates up. Then again the case was quoted earlier in the debate of irrigation works. If a man brought water to his land he largely improved the value of the land, and yet if that clause passed he would still be rated on the improvements he had made. Surely there was no reason at all and no ground in logic or fairness why structural improvements should be in a Better position than all other improvements. He thought the case on behalf of roads and irrigation works raised the case so clearly that he need say no more.

    seconded. Amendment proposed—

    "In page 3, line 17, to leave out the word 'structural.'"
    —(Mr. Hills.) Question proposed, "That the word 'structural' stand part of the Bill."

    said he would not detain the House by repeating the arguments which he had already used in regard to the point that had been raised. If they took out the word "structural" they would get away from the clear legally defined position and get back to such terms as "cultivation" and that would involve them in many difficulties.

    hoped that when they had explained their views to the Lord Advocate he would add considerably to the very short statement which he had given to the House. The right hon. Gentleman could never have treated the Amendment in the very brief way in which he had done if he had followed what was in the mind of the mover of the Amendment. The Lord Advocate declined to leave out the word "structural" because structural improvements were defined by a great number of judicial decisions. The Lord Advocate would have enlightened the House, and perhaps have enabled them to close the discussion, if he had told them what the effect of those legal decisions was. They were not all lawyers, and they were in grave doubt as to what would be the result of the clause if it were passed in the form in which the Lord Advocate asked them to accept it. He hoped in the absence of the Lord Advocate the Solicitor-General would answer his questions. Was farm accommodation made by the landowner or tenant a structural improvement, or was it not? Was a road, not a public road made by the public authority, but an accommodation road for the farm made by either the owner or occupier or their predecessors, a structural improvement? Were fences and hedges structural improvements? In the ordinary meaning of language, as used by laymen, he did not think a road or a hedge or a fence was a structural improvement, but were they structural improvements by legal decision? Were subsoil and drainage structural improvements? Lastly, he had an illustration which was frequently seen in the Down Country and the South of England. Were cemented ponds on the high ground to provide watering places for sheep structural improvements? To the lay mind it would appear that none of those were structural improvements but they were all very valuable improvements which they ought to encourage and not discourage. Were they included by legal decision in the definition of structural improvements? If they were not, he strongly suggested to the Lord Advocate that he should alter the wording of his clause so as to improve it. He did not for a moment suggest that the landowner should get the advantage of the improved value created by a public authority, but only of the improvements of that character made by himself. He would be quite satisfied if words were put in limiting the application of the Amendment to cases of that kind.

    pointed out that the Act of 1895 said, "has made or acquired erections or structural improvements." He thought the House would agree that he had gone much further in his definition than that. In regard to the category of these things, he was partly led into making that long catalogue by an endeavour to follow the lead given by the Opposition. The decisions he had referred to had been given in regard to the exact language, "structural improvements," as used in the statute of 1895. There were, he thought, about a score of those decisions. He hoped the House would forgive him if he had not the details in his head, but he thought that most of the points which had been raised were covered. Reference had been made to the case of a pond. In the case of an ordinary pond, where the soil might be porous, and cement had to be used, there was no doubt in his mind that it would be a structural improvement on the land; but he did not think that a hedge would be considered a structural improvement. He hoped his hon. friends opposite would not think that when they had drawn up a catalogue there were not here and there little points which might be matters of distinction and difference. On the whole, however, a line must be drawn, and the line drawn here was one justified by suggestions made and by the lead given in the statute of 1895.

    thought that there was some little misapprehension. He believed there was no substantial difference on this point between the Front Bench opposite and the Opposition. He understood the theory of the Government to be that what was to be rated was the unimproved land. That was the whole theory of the Bill. The Lord Advocate now told them that by unimproved land he did not mean land without hedges and roads. Land with roads—which sometimes were very costly—with hedges was still unimproved land in the language of the Government. He did not think the Government could mean that. If they did it would destroy the whole theoretical basis of the Bill, which meant the taxation of unimproved land. He suggested that the Lord Advocate gained nothing by introducing the word "structural." He had introduced it, on his own admission, because a good many important decisions had been given on what the word "structural" meant, and if they put in other words they would probably have to obtain a good many other expensive decisions. If they introduced the word "structural" then, by the admission of the Government themselves, the Government Bill ceased to carry out the Government policy. The Government policy was to tax what was unimproved; the Government Bill deliberately taxed what they themselves, admitted to be unimproved. He would have thought—though the Lord Advocate took another view—that a pond could not have been described, even in law, as a structure; but perhaps it was so if it had a clay or cement bottom. He earnestly suggested to the Government that they might meet the clearly reasonable view of his hon. friend and leave out the word "structural." He thought the matter was a very simple one and that they ought not to be divided in opinion about it.

    said that certainly this matter appealed very strongly to him, and he was very anxious to part with the Bill in the spirit in which he had all through endeavoured to conduct it. He did not think that substantially there was anything between them in the matter, but he was afraid that the word "improvements" would introduce a very much more exhaustive catalogue of inquiries as to what had been done than would be useful. If, however, it would suit his hon. friends opposite that he should leave out the word "structural," he was quite prepared to do so, and he hoped that would partly meet their objection.

    pointed out that there were one or two items like hedge, house, and ditch which were omitted under this arbitrary classification. What was really wanted was that the assessors should be able to allow for any improvement which was unexhausted at the time of the valuation. If they could get that and rating on the unimproved pastoral value, they would really have the whole thing in simple words. He dared say that in a roundabout way they had come to the same conclusion, but it could, in his opinion, have been more directly expressed. Amendments agreed to. Amendment proposed—

    "In page 3, line 19, at end, to insert the words 'of drainage and.'"
    "In page 3, to delete lines 21 and 22, and to insert the words 'where the benefit thereof is unexhausted at the time of valuation."
    Amendments agreed to.

    moved, in page 3, line 23, to leave out from the word "sold" to the word "building," in line 24, and to insert the words "subject to all public burdens and." He said that he rose with a certain amount of hope that his right hon. friend would consider this point which he had previously brought under his notice in Grand Committee. The hypothetical land values under the Bill would be of no use whatever for rating if the land was valued free from public burdens. Did anyone, he would like to know, ever hear of land being offered for sale free from public burdens? It was a perfectly absurd and ludicrous proposal. He was sure that if the Lord Advocate looked at the matter in a proper light he would see that if he was wanted to make his clause anything like perfect he should accept the Amendment.

    seconded. Amendment proposed to the Bill—

    "In page 3, line 23, to leave out from the word 'sold,' to the word 'building,' in line 24, and insert the words 'subject to all public burdens and.'"
    —(Mr. Younger.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

    said that the Government, of course, could not accept the Amendment, but it was perfectly plain that they must get, to begin with, the unimproved value of land. All public burdens might be changed subsequent to this Bill's becoming law, and a new tax might be substituted for unimproved value. In any case they must get the unimproved value by itself before they reckoned the burdens against it. They wanted to get the thing settled before deduction began.

    said he did not know that it was worth while putting the House to the trouble of dividing on this point. He thought the Lord Advocate must see that if the new column he hoped to add to the valuation roll of Scotland was based on the value he required there would be a totally fictitious idea given to the public of what the value of those lands was. Much as he deplored it he was not sure that it was possible for them to correct it in any way.

    said the matter was really important and the Lord Advocate had let the cat out of the bag. He pointed out very truly what he (Mr. Younger) did not say himself, that he did not know what the new burden was to be. Nobody knew, and that was the difficulty. If it had been an existing burden he was going to value it would be easily done, but if it was to be instead 5s., 30s., 40s., or 50s., it was clearly difficult, and the Lord Advocate had very astutely provided against it. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    moved, "in page 3, line 24, to leave out from the word "servitudes," to the end of Subsection 2. The provision contained a proposal to invest the assessor with duties of a judicial character which had not been demanded before—for which, as a general rule, he was by no means fit. The subsection made him both a judge and an interpreter of motive. These were hardly functions to entrust to an ordinary assessor. To take such a course might act very prejudicially to a locality, for instance, if restrictions established for the benefit of the locality were not taken into account in judging the value. Amendment proposed—

    "In page 3, line 24, to leave out from the word 'servitudes,' to end of Subsection (2) of Clause 3."—(Sir Henry Craik.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'Provided that where' stand part of the Bill."

    hoped his hon. friend would not press the Amendment. The words were approved by the universal consent of the Committee. The proviso was simply that they were not going to have anything which was notbona fide, anything which was set up by way of restriction after the passing of the Act in order to defeat its object.

    said that with regard to that they had put in words giving an appeal to persons aggrieved. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    moved to leave out the words "the assessor considers." He agreed with the Lord Advo- cate that there should be a check upon any restriction created to defeat the Act, and his point was that the proviso as to the assessor considering would be used asprima facie evidence in the case of appeal, which it would be thrown upon the appellant to rebut. It was for the assessor to show that the restriction had been put there and was created to defeat the Act. Amendment proposed—

    "In page 3, line 25, to leave out the words 'the assessor considers that.'"—(Mr. J. M. Henderson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

    said that this was manifestly a drafting Amendment with no substance in it. There was no question as to the onus of proof. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    moved to add the words, 'Provided always that in estimating the capital land value of lands and heritages due regard shall be had to all existing leases or contracts affecting same. Provided also that in estimating such capital land value regard shall be had to the effect upon such capital value of intended taxation or rating. In assessing the value of unbuilt-on land within municipal boundaries due regard shall be had to the extent of the average yearly demand for such land for building purposes and of the total amount of such land available.'" When this was before the Committee, the Lord Advocate said he would consider part of this Amendment, and there was some talk of giving some directions to the assessors as to how they should proceed. The Bill did not contain any such directions and that was why he had put down the Amendment. The point he made with regard to the matter was this. Suposing they had three houses in a street which was an improved street and the lease of one house expired, and there still remained an unexpired term of seven years in the case of the next house, and twenty years in the case of the next. These three houses, if they were on free land, would be of exactly the same value. Was the assessor to value the one which was free to be sold at the selling price of the others and at the selling price subject to the restrictions of so many years' purchase of the net rental? With regard to the effect on rating, when they were dealing with unbuilt-on land they were asking the assessor to place a value upon the land as it at present stood, and he imagined he would proceed in this way. Here was an acre of land which was let at agricultural value for £2 a year. "That land," the assessor would say, "will very soon be built on, perhaps in five years. The speculative builder on the chance of its growing to that value will give you £300. I will assess you at £300." If that man had to pay taxes of 10, 15, or 20 per cent. on that value every year, the value would cease to be £300. That was the point. If they valued on these lines they would get a value which the moment they put on the estimated tax would be destroyed. It was the first time in the history of the House that a Valuation Bill had gone without a Rating Bill. They could not value unless they knew what rating there was going to be. No one could value land unless they knew what the rate was that they were going to pay. A piece of property might be worth £1,000 on the present rating, but if they were going to put a special rate on it they might bring the value down to £200 or £300. His last point was that due regard should be given to the extent of the average yearly demand for land for building purposes out of the total amount of land available in the district. He thought the Lord Advocate had promised him something in regard to that point. That day they had had instances quoted of towns where there were thousands of acres, and all those thousands of acres were valued as though they were ripe for building purposes. They had heard that of the amount of land in Edinburgh only fifteen acres a year were consumed while in Glasgow the amount was sixty acres. As there were 3,000 acres of land in Edinburgh, and 5,000 or 6,000 acres in Glasgow they saw what it meant. He hoped the Lord Advocate would undertake that an Instruction should be added to the Bill in some way or other, limiting the assessor to consider first of all the leases and contracts and their effect on the value, and secondly, that regard should be had to the average amount of acreage consumed during an average of say the last five years. Amendment proposed—

    "In page 3, line 30, at end, to add the words, 'Provided always that in estimating the capital land value of land and heritages due regard shall be had to all existing leases or contracts affecting same. Provided also, that in estimating such capital land value regard shall be had to the effect upon such capital value of intended taxation or rating. In assessing the value of unbuilt-on land within municipal boundaries due regard shall be had to the extent of the average yearly demand for such land for building purposes and of the total amount of such land available.'"—(Mr. J. M. Henderson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

    said he could hardly conceive that any one of the three elements could be included. As regarded the assessment of market value they could not possibly be expected to accept the suggestion. There might be political and all kinds of other considerations, but the general feature in regard to taxation and rating was that market value should certainly be an element. They were asked to consider the yearly average demand for land for building purposes out of the total amount of land available. If his hon. friend had wished to put an end to the usefulness of the Bill he could not have chosen a better way.

    said he did not see that he could do anything else. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    moved the following provisio. "Provided that if any lands and heritages are used for occupation as residences by the working classes and are of a suitable character for that purpose the capital value of such lands and heritages shall be the capital value of the land for the purposes of such occupation.'" He said that it was an extremely important Amendment, and he thought it was so reasonable and would so meet what he conceived to be the opinion of the Lord Advocate that the right hon. Gentleman would see fit to accept it.

    seconded. Amendment proposed—

    "In page 3, line 30, at the end, to insert the words 'Provided that if any lands and heritages are used for occupation as residences by the working classes and are of a suitable character for that purpose, the capital value of such lands and heritages shall be the capital value of the land for the purposes of such occupation.'"—(Mr. Younger.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

    said that in so far as his hon. friend intended it to be a mere surface Amendment his proposal was all right, but in so far as it would imply more than the hon. Member intended it would be very dangerous. What the hon. Member meant to say was that where the land was used for the residences of the working classes it should be valued as such. That was perfectly right, but there might be many cases in which there was available land opened up for the better class of working-class houses, and where there would be congested districts which it might be desirable to acquire. One could quote a crop of cases in which this most kindly proposal would do the greatest injury. He thought that no harm would be done by leaving the assessor to take a general valuation, and the case being set out that it was a reasonable use to which the land was put, they would get rid of the proviso which might be dangerous.

    thought that the Lord Advocate could surely see that something was necessary to remove the obvious danger the Bill might impose in regard to the working classes who lived in the centre of some of our great towns. There was always a great danger that the value of sites in towns would cause those whom it was important should live near their work to be driven out. He believed that in some cases the difficulty could be met by housing the working classes outside the towns and providing cheap and good means of travel. But that could not always be done, and if they left the Bill as it was they would undoubtedly rate the land on which working class houses now stood at so high a rate that it would have to be used for other purposes. If they rated the land as though warehouses instead of working class dwellings were erected on it the owner would have to erect warehouses or other buildings of great value on it. The Lord Advocate had told them that the assessor would be quite content if the use to which the land was put was a proper use. That was not the explanation given by that Bill. The Solicitor-General told them that one object of the Bill was to force the owner of the land to put it to the most profitable use, going, he presumed, on the assumption that the most profitable use to a man was the most profitable use to the community. In the centre of a town he did not think the most profitable use for a site would be the erection of working class dwellings. In the case of a big London landlord who, in order to help the a working classes, had deliberately used some of working land for housing, instead of turning it to use for vast commercial buildings, the object of that Bill, which was to turn the land to the greatest possible profitable use, would result in the working classes being driven out of the centre of the city. It could not be desirable for the working classes all to be driven out of the centre of the city. He thought that aspect of the Bill had not been faced by the Government. He could not think that the valuer would rate that land as though the creation of working class dwellings was the most profitable use to which it could be put. The assessor was obliged to value the site at what it would fetch in the open market for a railway station, warehouse, or something of that character. That was clearly the case, and he was certain that if the Government did not try to avoid that obvious evil they would be leaving a deficiency in the Bill which would have disastrous results in connection with the housing problem. He thought that the effect of the Bill on the housing problem would be very bad, and he thought that either that or some other Amendment should be accepted before the Bill left that House.

    said they thought that one of the advantages of the Bill was that it would provide more valuable land forinter alia the building of working class houses. He easily figured for himself the case of a railway station, the case of a public hall, or even the case of an open space, in which land would be held up against a public purpose under the guise of this apparently most charitably disposed Amendment. Protected by a proviso of this kind, working class houses would be kept there, although there was other available land and although they could not condemn it as being unsuitable for the purpose. The displacement of the working classes was not forced upon them As a matter of fact they left the costly sites in the centre of the city, which were bound to be built over, in order to avail themselves of the better and cheaper conditions which were to be secured on the outskirts of great towns.

    said that he was sorry that he must press this Amendment to a division. He moved these words in order to prevent the very thing which the right hon. Gentleman had just been talking about, because he objected to the working classes being thrust, as it were, from one zone of a city to another. It was essential for these people to be near their business, though of course in some cases, where there were convenient tramways, they might be able to live on the outskirts. The Government, however, were ruthless on the subject, and they said that if men could not live on a dear piece of land they must go somewhere else. Question put. The House divided:—Ayes, 36; Noes, 170. (Division List No. 447.)

    AYES.
    Acland-Hood, RtHn.SirAlex. F.Craig, CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S.Long, Rt. Hn.Walter(Dublin,S.
    Ashley, W. W.Craik, Sir HenryPease, HerbertPike(Darlington
    Balfour, RtHn.A.J.(City Lond.Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. AkersRemnant, James Farquharson
    Barrie, H. T.(Londonderry, N.)Everett, R. LaceyRoberts, S. (Sheffield,Ecclesall)
    Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicksFetherstonhaugh, GodfreyRonaldshay, Earl of
    Bridgeman, W. CliveForster, Henry WilliamSloan, Thomas Henry
    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
    Carlile, E. HildredGretton, JohnThomson,W.Mitchell-(Lanark)
    Cavendish, Rt.Hon VictorC.W.Hamilton, Marquess of
    Cecil, Lord John P. JoiceyHarris, Frederick LevertonTELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
    Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.A(Worc.Harrison-Broadley, H. B.Younger and Sir William
    Cheetham, John FrederickHills, J. W.Bull.
    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.Hunt, Rowland
    Courthope, G. LoydLaw, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)
    NOES.
    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)Cherry, Rt. Hon. R.R.Elibank, Master of
    Ainsworth, John StirlingChurchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.Erskine, David C.
    Ambrose, RobertClough, WilliamEssex, R. W.
    Asquith, Rt.Hn.HerbertHenryClynes, J. R.Esslemont, George Birnie
    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W.Farrell, James Patrick
    Barnard, E. B.Condon, Thomas JosephFenwick, Charles
    Barnes, G. N.Cooper, G. J.Ferguson, R. C. Munro
    Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)Corbett,C.H(Sussex,E.Grinst'dFfrench, Peter
    Beaumont, Hon. HubertCraig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)Field, William
    Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.Crooks, WilliamFlavin, Michael Joseph
    Birrell, Rt. Hon. AugustineCrossley, William J.Fuller, John Michael F.
    Bowerman, C. W.Cullinan, J.Gill, A. H.
    Brace, WilliamDelany, WilliamGinnell, L.
    Branch, JamesDevlin, JosephGlover, Thomas
    Brodie, H. C.Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)Goddard, Daniel Ford
    Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs.,Leigh)Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras,N.Gulland, John W.
    Burke, F. HavilandDonelan, Captain A.Gwynn, Stephen Lucius
    Burns, Rt. Hon. JohnDuffy, William J.Halpin, J.
    Byles, William PollardDuncan,C. (Barrow-in-Furness)Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)
    Carr-Gomm, H. W.Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)Haworth, Arthur A.
    Chance, Frederick WilliamEdwards, Clement (Denbigh)Hayden, John Patrick

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.Menzies, WalterRowlands, J.
    Hazleton, RichardMontgomery, H. G.Russell, T. W.
    Healy, Timothy MichaelMooney, J. J.Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
    Helme, Norval WatsonMorrell, PhilipScott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne
    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)Murphy, John (Kerry, East)Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
    Henry, Charles S.Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)Sheehy, David
    Higham, John SharpNicholls, GeorgeSilcock, Thomas Ball
    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.Nolan, JosephSimon, John Allsebrook
    Hogan, MichaelNorton, Capt. Cecil WilliamSinclair, Rt. Hon. John
    Holt, Richard DurningO'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMidSmyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.
    Howard, Hon. GeoffreyO'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)Stanley, Albert (Staffs. N.W.)
    Illingworth, Percy H.O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)
    Johnson, John (Gateshead)O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)Strachey, Sir Edward
    Jowett, F. W.O'Doherty, PhilipStrauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
    Joyce, MichaelO'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)Summerbell, T.
    Kekewich, Sir GeorgeO'Grady, J.Taylor, John W. (Durham)
    Kennedy, Vincent PaulO'Malley, WilliamTennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury
    Kilbride, DerisO'Shee, James JohnToulmin, George
    Lamont, NormanParker, James (Halifax)Trevelyan, Charles Philips
    Lardner, James Carrige RushePaulton, James MellorUre, Alexander
    Lewis, John HerbertPearce, Robert (Staffs Leek)Vivian, Henry
    Lough, ThomasPearson,W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)Walsh, Stephen
    Lundon, W.Pixie, Duncan V.Ward,W.Dudley (Southampton
    Mackarness, Frederic C.Power, Patrick JosephWaring, Walter
    MacNeill, John Gordon SwiftPrice,C.E. (Edinburgh,Central)Waterlow, D. S.
    Macpherson, J. T.Radford, G. H.Wedgwood, Josiah C.
    MacVeagh Jeremiah (Down,S.)Rainy, A. RollandWhite, J. D. (Dumbartonshire
    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E.Reddy, M.White, Patrick (Meath, North)
    M`Callum, John M.Redmond, John E. (Waterford)Whitehead, Rowland
    M`Crae, GeorgeRedmond, William (Clare)Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
    M`Hugh, Patrick A.Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'thWiles, Thomas
    M`Kean, JohnRichards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'nWilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
    M'Killop, W.Rickett, J. ComptonWilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
    Maddison, FrederickRoberts, G. H. (Norwich)
    Manfield, Harry (Northants)Robertson,SirG.Scott(BradfordTELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
    Markham, Arthur BasilRobertson, J. M. (Tyneside)Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
    Meehan, Patrick A.Robinson, S.

    said he would be glad, with the consent of the House, to take the Third Reading of the Bill now. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

    said it would be absolute cruelty to the House if he were to endeavour to inflict on them a survey of the Bill at that hour, after they had been discussing it for eleven hours and a half. He would therefore content himself with saying that there could not be a more striking illustration, as he thought, of the scandalous way in which the Government had endeavoured this session to force Bills of the utmost difficulty and importance through the House under conditions in which any kind of adequate discussion was wholly impossible. Any impartial person who had heard the debate that night would admit that there never had been a discussion of a more businesslike character, dealing, he might say rapidly, with many very difficult points. This was absolutely the first and only time when they had been allowed to have this important Bill in its details before the whole House. In these circumstances, for the Government to come down and ask them to read the Bill a third time on the same night was, he thought, a most flagrant outrage upon the proper procedure of the House of Commons. That outrage was indeed mitigated, though it was far from being atoned for, by the courtesy with which the learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill had conducted this difficult discussion. He was sure if they could penetrate the right hon. Gentleman's secret thoughts, he (the Lord Advocate) knew as well as, if not better than, any man now in the House the far-reaching consequences which the Bill would have with regard to the whole social conditions of the country. It would be hopeless for him to deal further with the matter now, but he should most certainly challenge a division on the Third Reading.

    said he wished to offer one word in answer to the observations which had just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He thanked the Leader of the Opposition for the kindly reference to himself, and certainly he (the Lord Advocate) had nothing at all to complain of in the way in which observations of his had been treated on the other side of the House. He thought, however, it was somewhat hard after piloting this Bill through the House to its present stage that he should be told that the procedure on the Bill had been a scandalous procedure.

    continuing, said he took exception to what had been said in regard to the policy of the Government in, so to speak, hustling this Bill. He would like to recall to the House the occasions on which the Bill had been under consideration. There was a pretty full statement made on the First Reading and there was a very long debate on the Second Reading. Then they had four days in the Grand Committee on this Bill, and he was pleased to say it was discussed there without the closure ever being applied. On the present occasion the only time closure had been employed was after hours had been occupied on one Amendment. It was pretty hard to hear of hustling and scandalous procedure after that. In conclusion, in moving the Third Reading of the Bill he had no desire to go over ground which he covered both on the First and Second Reading. They knew quite well that this was not the first Bill on the subject. They knew quite well the principle of the Bill had been ratified and approved by the House over and over again. The history of the measure could be stated in a single sentence. In 1902 a Bill with that principle was rejected by seventy-one, in 1903 a Bill with that principle was rejected by thirteen, in 1904 a Bill with that principle was approved by sixty-seven, in 1905 a Bill with that principle was approved by ninety; and the present Bill was approved by 258 of a majority. That was the Parliamentary history of the measure, and it showed that they were not importing or hustling any new ideas through the House. The truth was they had adopted without the slightest thought of scandalous procedure, the correct course, even at that late stage of the session, of yielding points where they could be yielded, making concessions where they could be made, and in every way accommodating themselves to the general sense of the House.

    said he had no intention of intervening at that stage of the Bill, but he could not allow the observations of the right hon. Gentleman to pass without a word of comment and a word of correction. He would like to preface his observations by saying that nothing he said was in any way directed against the right hon. Gentleman's conduct of the Bill or to be taken as dissenting from the tribute paid to him with the full assent of his followers by the Leader of the Opposition. But what was the history of the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman said that a full statement was made on the First Reading. It was introduced under the ten minutes rule. He said it was debated at great length on the Second Reading. It was debated for one day. Was the Bill of importance or not? Was it a measure which in the opinion of its authors was going to have considerable results? It had been declared again and again that it was. Ten minutes on the First Reading and one day on the Second Reading was much less than the House had been accustomed to allot to the consideration of a measure of considerable importance. Then they came to the Committee stage which took place upstairs, so that the House had no opportunity of making themselves acquainted either with the objects of the Government or of the defence they made of the various provisions of the Bill. He ventured to say without fear of being proved to be wrong that the bulk of hon. Members who were not members of the Scottish Committee did not know at that moment what the Bill was and could not give an intelligible account of it. They had voted, not merely without having listened to the arguments, but without having any idea of the subject matter of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had then gone on to the Parliamentary history of the Bill and of other Bills the principle of which he stated had been confirmed by varying majorities on several occasions on Second Reading. But those were not this Bill. Those who supported them had objects which were different and which those who had listened to or read the declaration of some Ministers of the present House would know were objects which the Government did not propose and which the Government did not intend to carry out. Apart from the fact that these Bills were not the same as that Bill he ventured to say they could not have a better illustration than the Billbefore the House of the value of discussion in detail by the whole House. He was quite certain that a very large number of those who outside that House would declare themselves in favour of the Bill if they were asked whether on its title they approved of it, would alter their opinion if they had access to the discussions in Committee upstairs which for a brief time that day had found an echo in the discussion of that House.

    Question put.

    The House divided:—Ayes, 172; Noes, 33. (Division List No. 445.)

    AYES.
    Abraham,William (Cork, N.E.)Esslemont, George BirnieM`Killop, W.
    Ainsworth, John StirlingEverett, R. LaceyMaddison, Frederick
    Ambrose, RobertFarrell, James PatrickManfield, Harry (Northants)
    Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert HenryFenwick, CharlesMarkham, Arthur Basil
    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)Ferguson, R. C. MunroMeehan, Patrick A.
    Barnard, E. B.French, PeterMenzies, Walter
    Barnes, G. N.Field, WilliamMontgomery, H. G.
    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)Flavin, Michael JosephMooney, J. J.
    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.)Fuller, John Michael F.Morrell, Philip
    Beaumont, Hon. HubertGill, A. H.Muldoon, John
    Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.Ginnell, L.Murphy, John (Kerry, East)
    Birrell, Rt. Hon. AugustineGlover, ThomasMurphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)
    Boland, JohnGoddard, Daniel FordNicholls, George
    Bowerman, C. W.Gulland, John W.Nolan, Joseph
    Brace, WilliamGwynn, Stephen LuciusNorton, Capt. Cecil William
    Branch, JamesHalpin, J.O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid
    Brodie, H. C.Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
    Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)Haworth, Arthur A.O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
    Burke, E. Haviland-Hazel, Dr. A. E.O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
    Burns, Rt. Hon. JohnHazleton, RichardO'Doherty, Philip
    Byles, William PollardHealy, Timothy MichaelO'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
    Carr-Gomm, H. W.Helme, Norval WatsonO'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
    Chance, Frederick WilliamHenderson, Arthur (Durham)O'Grady, J.
    Cheetham, John FrederickHenry, Charles S.O'Malley, William
    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.Higham, John SharpO'Shee, James John
    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.Hobhouse, Charles E. H.Parker, James (Halifax)
    Clancy, John JosephHogan, MichaelPaulton, James Mellor
    Clough, WilliamHolt, Richard DurningPearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)
    Clynes, J. R.Howard, Hon. GeoffreyPearson,W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)
    Collins, SirW. J.(S.Pancras,W.)Illingworth, Percy H.Pirie, Duncan V.
    Condon, Thomas JosephJohnson, John (Gateshead)Power, Patrick Joseph
    Cooper, G. J.Jowett, F. W.Price,C.E.(Edinburgh, Central)
    Corbett, C. H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'dKekewich, Sir GeorgeRadford, G. H.
    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)Kennedy, Vincent PaulRainy, A. Rolland
    Crooks, WilliamKilbride, DenisReddy, M.
    Crossley, William J.Lamont, NormanRedmond, John E. (Waterford)
    Cullinan, J.Lardner, James Carrige RusheRedmond, William (Clare)
    Delany, WilliamLewis, John HerbertRichards, Thomas (W.Monm'th
    Devlin, JosephLough, ThomasRichards. T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n
    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)Lundon, W.Rickett, J. Compton
    Dickinson, W.H. (St.Pancras,NMackarness, Frederic C.Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
    Donelan, Captain A.MacNeill, John Gordon SwiftRobertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd)
    Duffy, William J.Macpherson, J. T.Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
    Duncan,C. (Barrow-in-Furness)MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.Robinson, S.
    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E.Rowlands, J.
    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)M'Callum, John M.Russell, T. W.
    Elibank, Master ofM'Crae, GeorgeSamuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
    Erskine, David C.M`Hugh, Patrick A.Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne
    Essex, R. W.M`Kean, JohnShaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

    Sheehan, Daniel DanielTaylor, John W. (Durham)White, Patrick (Meath, North)
    Sheehy, DavidTaylor, John W. (Durham)Whitehead, Rowland
    Silcock, Thomas BallTaylor, John W. (Durham)Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. JohnTaylor, John W. (Durham)WilsonP. W (St. Pancras, S.)
    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.Taylor, John W. (Durham)Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
    Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.Walsh, Stephen
    Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh)Ward, W. Dudley (SouthamptonTELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
    Strachey, Sir EdwardWaring, WalterWhiteley and Mr. J. A.
    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)Waterlow, D.S.Pease.
    Summerbell. T.Wedgwood, Josiah C.
    NOES.Ashley, W. W.Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.Remnant, James Farquharson
    Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J.(City Lond.Craik, Sir HenryRoberts,S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall)
    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.)Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-Ronaldshay, Earl of
    Beach,Hn. Michael Hugh HicksFetherstonhaugh, GodfreySloan, Thomas Henry
    Bridgeman, W. CliveGibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
    Bull, Sir William JamesGretton, JohnThomas, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.Hamilton, Marquess ofYounger, George
    Carlile, E. HildredHarris, Frederick Leverton
    Cavendish, Rt. Hn. VictorC.W.Harrison-Broadley, H. B.TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
    Cecil, Lord Joh n P. Joicey-Hills, J. W.Alexander Acland-Hood and
    Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc.Hunt, RowlandMr. Forster.
    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.Long, Rt. Hn.Walter (Dublin,S
    Courthope, G. LoydPease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

    Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill

    Order for the consideration of the Lords Amendments read.

    said that although at that hour of the morning and that period of the session any man who said a single unnecessary word was in his judgment an enemy of the human race, he was sure that he could only save the time he was anxious to save if permission was given to him then to state shortly the general course the Government intended to ask the House to take with regard to the Lords Amendments. Some of the Amendments they saw their way to ask the House to accept, either as made or subject to slight alteration. They were willing that the duration of the Act, so far as it conferred powers for the acquisition of land and for the determination of tenancies, should be restricted to four years. The Lords suggested a period of three years. That was a substantial agreement with one of the Lords Amendments, and there were others which they could agree with. But there were other Amendments which were wholly incompatible with the main object of the Bill. Unless they could by legislation accelerate the process of reinstating the evicted tenants, the Bill was worse than worthless, because it excited hopes which were incapable of realisation. As an example of that kind of Amendment, he asked the House to consider the Lords Amendment to leave out the Government's subsection of Clause 1, and to insert words of their own. The Bill as it left this House proposed to allow the Estates Commissioners, if they thought it expedient, to acquire land for the purposes of the Act if they offered the owner a fair market price. They had therefore only to consider what was expedient, whether they needed the land or not, and then they were to offer a fair market price. But the Lords had inserted as a substitution for their words, words which were of a somewhat extraordinary character, for they provided that the Estates Commissioners were only to have the power compulsorily if they were unable to acquire by agreement and on reasonable terms suitable land for the purposes of that Act. Under that Amendment, whenever the Estates Commissioners wanted to take a piece of land, it would be open to the landlord to contest the point in a Court of Law, and to allege that they might have acquired suitable land if only they had offered a suitable price for it. There was not an acre of land in Ireland that was not sellable tomorrow at what some people appeared to think was a suitable price. The Amendment of the Lords, followed as it was by subsequent Amendments, rendered an appeal not only possible, but probable, and almost certainly in every case counsel for the landlord would go and say they could get suitable land at a suitable price. That opened up a vista of litigation which would shock even an attorney's clerk. The cost of this litigation must be borne either by the Treasury or by the unfortunate man who ultimately found himself restored. He was to be restored as a purchaser, to pay a purchase annuity extending over sixty-eight and a half years, and a great portion of the costs were to be heaped on the price of the land. The Lords had also gone on to say that the price was to be compensation, and by compensation they meant compensation as defined by the Lands Clauses Act of 1845. The Lords were not content even with that. Not only had the man to pay compensation under that Act—the full market value, plus 10 per cent. for compulsory sale, and the bonus under the Purchase Act of 1903—but also arrears of rent. perhaps owing for twenty-five years. The last lot of the evicted tenant restored on these terms would be worse than his first. The lot of an evicted tenant restored on those terms would be so bad that it would be better for him to be a beggar by the wayside than to be a purchase owner burdened with such annuity as had to be charged on the land if these things were to be thrown upon it. Sooner than allow such an Amendment to be passed, the Government would abandon the Bill, because it would not be of any use. If honesty demanded these terms, it would have been far better for the Lords to say at once that they would reject the Bill on its Second Reading, instead of encumbering it with terms of this impossible nature. The whole object of the Bill was to enable the Estates Commissioners to have compulsory powers. They could go on restoring slowly but surely the evicted tenants under the operation of the Act of 1903, but in the interest of law and order and justice some speedy process should be discovered. The Bill was conceived and introduced and was not very hardly opposed because it was recognised that some speedier process was necessary. That was one of the Amendments which it was impossible for the Government to accept. There were other Amendments of an important kind which they could not accept but they were able to suggest some improvements of their own. Those Amendments were of an important character. They related chiefly to whether or not there was to be an appeal. The appeal might be on several subjects. The first question was that of appeal as to the value of the land; as to whether the Estates Commissioners could afford full market value for the land. He would not go back upon the opinion he had held all along, but in a case of this sort he contended that an appeal to a Judge was not necessarily involved in the justice of the case. They were considering the value of the land. An appeal from the Estates Commissioners and their valuers to the Judge was very much as if they were to appeal as to the value of a racehorse from the Jockey Club to Convocation. They were men who knew more about the subject and had better means of informing themselves than the Judges could possibly have. It was impossible for the Government to agree with Lord Atkinson's Amendment. It was perfectly impossible having regard to the prevailing reasons in their minds for them to agree with the Amendment. But, notwithstanding, the Government were perfectly willing by way of coming to terms with their adversary quickly in this matter that there should be an appeal on value, and they suggested an appeal from the Estates Commissioners to a Judge of the High Court who was a Judicial Commissioner at the present moment—Mr. Justice Wylie. He hoped they would not, in fact he knew they would not, have any imputation whatever upon the high character, learning, and impartiality of the learned Judge. He was in no sense of the word a tenants' man, he did not know that he was in any sense a landlords' man, but he believed Mr. Justice Wylie was as honourable and impartial a Judge as could be found in the three Kingdoms. Therefore, the Government were willing—although he did not think this one of those matters on which an appeal was of the essence of justice—there should be an appeal to him on the question of value. Under the Government Amendment there would be power of really rehearing the case and of directing any testimony thought necessary to be called in for information on the facts of the case. Then there was another kind of appeal. There were questions in Clause 6 of appeal. Clause 6 put restrictions upon the acquisition of land and said to the Estates Commissioners that they shall not acquire land compulsorily if it foamed demesne land. The House of Lords had added the words "town parks." The Government did not object to that addition, or if it was a garden and a number of other restrictions. On mixed questions of fact and law the Government proposed there should be an appeal to the same learned Judge. Therefore, there would be in these respects a sufficient Court of Appeal. The only other question was that with regard to the new tenant or "planter" as he had been called. The Government could not, of course, agree with the Amendment of Lord Robertson, who practically provided that any planter should not under any circumstances ever be asked to quit, because the noble Lord said nobody shall be asked to quit who is abona-fide tenant. Everybody was abona-fide tenant if he was a tenant at all. Everybody in Ireland using or cultivating the land was an ordinary farmer. They could hardly imagine a person in the occupation of land as a tenant who was not, at all events in the opinion of most people, an ordinary farmer tilling the land in a husbandlike manner. The word "husbandlike" in that connection had no particular sense, and therefore he could not agree with the Amendment. In his opinion the justice of the case did not in any sense require the Amendment. Having regard to the language of the Government's own clause, which enabled the Estates Commissioners to take into consideration all the circumstances of the holding, of the district, and of the cost involved, any fear of any person being improperly asked to go was a purely imaginary one, but the Government were willing to associate with the Estates Commissioners in regard to the question whether or not the planter was to go, the Judicial Commissioner himself. Therefore, if in the opinion of the Judicial Commissioner the planter ought not to be asked to go he could not be asked to go. He (Mr. Birrell) thought the Government had in all these respects, the questions of value, in questions of fact, in mixed questions of fact and law, and in the question of the planter, given an appeal which ought to satisfy the House.

    Do I understand that what you propose requires the planter to come up before the Judicial Commissioner, and that the veto is to rest with him?

    said that without the consent of the Judicial Commissioner the planter would not be obliged to go. There would be the same right of appeal as there was regarding fair rents under the Act of 1881. That was the nature of the appeal they proposed to give with regard to mixed questions of fact and law. If the parties desired Mr. Justice Wylie to state a case, or to allow an appeal from them on questions of mixed facts and law, that might be done. There always was in the Bill an appeal on questions of law, first to the Judicial Commissioner and afterwards to the Court of Appeal, and he thought in those cases they had met the demand. He did not know that he would be justified in detaining the House any further at that stage. They must go through the various Amendments, but he did not think any of them would be found to give rise to any considerable amount of debate, or disturbance of mind on the part of anybody, except those relating to the appeals which the Government proposed to allow.

    said he was grateful to the Chief Secretary for the remark he made at the commencement of his speech. As it was now four o'clock, every body would realise that it was very difficult to deal with the Amendments in a complete and adequate manner, because until that moment they had no knowledge of what course the Government proposed to take with regard to them. He had even been unable to obtain a copy of the Bill in its latest form, and therefore there was great difficulty in following the statement which the Chief Secretary had made. That difficulty could be very well appreciated by those who had been called upon to examine the effect of suggestions made by Ministers. He thought the position in which they found themselves showed a singular want of power on the part of the Government to manage the business of the House, and he considered it was odd that the Government had not found it possible in the days yet remaining before the session came to a close to allow time for the discussion of these Amendments at an ordinary period of the day when hon. Members would have had more energy than they had now to devote to their consideration. With regard to the statement made by the Chief Secretary, it seemed to him that through the whole of it there ran a prevailing notion that the whole aim and object of this Bill was urgency. The Chief Secretary appeared to think that rapidity were essential, in order to meet this so-called demand, and, in order to secure this rapidity, anything and everything was to be sacrificed, any risk of injustice was to be run, and any risk was to be taken of inflicting on innocent persons an injury which they ought not to be called upon to bear. The Chief Secretary seemed to think that the people who might have to suffer the injustice—the landlords whose land might be taken away in order to provide farms for these evicted tenants—were men who in some way or other were to blame for the position in which they found themselves. He ignored the fact that the men who in a large number of cases would have to suffer under this Bill if the Amendments to which he (the Chief Secretary) had referred were rejected were men in no way responsible for the evicted tenants. Therefore, when the Chief Secretary made a comparison, as he did in reference to the general scheme of Amendments, between the existing law as regards purchase and this Bill he (Mr. Long) submitted that he made a comparison which was in itself altogether fallacious. This Bill had no precedent in Irish land legislation or in any of the other land legislation of the United Kingdom. He was not saying anything of the remarkable collection of Bills which they had had under consideration this session; but it was certain that there was absolutely nothing on the Statute-book to compare with the present Bill. It proposed to deal with a difficulty which they were told was very urgent. From declarations made by the Government themselves, the House knew that the number of tenants desiring reinstatement had grown with startling rapidity since the present Government came into office. The Chief Secretary was prepared to accept a limitation of four years in the operation of the Bill, but they on the Opposition side profoundly regretted that he did not make up his mind not to make two bites at a cherry and accept the limitation in the Bill as it left the House of Lords. If the statements from the Front Bench opposite and from the very few people on the other side of the House who had supported the Bill during the discussions were based on well-ascertained information, three years would be ample time in which to deal with the number of tenants whom it was proposed to reinstate under the Bill. The Chief Secretary had not told them whether he proposed to accept the Amendment which the House of Lords had placed in the Bill limiting the number of the tenants who were to be dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman had been very severe about the alteration in phraseology made in Clause 1, and had poured a great deal of contempt on the suggestion that the Commissioners ought to be called upon to satisfy themselves that they could not get the land without having recourse to compulsory power. Then he said that land could be got to any extent in Ireland at a price which in the opinion of some people was a reasonable price. If there was any doubt as to the genesis of that view of the right hon. Gentleman and that part of the Bill that doubt would be removed by the cheers which greeted that statement from below the gangway. Let them consider what was the true meaning of the Bill, the true object the Government had in rejecting these Amendments. It was in order that the price in future should be fixed by those whose views had been expressed so often that they were known to everybody. It was in order that the price should be based not on what was considered to be a fair basis between the willing seller and the willing buyer, but on the modern conception of what price should be arrived at after they had done everything they could to depreciate the value of the property. The right of appeal as inserted in another place was an appeal in regard to law, in regard to fact arising under Clause 6, and also in regard to the necessity for the original action of the Commissioners. That was to be rejected on the ground of delay and expense, but he very much doubted whether the Chief Secretary was well founded in his criticism on that score. He (Mr. Long) was not sure that if they had these restrictive powers in the Bill it would not facilitate its working, because it would give a sense of security to those who owned the land which they would not otherwise have. With regard to the general appeal, he was glad the Chief Secretary recognised at last, after all the debates they had had on the subject, the necessity for removing the absolute right of action from the Estates Commissioners. He was, however, amazed at the suggestion which the Chief Secretary made, and desired to enter a protest against his thinking it necessary to say that he felt sure there would be no language used hostile to the learned gentleman who was a Judicial Commissioner. That was the very last thing which was likely to happen on that side of the House. He was sure that there would be no criticism from that side on Mr. Justice Wylie's personal character or his attainments, or his position in Ireland. This matter had nothing to do either with his independence or his fairness or his knowledge. That was not the question. The view which had been urged in the House of Commons through all their debates and which had led to the adoption of the Amendments in the House of Lords was that the Estates Commissioners, not as individuals, but by reason of the fact that they were acting as a body, were so mixed up in the question of land purchase and the general administration of the Land Acts that Parliament ought to give from them an appeal to somebody who was a perfectly independent person bringing an absolutely fresh mind to bear on the subject. To suggest to them that they would meet all the difficulties of the Bill if they gave an appeal which would lie to the Judicial Commissioner, who would be called on, if he thought right, to condemn his own colleagues, was to put forward a wholly impracticable proposal. He could not help hoping that the Government would till see fit to let the appeal be to a Judge of the High Court which would be the only really satisfactory appeal possible under the Bill. He was glad the Government proposed to give an appeal in regard to the necessity of which he had already expressed his view. He passed to another point—the statement made by the Chief Secretary with reference to the planters. The right hon. Gentleman had found great fault with the language inserted in another place. That language was an almost slavish copy of the language used by the Minister in charge in the House of Lords on behalf of the Government. When he was challenged upon this question of planters he was not only emphatic as to the intention of the Government, but he repudiated, in language almost of indignation, the idea that there was any intention to interfere with the planters so far as they were what he described asbona fide farmers. It was thought desirable to keep as closely as possible to the langauge which came from a source which it was thought the Government would consider to be one of the highest, and he was sorry to find that the Government thought so little of the language of their own colleagues when it was put into the Bill as to be obliged to criticise it as the Chief Secretary had done. What they felt in regard to these planters was that there were, as they knew perfectly well from speeches made time out of number in the earlier debates in that House, two different dangers to which they were exposed. The first was the inevitable danger of their lands being taken and handed back to the representative of the tenant who was evicted. The second was that, as they frequently heard, these planters were regarded by those in power in Ireland as being to a large extent centres of disturbances—men who ought to be removed, not because they were bad tenants, not because they were not making a good business of their holdings, but because to remove them it was thought would simplify administration in the districts in which they were living. He felt it was impossible to exaggerate the importance of making clear and distinct limitation in regard to these planters and he could not for the life of him understand the objection to words which only proposed to prevent men from being removed who werebona fide tenants carrying on their business in a legitimate and proper manner. If the words "ordinary farmer" and "husbandlike manner" did not commend themselves to Ministers they might have improved upon the language of their colleague and at the same time maintained the principle to which the Opposition attached the greatest possible importance. In the effort to do justice to the evicted tenants the Government should not be guilty of great injustice to those against whom there was not one word to be said except that they had succeeded where others had failed. They would have to go through these Amendments seriatim and it would be their duty to express their opinions more precisely in that process. He was glad the Government were, in regard to this matter, evidently in a somewhat more chastened mood than when the Bill was last being debated in this House. He could have wished they had been a little more generous in their treatment of the Amendments which they now found in the Bill, but he hoped that even now, at the eleventh hour, the Government might see their way so to deal with those Amendments as to secure the passing of the Bill in a more just form than would have otherwise been possible.

    said that the Government seemed to be giving a double appeal, first an appeal to Mr. Justice Wylie and next to the Irish Court of Appeal. He pointed out that if there were to be 2,000 cases and only four years to try them, first, that Mr. Justice Wylie had a great deal to do, and secondly, that great pressure would be put on him by the landlords to discharge his ordinary duties connected with the purchase of land. Suppose the landlords made a block in these cases, suppose they appealed in all cases to Mr. Justice Wylie and took all the cases to the Court of Appeal. That was an admirable tribunal, but it had a great deal to do, and four years would not be enough if there was a general attempt by the landlords to cause undue pressure. He would suggest the Government should introduce some such words as "unless in the case where an appeal has been taken under this Act."

    said that before they came to the detailed examination of the Lords Amendments he would like to say two or three general words on what has been transpiring. He did not intend to enter at all into such questions as those raised by the Member for South Dublin as to the urgency of the measure. It must be plain to everybody who knew anything about the subject that the restoration of the evicted tenants was an urgent matter. In 1903 it was recognised as an essential part of the proposed Land Act, and the Act of 1903 would not have been assented to by the Irish Members except on the understanding that the evicted tenants would be immediately restored to their homes. There had been four years since then, and it was unnecessary to labour the question of urgency. He desired to say a few words on the question of appeal. When they came to the detailed examination of the Amendments they would be able more clearly to understand what the Government proposed. He understood that the intention was that on the question of value a decision should be given by the Judicial Commissioner in the same way as there was given to-day an appeal from the Estates Commissioners as to the price paid for the redemption of superior and inferior interests. At the present moment these superior interests were compulsorily acquired at a price fixed by the Commissioners, and there was an appeal from them to Mr. Justice Wylie. He understood there was no intention that there should be a general right of appeal from the Judicial Commissioner to the Court of Appeal. On the question of appeal generally he must say at once that he did not think any appeal from the Estates Commissioners was required at all. He believed that the Estates Commissioners were quite competent to give an impartial decision on this matter, and he regretted that the Government had given way even to the extent they had done. Of course if there was to be an appeal they must take care it was limited and given to the Judicial Commissioner and not to any other tribunal. It was absurd to say, as the Member for South Dublin had done, that it was an unfair thing for this appeal to be from the Estates Commissioners to their own colleague. These were all appeals on the question of value when it was decided by the Estates Commissioners and it was necessary that the appeal must be limited and must be to the tribunal suggested. Other questions mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman were questions of price and compensation. He was very glad to hear the Chief Secretary declare that the Bill as it came down from the House of Lords was worse than useless. Most undoubtedly, so far as he had any influence in the matter, he would be against the passage of the Bill at all as it had come from the Upper House, and he rejoiced to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that that was his view. The Member for South Dublin talked of getting a fair price, and that was all the landlords wanted. The Bill as it left this House provided for a fair market-price; the House of Lords struck out fair market-price wherever it appeared, and substituted "compensation," and they put other Amendments into the Bill providing that compensation was to consist, as had been pointed out, not only of a fair market-price but of all sorts of other conditions. One other matter, and perhaps it was the more important—the question of the planters. He confessed he did not understand what the Chief Secretary proposed. What he thought at first he meant was that, in the decision whether a planter was to be turned out or not, the Judicial Commissioner was to be associated with the Estates Commissioners. As he went on it seemed as though his intention was that the Judicial Commissioner should have a right of veto.

    What I intended to say was that on the question whether a planter was to go or not the Estates Commissioners or any two of them and the Judicial Commissioner must be of the same mind.

    said he regretted very much that that was so. The concession was far too much to make. If they left it to the Estates Commissioners acting with the Judicial Commissioner ample protection would be given to the planter. Those who were acquainted with these gentlemen knew perfectly well that no case of hardship would arise. They were not going to raise a flame in Ireland by turning out of their holdings men who ought to be left in possession in peace and quiet to carry on their avocation. There were many other questions on which he hoped the Government would stand firm. The House of Lords, for example, crossed out of the Bill altogether the clause which enabled resales to be made at a loss. He hoped the Chief Secretary was going to stand by that clause.

    said that it was important. The House of Lords had also struck out a clause giving secure tenure of office to the Estates Commissioners. He hoped the Chief Secretary was going to stand by that.

    said there were three Estates Commissioners, all appointed by the late Government. Of these three, one had secure tenure of office. The other two held office by much less secure tenure. They asked that those who held office by insecure tenure should be put in the same position as the one who held office on a secure tenure. As it happened one of these two holding insecure positions had been denounced by Gentlemen above the gangway in the most scandalous manner, but it so happened that the one who had a secure tenure was the friend of hon. Gentlemen above the gangway. He was declared by the hon. Member for North Armagh in that famous letter to be his intimate friend whom the hon. Member was anxious to defend. All they asked was that the same tenure should be given to all these three gentlemen, and he sincerely trusted the right hon. Gentleman would stand firm upon that matter. He would not go into the other questions, which would arise as they were reached. He would content himself with saying that he listened with considerable regret to the question about veto on the question of planters. He listened, however, with great pleasure to the statement that the Bill, taking it as a whole, as it had come down from the House of Lords, was worse than useless. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stand firm, and that hon. Members above the gangway and their friends in the House of Lords would take a serious view of this matter; that they would see it was in their interest and in the interest of the peace of the country and of the speedy settlement of the land question that they should meet the Government at least half-way on the question and enable a Bill to be passed that would speedily restore the evicted tenants to their homes. Lords Amendment considered. Lords Amendment—

    "In page 1, lines 5 to 13, to leave out subsection (1) of Clause 1, and insert—'(1) If the Estates Commissioners are unable to acquire by agreement and on reasonable terms suitable land for the purposes of this Act, and if they have offered to the person appearing to them to be the owner of any land which they desire to acquire compulsorily for such purposes compensation for the loss which would be sustained by the owner by being deprived thereof, and he has not within the prescribed time accepted the offer, they may, subject to the provisions of sub section eight of Section two of this Act, acquire that land compulsorily for those purposes in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and shall declare any land so acquired to be an estate'"— the first Amendment read a second time.

    said he moved that this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment. He did not think that it was necessary for him to repeat what he had already said. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Birrell.)

    said he did not propose to occupy the time of the House at any length in regard to the suggestions that had been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in regard to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had sketched his idea of what he proposed to do, but there were many important Amendments on which he had given them no information as to the views of the Government. Dealing with the first Amendment, which the right hon. Gentleman had said he would like the House to reject, he wished to tell the House in a very few words what really was proposed. The Bill, as it stood when it left this House, enabled the Estates Commissioners to put the compulsory provisions of the Bill in force in any case where it might be unnecessary, but where they thought it expedient. It was quite consistent with the Bill as it then stood that though the owner of the land was perfectly willing voluntarily to sell his land on terms which any reasonable tribunal might decide to be a fair price, nevertheless the Estates Commissioners were to be at liberty to come down and say: "We will not bargain with you at all, but we will proceed compulsorily to buy you out." That was a wholly unnecessary and quite gratuitous interference. The most remarkable thing, an unprecedented thing in his experience, was that Gentlemen below the gangway were indulging in a conspiracy of praise in reference to the Estates Commissioners. During the years he had been in that House he had heard many denunciations of the Land Commission, the Land Commissioners, the Sub-Commissioners, and the Judicial Commissioners. He had heard them repeatedly denounced, but in this case, for the first time, there was a conspiracy of praise on the part of the hon. Gentleman from Ireland below the gangway in regard to at least two of the Commissioners.

    said not all of them. He would remind the hon. Member for Waterford of the criticisms which he himself passed on one of them in 1903. The unprecedented and rather striking fact to which he had referred was a matter which suggested at least some caution to the minds of those who were inclined to take their views of the merits of a tribunal from the reception the Bill received from hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. By the Amendment which had been inserted in another place they were to give a fair market price to the owner of the land. He thought that that was a most objectionable phrase; there was no market in the ordinary sense of the word, for to-day there was no market in many parts of the country for land, for the simple reason that the only possible buyers were the tenants. The only possible purchaser was the occupying tenant or the Estates Commissioners, and therefore, to speak of the market price for land in many parts of Ireland was to speak of a thing which did not exist. The right hon. Gentleman said he objected to the principle of compensation. Why? It was the first time that where they took away land compulsorily they did not give compensation.

    said he would think that the right hon. Gentleman's legal training would have told him that.

    asked what then was the reason for the interruption? He would have taken it to mean what it had always been held to mean in the last sixteen years, not only in Ireland, but in this country under any system by which the land was taken away from the landowner against his will. It was the first principle of justice and fair play that they should give compensation. Were they going to compensate a man in one way in England and in another way in Ireland? Were they going to take out of that Bill the theory which was the practice in England and Scotland? Under the Lands Clauses Act of 1845 compensation was provided for, and if they denied that right to the Irish landowner the right hon. Gentleman must see that they were committing an act of injustice. He was at a loss to conceive, of course no one conceived, how under that Bill the landlord was to get bonuses. The right hon. Gentleman had also gone on to say that the landlord also got arrears of rent. He did nothing of the kind. The Bill provided that the Court might give him that portion of the arrears which was thought just. The right hon. Gentleman had said that that meant all arrears of rent, but he did not think that that was a fair representation of the Amendment. In his criticism of that part of the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten that his own predecessor had recommended that in a case where land was bought for the reinstatement of an evicted tenant the landlord was to get such a portion of the arrears of rent as the Court thought just. The Amendment simply gave effect to that. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should have said that the Amendment proposed to give all the arrears of rent when all the Amendment said was that they should get such a portion as the Court should think fair. The two things which the Amendment provided for in the shape of alteration to the Bill were first that it prevented the Estates Commissioners from putting into force the compulsory powers in any case where they could get the land by agreement on reasonable terms—the right hon. Gentleman had said that meant reasonable terms for the landlord, but it meant nothing of the kind, it meant reasonable terms in the opinion of the Estates Commissioners or in the opinion of the Court which the right hon. Gentleman meant to set up or which he understood the right hon. Gentleman meant to set up.

    asked why not? It was absurd and showed an absence of logic in the course that was being taken that that point should not be included. An appeal was to be given on the question of compensation, but the right hon. Gentleman refused to give an appeal from the Estates Commissioners' decision as to the necessity for putting the Act into operation. The right hon. Gentleman had not been frank in what he had chosen to do. It would have been far better for him to have said, "We will not give an appeal at all." He asked the House to adhere to the Amendment because it provided that the Estates Commissioners were not to put in force compulsory powers in regard to anything which they could do without those powers on reasonable terms, and because it provided that the landlord should get what other landlords in England and Scotland got, not the market price, but compensation, which meant adequate remuneration. He hoped that under these circumstances the right hon. Gentleman would at any rate see his way, if he objected to giving an appeal from the decision of the Estates Commissioners upon this point, to adopt the course he (Mr. Campbell) suggested. Perhaps he would not raise any great objection to that. He pressed the right hon. Gentleman to accept his suggestion that the operations of the clause should provide for compensation as distinct from the fair market price. The Estates Commissioners themselves had had to say that they could not tell what was the fair market price of land in the West of Ireland, because there was no market there for land. Question put. The House divided:—Ayes, 154; Noes, 22. (Division List No. 449.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.)Fenwick, CharlesMaddison, Frederick
    Ainsworth, John StirlingFfrench, PeterManfield, Harry (Northants)
    Ambrose, RobertField, WilliamMarkham, Arthur Basil
    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)Flavin, Michael JosephMeehan, Patrick A.
    Barnard, E. B.Fuller, John Michael F.Menzies, Walter
    Barnes, G. N.Gill, A. H.Montgomery, H. G.
    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)Ginnell, L.Mooney, J. J.
    Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)Goddard, Daniel FordMuldoon, John
    Beaumont, Hon. HubertGulland, John W.Murphy, John (Kerry, East)
    Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.Gwynn, Stephen LuciusMurphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)
    Birrell, Rt. Hon. AugustineHalpin, J.Nicholls, George
    Boland, JohnHarmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)Nolan, Joseph
    Bowerman, C. W.Haworth, Arthur A.Norton, Capt. Cecil William
    Brace, WilliamHayden, John PatrickO'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid.
    Branch, JamesHazel, Dr. A. E.O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
    Brodie, H. C.Hazleton, RichardO'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
    Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)Healy, Timothy MichaelO'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
    Burns, Rt. Hon. JohnHenderson, Arthur (Durham)O'Doherty, Philip
    Byles, William PollardHenderson, J.M.(Aberdeen,W.)O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
    Carr-Gomm, H. W.Henry, Charles S.O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
    Cheetham, John FrederickHigham, John SharpO'Grady, J.
    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.Hobhouse, Charles E. H.O'Malley, William
    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.Hogan, MichaelO'Shee, James John
    Clancy, John JosephIllingworth, Percy H.Parker, James (Halifax)
    Clough, WilliamJohnson, John (Gateshead)Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)
    Clynes, J. R.Jowett, F. W.Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)
    Condon, Thomas JosephJoyce, MichaelPirie, Duncan V.
    Cooper, G. J.Kekewich, Sir GeorgePower, Patrick Joseph
    Corbett,C.H(Sussex,E.Grinst'dKennedy, Vincent PaulPrice, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)Kilbride, DenisRadford, G. H.
    Crossley, William J.Lamont, NormanRainy, A. Rolland
    Cullinan, J.Lardner, James Carrige RusheReddy, M.
    Delany, WilliamLewis, John HerbertRedmond, John E. (Waterford)
    Devlin, JosephLough, ThomasRedmond, William (Clare)
    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)Lundon, W.Richards,Thomas(W.Monm'th)
    Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N.MacNeill, John Gordon SwiftRichards T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)
    Donelan, Captain A.Macpherson, J. T.Rickett, J. Compton
    Duffy, William J.MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
    Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd
    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)M`Callum, John M.Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)M'Crae, GeorgeRobinson, S.
    Elibank, Master ofM`Hugh, Patrick A.Rowlands, J.
    Essex, R. W.M`Kean, JohnRussell, T. W.
    Farrell, James PatrickM'Killop, W.Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-LyneTaylor, John W. (Durham)White, Patrick (Meath, North)
    Sheehan, Daniel DanielToulmin, GeorgeWhitehead, Rowland
    Sheehy, DavidTrevelyan, Charles PhilipsWhitley, John Henry (Halifax)
    Silcock, Thomas BallVivian, HenryWilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
    Soan, Thomas HenryWalsh, Stephen
    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)Ward, W.Dudley(SouthamptonTELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
    Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)Waring, WalterWhiteley and Mr. J. A.
    Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)Waterlow, D. S.Pease.
    Summerbell, T.White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    NOES.

    Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry, N.)Courthope, G. LoydRonaldshay, Earl of
    Beach, Hn.Michael Hugh HicksCraig, CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S.)Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
    Bridgeman, W. CliveFetherstonhaugh, GodfreyThomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
    Bull, Sir William JamesForster, Henry WilliamYounger, George
    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)
    Carlile, E. HildredGretton, JohnTELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
    Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.Harris, Frederick LevertonPike Pease and Marquess of
    Cecil, Lord John P. JoiceyHunt, RowlandHamilton.
    Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.A(Worc.Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(Dublin,S.)

    Lords Amendment—

    "In page 2, line 4, after the word 'Acts' to insert the words 'not exceeding two thousand in all.'"

    The next Amendment read a second time.

    moved that the House disagree with this Amendment. He had never been able to make hon. Gentlemen opposite understand his objections to the enumeration of the precise number of tenants who were to be reinstated. The insertion of these words in this place was most undesirable and misleading. The Bill simply sought to reinstate tenants on lands that were compulsorily acquired. There was no question of reinstating them on lands acquired voluntarily under the Act of 1903. Nobody contemplated that there would be 2,000 evicted tenants reinstated on land acquired compulsorily. While the Act was in operation they would still be going on reinstating tenants on land acquired voluntarily, and it was out of the question to suppose that there would be 2,000 tenants who would be reinstated under this Act, and put on land acquired for the purposes of this Act. He therefore thought that the effect of introducing the figures 2,000 would be to create an impression which he was most anxious not to do, that there would be 2,000 persons reinstated on land acquired under this Act. As he did not wish that any false impression on the subject should be conveyed he had to move that the House disagree with the Amendment. Motion made, and Question proposed "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Birrell.)

    said that the Chief Secretary did not do himself justice. They had always clearly understood on the Opposition side the right hon. Gentleman's reasons for not putting an Amendment in the Bill on this subject. On the other hand, he (Mr. Long) had never understood the arguments by which the right hon. Gentleman supported his reasons, because they had always pointed to his accepting this Amendment when it came down from another place, whereas now the House found that it was his intention to refuse it. The Chief Secretary had told them that he did not wish to insert a particular number in the Bill because it would convey the impression that exactly that number of tenants were to be restored under the measure. He (Mr. Long) submitted, with great respect, that that argument was perfectly ridiculous. This was not a question for the Government. The whole of the Bill would be carried out by the Estates Commissioners, and by their policy the Government were abandoning some of the control which they had over the Estates Commissioners at the present time. Really the Chief Secretary did not realise why it was that the Opposition were anxious about this question of numbers. It was not because they thought that he or the Estates Commissioners would yield to pressure, but it was because under the present Administration, which had not been two years in office, the figures had grown from 800, which was the maximum given by one of the Members for Mayo, to 3,000, which was the number of selected men out of 7,000 or 8,000. He pointed out also that the number of 700 to 800 had grown in the first instance from 400 or 500. He repeated that it was not because they thought the Chief Secretary would bow to undue pressure but because they thought that what the Government had kept on telling them they meant to do ought to be put in their Act of Parliament that they so strongly pressed the Chief Secretary to retain this Amendment in the Bill. If they were going to have a maximum number, why in the name of fortune did not the Government put the 2,000 in the Bill and say that that was the maximum beyond which the Commissioners should not go, in the interests of the Estates Commissioners themselves quite as much as in that of the community?

    said he believed that in connection with the Act of 1903 the limit of 800 tenants was suggested to be inserted in that Bill. One of the two leaders of the Irish Party during the discussion of 1903 repeatedly assured the House that the number of tenants who could possibly claim to be re-instated under that Act could never exceed 500 or 600 persons. They had also been informed that the Land Act had failed. Twice the number stated by the Member for Waterford as the total of evicted tenants had since that Act been reinstated. Yet in spite of these facts he told them now that the evicted tenants clauses of the Act had been a dead letter. He was glad the House of Lords had introduced this Amendment—an Amendment which the House would remember they endeavoured to have inserted in the House of Commons. If some limitation of that sort were not to be introduced he was perfectly certain the 2,000 would increase to 4,000 or 5,000. The Chief Secretary had informed them it would not make any difference whether they put the number in or not. He would like to see the number put in so that the Estates Commissioners would be prohibited from dealing with others even voluntarily. The Estates Commissioners had made investigations and had said that 2,000 ought to be re-instated. What objection then could there be to putting that in the Bill and having the question settled? It was well known to everybody that pressure would be exercised on the Estates Commissioners.

    said the hon. Member and his colleagues probably knew a little more about these things than he did. One of them said he had been doing his best since 1903 to put the planters out and evicted tenants in their places. In face of such statements no one could doubt what would happen. Whether they were to be reinstated compulsorily or voluntarily did not make the slightest bit of difference. He said they would be using money much better in hastening on what was the principal object of the Act of 1903—the conversion of the ordinary tenant farmer into the owner of his own farm. Question put. The House divided:—Ayes, 144; Noes, 21. (Division List No. 450.)

    AYES.
    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)Branch, JamesCrossley, William J.
    Ainsworth, John StirlingBrodie, H. C.Cullinan, J.
    Ambrose, RobertBrunner,J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh)Delany, William
    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)Burke, E. Haviland-Devlin, Joseph
    Barnard, E. B.Byles, William PollardDickinson,W.H.(St.Pancras,N.
    Barnes, G. N.Cheetham, John FrederickDonelan, Captain A.
    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.Duffy, William J.
    Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness
    Beaumont, Hon. HubertClancy, John JosephDunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
    Benn,W.(TowerHamlets,S.GeoClough, WilliamElibank, Master of
    Birrell, Rt. Hon. AugustineClynes, J. R.Essex, R. W.
    Boland, JohnCondon, Thomas JosephFarrell, James Patrick
    Bowerman, C. W.Cooper, G. J.Fenwick, Charles
    Brace, WilliamCorbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd)Ffrench, Peter

    Field, WilliamM`Kean, JohnRoberts, G. H. (Norwich)
    Flavin, Michael JosephM'Killop, W.Robertson,SirGScott (Bradf'rd
    Fuller, John Michael F.Maddison, FrederickRobertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
    Ginnell, L.Manfield, Harry (Northants)Robinson, S.
    Goddard, Daniel FordMarkham, Arthur BasilRowlands, J.
    Gulland, John W.Meehan, Patrick A.Russell, T. W.
    Gwynn, Stephen LuciusMenzies, WalterSamuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
    Halpin, J.Montgomery, H. G.Scott,A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne
    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)Mooney, J. J.Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
    Haworth, Arthur A.Muldoon, JohnSheehy, David
    Hayden, John PatrickMurphy, John (Kerry, East)Silcock, Thomas Ball
    Hazel, Dr. A. E.Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)Sloan, Thomas Henry
    Hazleton, RichardNicholls, GeorgeSmyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
    Healy, Timothy MichaelNolan, JosephStaniey, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)
    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)Norton, Capt. Cecil WilliamStanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)
    Henry, Charles S.O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary,MidStrachey, Sir Edward
    Higham, John SharpO'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)Summerbell, T.
    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)Taylor, John W. (Durham)
    Hogan, MichaelO'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)Toulmin, George
    Illingworth, Percy H.O'Doherty, PhilipTrevelyan, Charles Philips
    Johnson, John (Gateshead)O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)Vivian, Henry
    Joyce, MichaelO'Grady, J.Walsh, Stephen
    Kekewich, Sir GeorgeO'Malley, WilliamWard, W. Dudley (Southamp'n)
    Kennedy, Vincent PaulO'Shee, James JohnWaring, Walter
    Kilbride, DenisPearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)Waterlow, D. S.
    Lamont, NormanPearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk,Eye)White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
    Lardner, James Carrige RushePower, Patrick JosephWhite, Patrick (Meath. North)
    Lewis, John HerbertPrice, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central)Whitehead, Rowland
    Lough, ThomasRadford, G. H.Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
    Lundon, W.Rainy, A. RollandWilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
    MacNeill, John Gordon SwiftReddy, M.
    MacVeagh,Jeremiah (Down, S.Redmond, John E. (Waterford)TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
    MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.)Redmond, William (Clare)Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
    M`Callum, John.M.Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'thPease.
    M`Crae, GeorgeRichards,T.F.(Wolverhampton
    M`Hugh, Patrick A.Rickett, J. Compton

    NOES.

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.Courthope, G. LoydStaveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
    Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh HicksCraig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)
    Bridgeman, W. CliveFetherstonhaugh, GodfreyYounger, George
    Bull, Sir William JamesGibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)
    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.Gretton, JohnTELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
    Carlile, E. HildredHarris, Frederick LevertonForster and Marquess of
    Cavendish Rt. Hn.Victor C. W.Hunt, RowlandHamilton.
    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-Long, Rt. Hn.Walter (Dublin,S.
    Chamberlain,RtHnJ.A.(Worc.)Pease, Herbert Pike (Darling'n)

    Lords Amendment—

    "In page 2, line 15, after the word 'land' to insert the words 'provided always that no lands shall be acquired compulsorily which have been purchased or agreed to be purchased under the Land Purchase Acts prior to the first day of May, one thousand nine hundred and seven, nor any tenanted land which is in the possession or occupation of abona-fide tenant using or cultivating the same as an ordinary farmer in a husbandlike manner.'"

    The next Amendment read a second time.

    moved, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment." Although he formally moved disagreement he intended to propose consequential Amendments in the Bill as it left the House, which would really have the effect of giving a good deaf of what the Amendment provided, and would, he thought, meet hon. Members as regarded purchase. The House would see that the Amendment dealt with three different points. It provided that no land should be acquired compulsorily which was subject to an annuity. They did not think that was necessary, but it was put in because it was thought that there was some doubt as to whether land subject to an annuity could be purchased. The second matter was as to lands agreed to be purchased prior to the 1st May, 1907, which was also excluded. The difference in the date was the substitution of May for December. It was an important matter, for it dealt with the people who wished to enter into agreements with a view to the coming into operation of the Act, and if the Amendment were carried he would later move the substitution of the word May for December. The third and most important point was what was known as Lord Robertson's Amendment dealing with the case of the planters. His right hon. friend had already explained to the House that they thought that the acceptance of the Amendment would entirely nullify the clause. Every tenant would say he was a cultivator in a husbandlike way and would claim to be abona-fide tenant, and therefore secure under the Act as a new tenant. If that were adopted the result would be that the carrying out of the Act would be seriously interfered with. They proposed to take the absolute discretion of disturbing the new tenants from the Estates Commissioners and to provide that the Judicial Commissioner must be a consenting party. They proposed to make Amendments to Clause 3 later on. They would provide that if the Estates Commissioners differed, two on one side and one on the other, the Judicial Commissioner should be called in. If he agreed with the two the tenant could be disturbed; if he agreed with the one and not with the two the tenant could not be disturbed. If the three Estates Commissioners were in favour of putting a tenant out the Judicial Commissioner was not to interfere. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Cherry.)

    said the right hon. Gentleman had given a clear explanation of the intentions of the Government as regarded the first part and there could not be much to say to that, for the alterations the Government proposed were not, in his opinion, so material as to take up the time of the House at that time of the morning. He must, however, call the attention of the House to one thing. It was quite plain that neither the Attorney-General nor the Chief Secretary quite understood what was the proposal they were making The Chief Secretary left him, and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford also, he thought, under the distinct impression that a Judge or Judicial Commissioner was to have the power of veto as to the removal of a planter. The Chief Secretary had said it was proposed that the Judicial Commissioner was to come in in every case, and that no planter was to be removed except with he right of the Judicial Commissioner to veto it. He had put the case where the lace Estates Commissioners were agreed and asked was there to be the power of veto. Apparently the Chief Secretary and himself were both wrong. There was to be no interference by the Judicial Commissioner where the three Estates Commissioners had decided to put a man out. There was, therefore, no appeal from the Estates Commissioners where the Estates Commissioners were agreed on the necessity for putting a man out. What advantage had that proposal over the Amendment in another place? He would like to remind the House, in regard to the origin of the clause, that the Chief Secretary had said that he did not know what abona-fide farmer was. Every Member from Ireland knew what was meant, and he would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have known the interpretation put on those words in Acts of Parliament. Speaking in 1903 in the debate on the Land Purchase Act, the hon. and learned Member for Waterford said he would never vote for the compulsory removal ofbona-fide planters. The expressionbona-fide which had so puzzled the Chief Secretary was the very expression used by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, who knew as much about farming in Ireland as the Chief Secretary. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was going a little too far when he asked a moment or two ago what was abona-fide farmer.

    said he would test the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman's interruption. He was quite satisfied. If the point was that the right hon. Gentleman did not know what was meant by the phrase "bona-fide tenant," he was content to make a change and insert the words "bona-fide farmer." Words of that nature were already in Irish land legislation and had to be considered and decided on by their Courts in Ireland over and over again. If the right hon. Gentleman had any difficulty, the words "in abona-fide possession and occupation" were to be found in the Land Acts of 1881, and 1887. They had formed from time to time, as he thought the right hon. Gentleman knew, and as they all knew, the subject matter for discussion. The expression was thoroughly understood by every person in Ireland, and he believed by every person out of Ireland who wanted to understand them, including the Chief Secretary.

    said there were some things the right hon. Gentleman did not want to understand.

    said he had heard many Judges say that they could not understand whatbona fide meant.

    said many other Judges had defined whatbona fide meant. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there would be no difficulty in Ireland, either with the Estates Commissioners, the Judicial Commissioner, or any other Judge. There would not be the slightest difficulty in determining what was meant bybona-fide tenant orbona-fide farmer. If the right hon. Gentleman was still in serious difficulty as to what was meant by the expressionbona-fide farmer, he could refer him to the source from which it was taken. Lord Crewe, in the House of Lords, said that so far as his Government were concerned neither they nor he would be a party to putting out anybona-fide farmer. If the right hon. Gentleman was still in any difficulty to know what those words meant, he would refer him to his own colleague, who had charge of the Bill in another place. What was the right hon. Gentleman's objection, if he was sincere in his desire to protect any of those men who werebona-fide farmers, to adopting a definition which came from the lips of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, a lawyer who knew what he was speaking of, in 1903? If the right hon. Gentleman should object to having that expression in his Bill after it had been used by his colleague in the House of Lords he could not understand the right hon. Gentleman's position. He could have understood the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman if he had said that the words that followed, "husbandlike manner," created some difficulty in his mind, but that did not appear to be his difficulty.

    MR. BIRRELL : I mentioned that.

    thought the burden on the right hon. Gentleman's mind, the great strain on his intellect, was the question of thebona-fide farmer.

    said he was glad to have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the matter was thoroughly thrashed out. That being so, he hoped there would be no difficulty in the right hon. Gentleman's saying that he would adhere to the Amendment. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman, speaking in all seriousness, that this was one of the most important points that they had to discuss. He believed that the Chief Secretary would be seriously imperilling the fate and future of his Bill if he deprived the new tenants of the protection provided for them under the measure as it now stood—a protection to which they were eminently entitled. Speaking in 1894, the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture said that he for one would go out into the wilderness rather than be a party to any piece of legislation that turned out these men to put in the evicted tenants. The curious irony of the thing was that the hon. Gentleman now sat on the Front Bench opposite and supported a Government which was doing the very thing against which he formerly protested. The Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture ought to assist the Opposition in seeing that this Bill was not made an engine of oppression against these men. A number of these men werebona-fide farmers, and it was for their protection that this Amendment was put in. All he had to say in conclusion was that he believed if this Amendment was rejected it would create a very grave prejudice against the Bill, and a great difficulty would be placed in the way of the measure's ultimately becoming law. As regarded the alternative suggestion by the learned Attorney-General, the House was led to believe that the protection the new tenant was to get was that in every case the Judicial Commissioner was to have a veto.

    said there was a little ambiguity in the words as he read them out. He suggested a slight alteration so as to provide that no tenant could be disturbed "unless any two of the Estates Commissioners and the Judicial Commissioner, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, consider it expedient." That made it necessary that the Judicial Commissioner should concur.

    said it appeared that he was perfectly right in calling attention to the invidious position in which this matter was left. He quite recognised the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had given way, but he believed that the Government were imposing an extra duty on a Judge who had already as much work to get through as he could do. He was not for one moment going to attack either the impartiality or the fairness of Mr. Justice Wylie. He had every respect for his ability and impartiality. He would remind the Chief Secretary, however, that already his Government had proceeded to make an additional appointment to the judicial bench in Ireland on the express ground that the Judicial Commissioner had so much to do with ordinary land purchase matters that he could not attend to the fair rent appeals. Yet under this Bill they were not only going to make him judge all appeals from the Estates Commissioners, but they were also going to make him inquire into every case in which a planter was removed. That meant that they were going to increase the duties of the Judicial Commissioner enormously, and he joined in the appeal which had been made to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the position as affecting the Judicial Commissioner. There was another objection to associating Mr. Justice Wylie at all with the case of these new tenants. Supposing that two of the Estates Commissioners, or the three of them, were in favour of turning out a new tenant, it would be exceedingly awkward if their own colleague, who, like themselves, had thestatus of a Land Commissioner, had to sit in judgment on them, and perhaps had to reverse the decision of his own colleagues. There was no suggestion of any kind against the ability, impartiality, and intelligence of Mr. Justice Wylie, but, on other grounds entirely, it was an unfortunate selection. The Judicial Commissioner should, in his opinion, be kept free to do the work which he already had to do, and which was as much as any one man could do. The main objection he had to the proposal was that it might bring Mr. Justice Wylie into direct conflict with his own colleagues and increase to a considerable extent that friction which all those who were behind the scenes knew already existed among the Estates Commissioners.

    said it was rather difficult to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Government had always thought, and he still thought, that their Bill as originally drafted gave ample protection to thosebona fide farmers, if he might use the expression, whom nobody desired to see removed. That was to say, the Estates Commissioners could not turn out any of these persons without having regard to all the circumstances of the case. Having considered all the circumstances of the case they had to come to the conclusion that it was expedient that the evicted tenant should be reinstated and that the planter should go. Everyone would see that it was a serious step. Of course, if they assumed that the Estates Commissioners had no consideration for a person who for many years had admirably performed the duties of abona fide farmer cultivating his land in the manner described, then he quite agreed that the planter had not got full justice done to him. It was only because it had been impressed on them so much by hon. Gentlemen opposite and by persons in another place that the Government had decided it would be a proper thing to associate with the Estates Commissioners a judicial person. It had never been contended that anyone else except a Judge could be invoked in this matter. Lord Atkinson proposed that it should be a Judge of the High Court, and the Government invoked a Judge of the High Court. Therefore, when they associated the Judicial Commissioner with the Estates Commissioners in this matter he (Mr. Birrell) thought the Government had gone a long way to meet the demand, which he did not regard as being very powerful, that some other person than the Estates Commissioners should be called in. What more could they do? The right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench said that it would be a matter of very great delicacy for the Judicial Commissioner to have to differ from his colleagues. He (Mr. Birrell) did not pretend to know everything about Judges, but he certainly had never known any English Judges show any extraordinary feeling of delicacy about differing from their colleagues on any question. Besides Mr. Justice Wylie had long been in the habit of sitting in appeal from the Estates Commissioners and there would be nothing unfamiliar in his finding himself in that position again. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that there would be such a large number of these appeals that Mr. Justice Wylie's time would be largely occupied. He (Mr. Birrell) did not think there was any justification for the belief that there would be such a large number of these persons appealing as to make serious inroads on the time of Mr. Justice Wylie. The Government thought that they were going a long way to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite when they associated a Judge of the High Court with the Estates Commissioners in order to give a man the most complete security any lawyer could suggest. He was not quite unreasonable. He had just told them he believed that only a small number of these so-called planters would be dispossessed. What was the Bill going to do? Everybody who had the smallest knowledge of the evicted tenants question knew that what the evicted tenant wanted was to get back into his own holding or the holding of his father. The planters were in occupation of these. How then could they get the evicted tenants back except in one way? The Opposition said that whatever the evicted tenants' claim might be, when they were dealing with abona fide tenant farmer they ought not to displace him. They were urged to look at the experience of the Estates Commissioners in regard to the man's administration of land, but they were told by the Attorney-General that the reason of the Bill was not only the restoration of the evicted tenant who longed to be back in his home, but also greater difficulties of general administration. He did not regard the Amendment as satisfactory.

    said that as regarded the Irish Benches it was only with a mournful and reluctant acquiescence they had heard the statement of the Government. He made every allowance. Of course, the Government were not yielding to argument. There were only twenty of them opposing the measure, and it would be absurd to think they had prevailed. The Government were giving way to the intimidation and coercion of another place, and that was why he had not entered a more vigorous protest against what he recognised to be the almost unnecessary concessions made by the Government. The Government were in an almost impossible condition in dealing with Ireland. There they were at six o'clock in the morning hardly begun that debate—

    said it was the fault of the Act of Union. Why was this attack on Mr. Justice Wylie?

    Certainly, attack. You praised Mr. Justice Wylie with faint damns. Mr. Justice Wylie was appointed something like six months ago in place of Mr. Justice Meredith—a highly honourable man and a strong Conservative. This Liberal appointee had given the landlords one year's purchase more for their superior interests than the appointee of the Conservative Government, and that was the gentleman about whom they grumbled. With regard to the statement about the planters he would tell them one case of an evicted tenant. He would not detain the House for a moment while he mentioned the case of the man in connection with whom he himself and others were imprisoned. This evicted tenant did not owe a shilling. His rent was £70. The landlord raised it to £103. Because he would not pay that rent he was put out of the holding. It was in 1880, before Mr. Gladstone's Land Act. A "grabber" was found—a tool of Lord Kenmare's (since dead), and was put in at the rent the other had always paid. The evicted tenant could find no shelter for himself and his wife and five children except under an upturned boat, where he died of fever. His family lived on public charity under this upturned boat for five years; then even out of the upturned boat Lord Kenmare turned them, and the unfortunate wife and children were hunted off the face of the land. The tenant's crops to the amount of £150 were seized and his improvements confiscated. Yet the agent of the late Lord Kenmare sat in Bantry court house, and for walking on his own land gave this man three months, his wife two months, and his sister-in-law two months imprisonment. When the got out, again and again and again they were sent to hard labour. To-day what was their position? Did hon. and right hon. Gentlemen think there would be any peace in that district as long as that widow and children smarted under injustice? He remembered the state in which the husband was buried, the corpse taken out of the boat, the rain pouring down as the priest said the last absolution, and that was a decent, substantial tenant before his cruel eviction. His children waited for relief and they were told of the honourable planter and not a word was said for those upon whom unjust laws which Mr. Gladstone altered had brought ruin.

    pointed out that what the hon. Member had said had no sort of bearing on the question. He was sure the hon. Member had no desire to mislead the House. The tenants who were the object of this legislation were the products of a plan of campaign dating several years after the pathetic incident referred to. That must be impressed upon the British public. He was not surprised that that statement should not be welcomed on the Irish Benches, but they were dealing now with those who took the places of a large number of tenants in Ireland who were declared by the Member for North Mayo to have refused to pay rents, not because they were unable to pay them but because he and others had ordered them not to pay. It was these plan of campaign tenants they were trying to deal with and legislate for. The Amendment was of the most vital importance to those who were termed planters. He could only remind the House how different was the manner in which the Chief Secretary had referred to these persons that evening. The Government had reconsidered their opinion. They remembered the Attorney-General referred to the planters as obstinate men, as centres of disturbance.

    I only said there might be exceptional cases where one obstinate man would cause disturbance in the district and where it would be desirable, in his own interest, to remove him.

    said that no doubt the right hon. Member's words were on record, but his recollection was as he had stated to the House. He was glad that even at that late hour they had some better account given of these planters by the Chief Secretary. He regretted the Chief Secretary did not go a little further and accept the Amendment the Lords had made in the measure. He was anxious that the Bill should be placed on the Statute-book this year. He was anxious that that unpleasant sore should be finally closed, but he ventured to suggest to the Chief Secretary that if it was to be closed he should accept this Amendment. He was not going to refer in detail as to what had been said as to the suggested appeal. He had the pleasure of knowing the Judge to whom reference had been made, and he could not speak of him too highly. He came of a family honoured and respected all over Ireland, and the remarks of his (the hon. Member's) colleagues had no manner of reflection on his uprightness. But he cordially joined with them in the suggestion that the tribunal was not one that Mr. Justice Wylie would care to preside over, and he again urged on the Chief Secretary that he should accept the reasonable Amendment which the Lords had sent down.

    said he would not have risen but for the speech of the Member for North Louth. He did not suppose there had been anything said or during the debates which had shown such absolute justification for the action the Opposition had taken in the matter of appeal. What did he tell them in that harrowing story? The thing happened twenty years ago, and he asked the House did any of them think there would be peace in that district till the descendants of that man were restored? That gave the case away. That was exactly the position of nine-tenths of the evicted tenants, and he knew perfectly well there would be no peace in Ireland so long as there was the slightest loophole left, until all the evicted tenants were reinstated. He dared say the hon. Member did not know he was letting the cat out of the bag. Another hon. Member had told them without any concealment that he had always used his best endeavours to have the planters turned out. In spite of these things the Chief Secretary held the Ulster Members up to ridicule and addressed them as if they were semi-lunatics, because, forsooth, they had done their best, as they would continue to do, to see to it that these planters had justice. Their power might not be very great in that House, but there was another House which would respond. These men held their farms on grounds as legal and as justifiable as those upon which any Member of that House owned his house, and they were as little entitled to be disturbed in the enjoyment of their farms. He knew objection had been taken not only by the Chief Secretary but by hon. Members below the gangway to every suggestion in the nature of an appeal or safeguard for these unfortunate men. They objected because they knew that if these men were safeguarded and an appeal provided, the task of turning them out and reinstating the evicted tenants would be all the harder. They would fight to the very end, they had indeed fought to the very end, to see that those men were properly treated. For any right thinking man to refuse to put into that Bill proper safeguards for those unfortunate men was, he thought, a most despicable action. It had been proved time after time what the treatment was that those men were liable to and what they had met with at the hands of the Nationalist Members of that House and Nationalists outside, and proper precautions should be taken to safeguard them. The House divided:—Ayes, 146; Noes, 21. (Division List No. 451.)

    AYES.

    Abraham,William (Cork,N.E.)Carr-Gomm, H. W.Farrell, James Patrick
    Ainsworth. John StirlingCherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.Fenwick, Charles
    Ambrose, RobertClancy, John JosephFfrench, Peter
    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)Clough, WilliamField, William
    Barnard, E. B.Clynes, J. R.Flavin, Michael Joseph
    Barnes, G. N.Condon, Thomas JosephFuller, John Michael F.
    Barry, F. (Cork, S.)Cooper, G. J.Gill, A. H.
    Barry,Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)Corbett, CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd)Ginnell, L.
    Beaumont. Hon. HubertCraig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)Goddard, Daniel Ford
    Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.Cullinan, J.Gulland, John W.
    Birrell, Rt. Hon. AugustineDelany, WilliamGwynn, Stephen Lucius
    Boland, JohnDevlin, JosephHalpin, J.
    Bowerman, C. W.Dickinson,W. H.(St.Pancras,N.Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)
    Brace, WilliamDonelan, Captain A.Haworth, Arthur A.
    Branch, JamesDuffy, William J.Hayden, John Patrick
    Brodie, H. C.Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-FurnessHazel, Dr. A. E.
    Brunner,J.F.L.(Lancs.,Leigh)Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)Hazleton, Richard
    Burke, E. Haviland-Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)Healy, Timothy Michael
    Burns, Rt. Hon. JohnElibank, Master ofHenderson,Arthur (Durham)
    Byles, William PollardEssex, R. W.Henry, Charles S.

    Higham, John SharpMurphy, John (Kerry, East)Robinson, S.
    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)Rowlands, J.
    Hogan. MichaelNicholls, GeorgeRussell, T. W.
    Illingworth, Percy H.Nolan, JosephSamuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
    Johnson, John (Gateshead)Norton, Capt. Cecil WilliamScott,A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne
    Jowett, F. W.O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMidSheehan, Daniel Daniel
    Joyce, MichaelO'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)Sheehy, David
    Kekewich, Sir GeorgeO'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)Silcock, Thomas Ball
    Kennedy, Vincent PaulO'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)Sloan, Thomas Henry
    Kilbride, DenisO'Doherty, PhilipSmyth,ThomasF.(Leitrim, S.)
    Lamont, NormanO'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)
    Lardner, James Carrige RusheO'Grady, J.Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.)
    Lewis, John HerbertO'Malley, WilliamStrachey, Sir Edward
    Lough, ThomasO'Shee, James JohnSummerbell, T.
    Lundon, W.Parker, James (Halifax)Taylor, John W. (Durham)
    MacNeill, John Gordon SwiftPearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)Toulmin, George
    MacVeagh,Jeremiah (Down,S.)Pearson,W.H.M.(Suffolk,Eye)Vivian, Henry
    MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)Power, Patrick JosephWalsh, Stephen
    M'Callum, John M.Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central)Ward,W.Dudley(Southampton
    M'Crae, GeorgeRadford, G. H.Waring, Walter
    M`Hugh, Patrick A.Rainy, A. RollandWaterlow, D. S.
    M`Kean, JohnReddy, M.White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
    M`Killop, W.Redmond, John E. (Waterford)White, Patrick (Meath, North)
    Maddison, FrederickRedmond, William (Clare)Whitehead, Rowland
    Manfield, Harry (Northants)Richards,Thomas(W.Monm'th)Whitley,John Henry (Halifax)
    Markham, Arthur BasilRichards,T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
    Meehan, Patrick A.Rickett, J. Compton
    Montgomery, H. G.Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
    Mooney, J. J.Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rdWhiteley and Mr. J. A.
    Muldoon, JohnRobertson, J. M. (Tyneside)Pease.

    NOES.

    Barrie,H.T.(Londonderry,N.)Courthope, G. LoydStaveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh)
    Beach,Hn.MichaelHughHicksCraig,CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S.)Thomson,W.Mitchell-(Lanark)
    Bridgeman, W. CliveFetherstonhaugh, GodfreyYounger, George
    Bull, Sir William JamesForster, Henry William
    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
    Carlile, E. HildredGretton, JohnPike Pease and Marquess of
    Cavendish,Rt.Hon.VictorC. W.Harris, Frederick LevertonHamilton.
    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-Hunt, Rowland
    Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Wore.Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(Dublin,S.)

    Lords Amendment—

    "In page 2, lines 16 to 21, to leave out Subsection 4 of Clause 1"—the next Amendment. disagreed to.

    Amendments made to the Bill instead of the last two Lords' Amendments disagreed to—

    "In page 2, line 12, by leaving out the words the Estates Commissioners' and inserting the words 'any two of the Estates Commissioners and the Judicial Commissioner,' instead thereof, and in page 2, line 19, by leaving out the word January' and inserting the word 'May,' instead thereof, and in page 2, line 21, at the end, by inserting as a new subsection, '(5) No and shall be acquired compulsorily which is subject to an annuity for the repayment of at advance under the Land Purchase Acts.'"—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)

    said the next three Amendments were consequential arising out of the fact that the Lords substituted compensation for the word price. They were restoring the word Subsequent Lords Amendments to the Amendment in page 3, lines 22 to 27, leave out sub-section (6) of Clause 2, inclusive, disagreed to. Amendment made to the Bill, instead of the last Lords Amendment disagreed to—

    "In page 2, line 23, by leaving out from the word 'withdrawn' to the word 'Commission' in line 6, and inserting the words 'the purchase money shall within the prescribed time be paid into the Bank of Ireland by the Land Commission and the Estates Commissioners shall,'"—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland)—instead thereof.
    Lords Amendment—
    "In page 3, line 29, after the word 'withdrawn,' to insert the words 'the Estates Commissioners or any two of them shall hear and by order determine '"—the next Amendment, read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

    said there was one point there to which he must direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention. The Amendment provided for an order. He thought the Lords Amendment should be allowed as it stood in so far as it provided that any determination of the Estates Commissioners should take the form of an order. Before the Bill was amended that point was put in a very vague way. The Lords Amendment did not affect the question of principle, but it improved on the facilities of the Bill. It provided that the order of the Estates Commissioners should be a record of what they did.

    *

    said that the House had not heard the words of the clause which the Government proposed to insert, but they would see that they really did all that was necessary. The words ran—

    "Provided that any person aggrieved by any determination of the Estates Commissioners fixing the price of the land proposed to be acquired, or any determination of a question arising under the provisions of this Act imposing restrictions on the acquisition of land, may within the prescribed time, appeal to the Judicial Commissioner, who shall hear in the prescribed manner and determine the appeal. (8) The powers conferred upon the Land Commission by Section 48 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, may be exercised by the Judicial Commissioner in the case of all proceedings coming before him in pursuance of the last preceding subsection. (9) Subject to the determination of all questions arising on the petition, the purchase money shall, within the prescribed time, be paid into the Bank of Ireland, and the vesting order shall be made, unless the Estates Commissioners, within the prescribed time, serve a notice on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the land that they do not intend to make the order."
    That provided in simple language that the Estates Commissioners were to determine the price, and if a person from whom land was proposed to be taken was dissatisfied he could at once take an appeal to the Judicial Commissioner. If there was any question of law arising as regarded land which the Estates Commissioners were prohibited from taking under the sixth clause the Judicial Commissioner might allow a case to be taken to the Court of Appeal or might state a case for appeal exactly as was done under the Land Act of 1881. He had not only power to state a case, but he had power also to allow an appeal, to summon witnesses to be sworn, and to appoint a valuer. Question put, and agreed to. Lords Amendment—
    "In page 3, line 30, to leave out from the word 'thereon' to the end of the Subsection (7) and insert: '(8) (a) Any person aggrieved by any order of the Estates Commissioners made upon the hearing of any such petition as aforesaid may, within the time and in the manner prescribed by rules to be made as hereinafter provided, apply as he shall elect, either to the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, or to the Judges of Assize for the county in which the lands sought to be acquired, or the greater part thereof, are situated, to hear and determine any question of law or fact arising out of any such petition or order, including any question ofl aw or fact under Section 1, Subsection 3, and Section 6. Every such application shall be heard and determined by one of the Judges of Assize for the said county, or by one of the Judges of the King's Bench Division, to be selected by the said Judges according to a rota to be framed by them at the commencement of each sitting of the said High Court. Upon the hearing of every such application the Judge shall have power and authority to hear and determine all questions of law and fact that may arise, including the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the said order, and in particular the question whether, upon the facts and circumstances proved in evidence before him, the compulsory acquisition of the lands in the said petition or order mentioned was just and reasonable, and he may give judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the said order of the Estates Commissioners, and may make such order as to the costs of and incidental to the said petition, and the hearing of the said application, as he may think fit; (b) Upon the hearing of every such application the said Judge shall have the jurisdiction, power, and authority possessed by a Judge of the High Court of Justice in Ireland when presiding at a trial at Nisi Prius, including the power to administer an oath, and compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents. He shall also have the power to direct that an independent valuer, to be nominated by him, should report to him his opinion upon any matter the Judge may think fit to refer to him, and he may make such order in reference to the costs of any such report as he may deem just; (c) In the determination of any question as to the adequacy of the compensation offered, the Judge shall have regard to the principles of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, applicable to the compulsory purchase of land, and for the purposes of the said application before the said Judge, the Estates Commissioners shall be deemed to be the promoters of the undertaking within the meaning of the said Act; (d) The Estates Commissioners shall be competent, but not compellable witnesses upon the hearing of every such application, and they shall furnish to the Judge hearing the same all such particulars and documents as shall by him be required, including a schedule in the form prescribed by Section 7 of the Act of 1903, together with a statement of the superior interests, if any, to which the lands sought to be acquired, or the estate of which they form a part, may be subject; (e) The inspectors and other officers of the Land Commission, other than the Land Commissioners themselves, shall be competent and compellable witnesses upon the hearing of every such application; (f) The said King's Bench Division and the Judges of Assize, respectively, may order that all applications pending before them in respect of the same petition or order as aforesaid may be consolidated, and heard together, and for the more convenient, speedy, or proper hearing of any such applications, may order that the hearing of the same may be transferred from the said Division to the Judges of Assize, or from the Judges of Assize to that Division, as the case may be, and the said application, when so transferred, shall be heard and determined as if it had originally been made to the tribunal to which it has been transferred; (g) The Judge before whom any such application is heard may, where he deems it expedient, reserve any question or matter arising upon such application, by way of case stated, for the consideration of His Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland; (h) All cases stated for the Court of Appeal shall be prosecuted, heard, and determined by such Court in such manner and form, and subject to such rules and regulations as the Court may from time to time by rules direct. The said Court of Appeal shall give such judgment as ought to have been given in the Court below by the Judge thereof, and such judgment shall be of the like effect as if it had been the judgment of the said Judge, or the said Court of Appeal may remit the case with such directions as they think fit to the Court below; (i) In the interval between the lodging of any such application to the Judges of Assize and the opening of the Assizes for the county in which such application is to be heard, the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland shall, on the motion in the prescribed manner of the applicant, the Estates Commissioners, or any party interested, have jurisdiction, power, and authority to make any order of an interlocutory nature in the matter of the said application, as if the same were an action at law pending in the said division; (j) The provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 1903, shall apply to this Act so far as the same are not inconsistent with the provisions of the latter. Provided that a question of law which has been decided by a Judge of the High Court or of Assize, or by the Court of Appeal under the provisions of this Act shall not after the date of such decision, be referred for decision to the Judicial Commissioner nor while a question of law is awaiting decision in any application pending before such a Judge, shall the same question of law be referred for decision to the Judicial Commissioner, unless at the request of some person who is neither a party to nor interested in the matter of the said application; (k) The compensation to be paid to any owner of land in respect of the loss thereof shall for the purposes of the Land Purchase Acts be deemed to be the price to be paid for the purchase thereof; (l) Rules of Court regulating and prescribing the practice, procedure, and the costs of and incidental to the hearing of all proceedings under this section before the King's Bench Division, or any Judge thereof, or any Judge of Assize, may be made by the authority having power to make Rules of Court for the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland; (9) In addition to any compensation to be awarded to the owner under this section, the Estates Commissioners, or the Judges on Appeal, shall have power to award such sum as may appear reasonable in respect of any arrears of rent due by the tenant at the date of the eviction, or in respect of any money paid to the tenant in respect of his interest or goodwill in the lands; (10) If no petition has been presented within the prescribed period, or if every such petition has been withdrawn, or if all questions under all petitions have been determined in such a manner that the Estates Commissioners would be entitled under the order of the Judge of Assize, or of the King's Bench Division or of the Court of Appeal, as the case may be, to acquire the said lands, a binding agreement for the purchase of the lands shall be deemed to have been concluded between the Estates Commissioners and the owner thereof, and the Land Commission shall within six months pay the amount of the compensation into the Bank of Ireland, and the Estates Commissioners may make an order vesting the lands in the Land Commission '"—the next Amendment, read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Birrell.)

    said that this was a provision inserted in another place for the protection of the new tenants. The question of appeal was, he thought, the most important matter in connection with the Bill. The consideration of the present Amendment had already been anticipated by a discussion with reference to the protection of the new tenants, but he would offer a few observations with regard to the general appeal provided in another place. The clauses that were inserted in the House of Lords, though numerous, were all necessary for the purpose of carrying out the jurisdiction of the tribunal which was proposed to be set up. They were practically taken verbatim from the Land Act of 1870, though in that Act they were passed for the protection of the tenant and in this Act they were put in for the protection of the landlord. Though they appeared to be rather voluminous, he could assure the House that they were all necessary in order to give proper jurisdiction to the tribunal proposed to be set up. He could understand criticisms of the tribunal, but not criticism on the length of the Amendment, because the clauses were all consequent upon the establishment of the tribunal. The tribunal which the Chief Secretary had admitted was, he thought, very unfortunate, and he would much have preferred to see a Judge of the High Court of Justice in Ireland instead of a Judge of Assize. He thought that the possibilities of the passing of this Bill would have been greatly strengthened if the right hon. Gentleman had seen his way to accept the tribunal which was set up in these clauses. One would have imagined that when the people, whose rights were affected by this Bill, namely, the landowners and the new tenants, asked, through those who had knowledge of their wishes, for a particular tribunal, the Government, in giving them the right of appeal, would have given them the tribunal which they had asked for. The Chief Secretary said it would be too costly, but he would find that he was wrong in his expectations, and that the tribunal set up in another place would have been less costly and more expeditious than the proposal by the Government. If these appeals were not locally determined the expense would be very great, and they could be locally determined by the Judge of Assize at a very small cost indeed. If the number of sittings of the Judge of Assize, which was two a year, was not enough, there was the alternative of going to Judges of the King's Bench Division. The Chief Secretary had said that it would be necessary to appoint another Judge because Mr. Justice Wylie could not do any more work. Yet under this Bill he was not only going to make him a Judge of Appeal in regard to the cases of new tenants. but he was going to impose on him the appeals which could be brought by landowners in reference to questions of law and fact arising under Clause 6. He did not think it was fair of the hon. Member for North Louth to suggest that he had attacked Mr. Justice Wylie. The hon. Member knew perfectly well that the Judge in question had no greater friend in the House or out of it than himself, and he would be the last man that he would attack or say anything about. He took the trouble to say, and he thought he said it in the most specific way, that he had the utmost confidence in the ability, the intelligence, and the honour of Mr. Justice Wylie. But he also said that he thought it was a great pity for himself and for the successful administration of the legitimate work he had to do, that Mr. Justice Wylie should have this extra work thrown on him by the Government who admitted that he already had more work devolving on him than he could possibly do. The evicted tenant was not directly interested in the Court of Appeal, but only the new tenants and the landowners. He could not see therefore why the right hon. Gentleman had deliberately imperilled the safety of his Bill by setting up this alternative tribunal in spite of the protests of everybody really interested in its operation. The radical objection to the Appeal Court proposed to be set up by the alternative plan of the right hon. Gentleman was that it was an appeal to a Judicial Commissioner who was himself of equalstatus as regarded Land Commission work with the two or three gentlemen whose decisions he would be called upon to override.

    Is there not a rule against constant repetition? The right hon. Gentleman has been saying the same thing over and over again.

    I think the hon. Member will see that this question of the Court of Appeal is a very important matter and is not being unduly discussed. Besides, I think that the right hon. Gentleman was just about to conclude when he was interrupted.

    said he thought the House was well advised in spending some little time in discussing this matter. He was also bound to say that he had never heard of this proposal or of this clause until it was read out about twenty minutes ago by the right hon. Gentleman. It certainly appeared to him to be a very strong thing to suggest that twenty minutes was too long a time to devote to discussing the question of an alternative appelate tribunal.

    Is the hon. Member entitled to discuss this matter on an Amendment not yet moved?

    Such discussion is sometimes taken, especially as, in this case, where the question is to disagree with the Lords Amendment with the view of inserting an alternative. It is usual to discuss both as practically one Amendment, the same as is done in the case of an Amendment to leave out certain words in order to insert other words.

    said he could not understand the impatient interruption. It was very difficult at that hour of the morning to discuss even matters with which they were previously acquainted and for which they were prepared, and it was hardly fair or reasonable that Members should be subjected to a series of interruptions. The matter was very important and one which he was satisfied was, for good or for evil, destined to make or to mar the Bill. He only wished to mention his objection against a tribunal which, so far as he could see, would not be a shilling less costly than the tribunal proposed by the Lords, and in which business would not be a bit more expeditiously conducted, because no one could ask Mr. Justice Wylie to throw over all his other work. Moreover, he was surrounded and connected with the wholeentourage of the Land Commission, and the landlords thought they ought to have a man with a different environment bringing his mind to bear upon these questions—a man unconnected with the Estates Commissioners or the associations surrounding the Commission. They thought the time had come when such matters as these questions of the valuation of land should be submitted to the test of appeal to another Court—just as in the land legislation hitherto passed in Ireland the tenants invariably got a chance of sub mitting their cases to a Court other than that which originally fixed the price. He knew everything he had said would be thrown away on the right hon. Gentleman, who had made up his mind to stick to his own Court. He greatly regretted that, because he would disappoint the legitimate claims of the landowners and the new tenants who were the persons really hit by the Bill.

    said he had a difficulty in regard to the question of the appeal on value because he was strongly of opinion there need not have been any appeal on value at all. He quite agreed that the concession he was making was to opinions which certainly had not overborne his own mind on the subject. He still thought the Estates Commissioners a perfectly competent tribunal to determine the question of how much was to be paid for the 80,000 acres of Irish land they might require to take for the purpose of reinstating the evicted tenants, and he felt a little on weak ground in regard to that. However, they had acceded to the view that there should be an appeal, and they hoped there would not be many appeals on this question of value. He did not think the Irish landlords had any ground for alarm. They themselves would admit that up to the present under the arrangements they had been able to make they had done very well. He did not think it was honest or fair to rely upon certain evidence given by one or two of the Estates Commissioners. Whether they were wise or foolish to do so, he would not say, but he supposed that at some time or other everybody had theories of rent. Their evidence showed that the Commissioners were anxious that the landlord should receive a fair and generous price for any land taken from him compulsorily. He (the Chief Secretary) felt that when they gave this appeal to Mr. Justice Wylie they made a distinct concession. As he said, he did not agree with any deep sense of conviction, but because he wished to secure the passage of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said the new Judge would be an expensive luxury. He had said that he hoped on the question of value there would not be many appeals, and if there were he could not help thinking that Mr. Justice Wylie would take the opportunity of writing down particular rules and observations which the Estates Commissioners might bear in mind. With regard to other questions, appeals were not really likely to arise with great frequency. On such questions as demesne land or not demesne land, home farm or not home farm, townpark or not townpark, it was perhaps not unreasonable there should be an appeal. Though the Estates Commissioners were the last persons in the world to go and take demesne lands to reinstate evicted tenants, here and there differences might arise, and land might be taken which was within the exemptions—though the cases would never be many—and the Estates Commissioners would be alive to the fact that there was an appeal against them. The Government were convinced that the tribunal they had established was likely to be cheaper and quicker and better than the proposal of the Lords, and, reluctant as he was, he gave in to the best possible and the cheapest tribunal and one which ought to give satisfaction. This was really a comparatively small question as compared with the whole question of land purchase in Ireland. It was the acquisition of a very small number of acres, and he thought they had safeguarded the interests of the landlords so sufficiently that he really was quite hopeful that notwithstanding the forebodings and fears of hon. Gentlemen opposite, when the Bill found its way back to another place the landlords there—powerful as they were and considerably as their interests were involved—would recognise the fact that the Government had against its own judgment and better opinion conceded the right to an appeal on value.

    said that in reference to what had fallen from the Chief Secretary about the Estates Commissioners he could assure the right hon. Gentleman, speaking for those who acted with him, that he was convinced there was no desire to express anything but the deepest respect for those gentlemen personally and from the point of view of their public character. But he did not think it was sufficiently recognised by the Government and by the House that they were placed by the law in a position of extraordinary difficulty, and that the pressure they had to resist was very frequently from the Government to carry out the work with which they were charged. To carry that work out efficiently and rapidly was a task of the utmost difficulty, and it was essential that they should be placed in a position in which they could attend fairly to the interests of both parties and at the same time assist in the development of the agriculture of Ireland which was necessary to turn uneconomic holdings into economic. When all these problems crowded upon them it was extremely difficult to approach the question of price with an absolutely open mind. The Opposition therefore thought that, actuated by no feeling of unfairness or injustice, the Commissioners might be overborne and might unintentionally be unfair towards owners on the question of price. He supported the Amendment. With regard to the evidence to which the Chief Secretary had referred, he thought personally that it was unfortunate that gentlemen occupying that particular position should be called upon to give evidence of that kind when it was known it would be the subject of controversy and criticism, which might be hard and even painful for those who were the subject of it. Looking at the whole problem of the value of land from the general point of view he was convinced that that evidence would not prejudice the Commissioner in the discharge of his duty. As he was associated with him when he was Chief Secretary for Ireland, he wished to say again what he had said before, that he had a very great respect for him.

    hoped the Chief Secretary would take notice of what had just been said about the position of extreme difficulty of these Gentlemen. Question put. The House divided:—Ayes. 141; Noes, 19. (Division List No. 452.)

    AYES.

    Abraham,William(Cork, N.E.)Barry, E. (Cork, S.)Bowerman, C. W.
    Ainsworth, John StirlingBarry,Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)Brace, William
    Ambrose, RobertBeaumont, Hon. HerbertBranch, James
    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)Birrell, Rt. Hon. AugustineBrodie, H. C.
    Barnard, E. B.Boland, JohnBrunner,J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh)

    Burke, E. Haviland-Hobhouse, Charles E. H.Power, Patrick Joseph
    Burns, Rt. Hon. JohnHogan, MichaelPrice,C. E. (Edinburgh,Central
    Byles, William PollardIllingworth, Percy H.Radford, G. H.
    Carr-Gomm, H. W.Johnson, John (Gateshead)Rainy, A. Rolland
    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.Jowett, F. W.Reddy, M.
    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.Joyce, MichaelRedmond, John E. (Waterford)
    Clancy, John JosephKekewich, Sir GeorgeRedmond, William (Clare)
    Clough, WilliamKennedy, Vincent PaulRichards, Thomas (W.Monm'th
    Condon, Thomas JosephKilbride, DenisRichards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n
    Cooper, G. J.Lamont, NormanRickett, J. Compton
    Corbett,C.H(Sussex,E.Grinst'dLardner, James Carrige RusheRoberts, G. H. (Norwich)
    Cullman, JLewis, John HerbertRobertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd
    Delany, WilliamLough, ThomasRobertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
    Devlin, JosephLundon, W.Robinson, S.
    Dickinson,W.H.(St.Paneras,N.MacNeill, John Gordon SwiftRowlands, J.
    Donelan, Captain A.MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.Russell, T. W.
    Duffy, William J.MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal, E.)Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
    Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)M`Callum, John M.Scott,A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne
    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)M'Crae, GeorgeSheehan, Daniel Daniel
    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)M`Hugh, Patrick A.Sheehy, David
    Elibank, Master ofM`Kean, JohnSilcock, Thomas Ball
    Essex, R. W.M`Killop, W.Sloan, Thomas Henry
    Farrell, James PatrickMaddison, FrederickSmyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
    Fenwick, CharlesManfield, Harry (Northants)Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)
    Ffrench, PeterMarkham, Arthur BasilStanley,Hn.A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
    Field, WilliamMeehan, Patrick A.Strachey, Sir Edward
    Findlay, AlexanderMontgomery, H. G.Summerbell, T.
    Flavin, Michael JosephMooney, J. J.Taylor, John W. (Durham)
    Fuller, John Michael F.Muldoon, JohnToulmin, George
    Gill, A. H.Murphy, John (Kerry, East)Walsh, Stephen
    Ginnell, L.Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton
    Goddard, Daniel FordNicholls, GeorgeWaring, Walter
    Gulland, John W.Nolan, JosephWaterlow, D. S.
    Gwynn, Stephen LuciusNorton, Capt. Cecil WilliamWhite, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
    Haplin, J.O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary,MidWhite, Patrick (Meath, North)
    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)Whitehead, Rowland
    Haworth, Arthur A.O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)Whitley, John Henry(Halifax)
    Hayden, John PatrickO'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)Wilson, W. T.(Westhoughton)
    Hazel, Dr. A. L.O'Doherty, Philip
    Hazleton, RichardO'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
    Healy, Timothy MichaelO'Malley, WilliamMr. Whiteley and J. A.
    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)O'Shee, James JohnPease.
    Henry, Charles S.Parker, James (Halifax)
    Higham, John SharpPearce, Robert (Staffs. Teck)

    NOES.

    Barrie, H. T.(Londonderry,N.)Courthope, G. LoydPease,HerbertPike(Darlington)
    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh HicksCraig,CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S.)Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
    Bull, Sir William JamesFetherstonhaugh, GodfreyThomson,W.Mitchell-(Lanark)
    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)
    Carlile, E. HildredGretton, JohnTELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
    Cavendish,Rt. Hon. VictorC.W.Harris, Frederick LevertonForster and Marquess of
    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-Hunt, RowlandHamilton.
    Chamberlain,Rt HnJ.A.(Worc.Long,Rt. HnWalter(Dublin,S.)

    Lords Amendment—

    "In page 3, lines 35 to 38, leave out Subsection (8) of Clause 2," the next Amendment, disagreed to.

    Amendments made to the Bill instead of the last Lords Amendment disagreed to, in page 3, line 34, by leaving out from the word "shall," to the end of Clause 2, and inserting the words "subject to the provisions of this subsection, be final: Provided that any person aggrieved by any determination of the Estates Commissioners fixing the price of the land proposed to be acquired, or any determination of a question arising under the provisions of this Act imposing restric

    tions on the acquisition of land, may, within the prescribed time, appeal to the Judicial Commissioner, who shall hear in the prescribed manner and determine the appeal. (8) The powers conferred upon the Land Commission by Section 48 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, may be exercised by the Judicial Commissioner in the case of all proceedings coming before him in pursuance of the last preceding subsection. (9) Subject to the determination of all questions arising on the petition, the purchase money shall, within the prescribed time, be paid into the Bank of Ireland, and the vesting order shall be made, unless the Estates

    Commisssoners, within the prescribed time, serve a notice on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the land that they do not intend to make the order,"—( Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland,)—instead thereof.

    Consequential Amendments made to the Bill—

    "In page 5, line 6, by leaving out the word 'petitioner,' and inserting the word 'person,' instead thereof, and in page 5, line 8, by leaving out from the word 'petition,' to the word 'or,' in line 9, and inserting the words 'hearing or appeal under this Act,"—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland,)—instead there of.

    Subsequent Lords Amendment to the Amendment in page 4, line 14, agreed to.

    Lords Amendment—

    "In page 4, line 14, after the word 'holding,' to insert the words 'and shall at the same time offer to such new tenant such sum as may be reasonably necessary to cover any expense or loss incidental to the removal of himself and his family as well as of his crops, stock, and chattels to such parcel of land'"—the next Amendment, read a second time, and amended in line 5, by inserting after "and." the word "other," and agreed to.

    Lords Amendment—

    "In page 4, line 19, after the word 'holding,' to insert the words 'and for any expense or loss incidental to the removal of himself and his family, as well as of his crops, stock, and chattels from the said holding,'" read a second time.

    said he could not agree to that because he had no idea where the man might go to. He might remove his family and chattels to the Southern Cross. Lords Amendment disagreed to Lords Amendment—

    "In page 4, line 22, after the word '1881,' to insert the words 'Provided that the Estate Commissioners may, if they think proper, and the new tenant so desires, award a sum as full compensation under this Subsection 3, without making an offer of a parcel of land under Subsection 2'"—read a second time.

    said he accepted the substance of this Amendment, but would like to amend it. Where the new tenant applied within the prescribed time, the Estates Commissioners might think it proper to offer compensation without offering to put him into possession of a parcel of land. Lords Amendment disagreed to. Amendment made to the Bill, instead of the last Lords Amendment disagreed to—

    "In page 4, line 22, to insert the words. '(4) Where the new tenant applies within the prescribed time for compensation under the last preceding subsection, the Estates Commissioners may, if they think proper, award him such compensation without having offered to put him into possession of a parcel of land.'"—(Mr. Birrell.)
    Consequential Amendment made to the Bill—
    "In page 4, line 4, at the beginning to insert the words 'unless the new tenant has applied for compensation as hereinafter mentioned.'"—(Mr. Birrell.)
    Lords Amendment—
    "In page 5, line 5, at the beginning, to insert the words 'except as hereinbefore provided,'
    The next Amendment disagreed to. Lords Amendment—
    "In page 5, line 13, to leave out Clause 5,"—read a second time.

    said he disagreed with this Amendment, and thought that Clause 5 should be restored. The real reason why he thought it was moved to leave out the clause in the other place was because it was felt that some limit ought to be placed upon the total paid out of the Land Purchase Aid Fund. The Government had decided that if the clause was withdrawn, they would add a proviso at the end of it, providing that the total amount paid out of the Land Purchase Aid Fund out of this section should not exceed £100,000. Lords Amendment disagreed to. Words so restored to the Bill amended by adding at the end thereof the words—

    "Provided that the total amount paid out of the Land Purchase Aid Fund under this section shall not exceed £100,000.'"—(Mr. Birrell.)
    Lords' Amendment—
    "In page 5, line 25, after the word 'which,' to insert the words 'is or,' and after the word 'farm,' to insert the word 'townpart,' and to leave out the word 'or,'—
    The next Amendment, read a second time, amended by inserting after the word "townpart," the words "within the meaning of the Land Law (Ireland) Acts," and agreed to.—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.) Lords Amendment considered—
    "In page 5, line 26, after the word 'ground,' to insert the words 'or ground suitable for building sites or which for any reason possesses an exceptional or accommodation value to the owner,'"—read a second time.

    said he was bound to ask the House to disagree with these words. They were vague, and as inserted by the Lords they might very seriously hamper the operations of the Estates Commissioners. Ground suitable for building sites might be situated anywhere in the country, and "ground which for any reason possesses an exceptional or accommodation value" was very vague. In fact, it was almost impossible to determine what it was. If land was taken of this character, the landlord under the Bill was entitled to get a fair market value for it, and therefore he contended that the Amendment inserted by the Lords was quite unnecessary. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

    said he did not think it necessary to put the House to the trouble of dividing on this Amendment, although he and his friends thought it was a very reasonable one. He could not for the life of him see how the right hon. Gentleman could have any difficulty in understanding what was accommodation land. They had had it discussed over and over again, and it was just as well known as was a desmene or townpart. The Estates Commissioners would have no difficulty at all in ascertaining what land bore an accommodation value. While the Opposition thought that the landowner who had this accommodation land had just as much right to be protected as a man who had a home farm or pleasure ground, they would not trouble to divide on the Amendment, but would content themselves with entering their protest. Question put, and agreed to.

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)Carr-Gomm, H. W.Farrell, James Patrick
    Ainsworth, John StirlingCherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.Fenwick, Charles
    Ambrose, RobertChurchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.Ffrench, Peter
    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)Clancy, John JosephField, William
    Barnard, E. B.Clough, WilliamFindlay, Alexander
    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)Condon, Thomas JosephFlavin, Michael Joseph
    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.Cooper, G. J.Fuller, John Michael F.
    Beaumont, Hon. HubertCorbett,CH (Sussex,E.Grinst'd)Gill, A. H.
    Birrell, Rt. Hon. AugustineCullinan, J.Ginnell, E.
    Boland, JohnDelany, WilliamGoddard, Daniel Ford
    Bowerman, C. W.Devlin, JosephGulland, John W.
    Brace, WilliamDonelan, Captain A.Gwynn, Stephen Lucius
    Branch, JamesDuffy, William J.Halpin, J.
    Brodie, H. C.Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-FurnessHarmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r
    Brunner,J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)Haworth, Arthur A.
    Burke, E. Haviland-Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)Hayden, John Patrick
    Burns, Rt. Hon. JohnElibank, Master ofHazel, Dr. A. E.
    Byles, William PollardEssex, R. W.Hazleton, Richard

    Lords' Amendment—

    "In page 5, line 33, to leave out the words immediately adjoining and'"—read a second time.

    said he must ask the House to disagree with this Amendment, which very largely extended the exemption of lands that were necessarily exempt. Amendment disagreed to. Lords' Amendment—

    "After Clause 6 to insert new Clause B, alternative site.'
    "B.—The owner of any land proposed to be acquired under this Act may offer to sell any other land as an alternative, and the Estates. Commissioners shall consider any such offer,"—read a second time.

    said he did not think this Amendment was at all necessary, but at the same time he would not disagree with it. Lords' Amendment agreed to. Lords' Amendment—

    "New clause, 'Saving of sporting rights.'
    "'C.—Where any land is compulsorily acquired under this Act all sporting rights theretofore vested in the owner of the land shall, if he so desires, be expressly reserved to him"—read a second time. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

    said he hoped the House would take notice of the fact that the Lords were so satisfied that the evicted tenants were well behaved that Lord Clanricarde would be glad to have shooting parties on their estate on the 1st September next. Question put. The House divided:—Ayes, 136; Noes, 19. (Division List No. 453.)

    Healy, Timothy MichaelMooney, J. J.Robinson, S.
    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)Muldoon, JohnRowlands, J.
    Henry, Charles S.Murphy, John (Kerry, East)Russell, T. W.
    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne
    Hogan, MichaelNicholls, GeorgeSheehan, Daniel Daniel
    Illingworth, Percy H.Nolan, JosephSheehy, Daniel
    Johnson, John (Gateshead)Norton, Capt. Cecil WilliamSilcock, Thomas Ball
    Jowett, F. W.O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary,Md.Sloan, Thomas Henry
    Joyce, MichaelO'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
    Kekewich, Sir GeorgeO'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)
    Kennedy, Vincent PaulO'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph (Chesh.
    Kilbride, DenisO'Doherty, PhilipStrachey, Sir Edward
    Lamont, NormanO'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)Summerbell, T.
    Lardner, James Carrige RusheO'Malley, WilliamTaylor, John W. (Durham)
    Lewis, John HerbertO'Shee, James JohnToulmin, George
    Lough, ThomasParker, James (Halifax)Walsh, Stephen
    Lundon, W.Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)Ward, W.Dudley(Southampt'n
    MacNeill, John Gordon SwiftPower, Patrick JosephWaring, Walter
    MacVeagh,Jeremiah (Down,S.)Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, CentralWaterlow, D. S.
    MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal,E.)Radford, G. H.White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
    M`Callum, John M.Rainy, A. RollandWhite, Patrick (Meath, North)
    M`Crae, GeorgeReddy, M.Whitehead, Rowland
    M`Hugh, Patrick A.Redmond, John E. (WaterfordWhitley, John Henry (Halifax)
    M`Killop, W.Redmond, William (Clare)Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
    Maddison, FrederickRichards, Thomas (W.Monm'th
    Manfield, Harry (Northants)Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'nTELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
    Markham, Arthur BasilRickett, J. ComptonWhiteley and Mr. J. A.
    Meehan, Patrick A.Robertson,SirG.Scott (Bradf'rdPease.
    Montgomery, H. G.Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    NOES.

    Beach, Hn.Michael Hugh HicksFetherstonhaugh, GodfreyPease, HerbertPike(Darlington
    Bull, Sir William JamesForster, Henry WilliamStaveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
    Carlile, E. HildredGretton, John
    Cavendish,Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.Hamilton, Marquess ofTELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-Harris, Frederick LevertonHugh Barrie and Mr. Charles
    Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc.Hunt, RowlandCraig.
    Courthope, G. LoydLong,Rt.Hn. Walter (Dublin,S.

    Subsequent Lords' Amendments to the Amendment in page 6, line 24, agreed to.

    Lords' Amendment—

    "In page 6, line 24, to leave out the word 'may' and insert the words 'after having been offered to the person from whom it was acquired may if the offer is not accepted by him within the prescribed time'"—read a second time.

    said this was a provision to enable surplus lands in cases of resale to be resold to the person from whom they were bought in the first instance. If he did not wish to buy they could be sold elsewhere, but he had a right of pre-emption. Lords' Amendment agreed to. Lords' Amendment—

    "In page 6, line 39, to leave out Clause 13"—read a second time.

    moved, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment." He said that the Lords had acted unadvisedly in admitting the clause. The Government were still of the opinion that the position of the Estates Commissioners was peculiar. He did not himself greatly admire what was now becoming a necessity of some of their legislation, and that was a mixture of the executive and the judicial. It was much better that these things should be kept apart. The Commissioners were in this position.Quoad executive capacity they were necessarily under the control of the House. It was not suggested for a moment that the Commissioners should be removed from the criticism of the House. All the salaries of two of them would remain on the Votes. One of them was already an official at the time of the Act of 1903 and occupied a different position. In order to make him subject to criticism his salary was increased by £500. He did not offer any opposition, and he too was now subject to criticism. The Government did not propose to alter this position. It was a difficult matter for anybody in Ireland to hold such office. The Commissioners had to stand a good deal of criticism. That was all very well so long as it was merely criticism, but when it took the form of, he would not say a threat but of a suggestion that the person who acted in a particular way might find himself dismissed from his office when another party came into power, they had a very disagreeable situation. What was the present position of these gentlemen? Two were removable by the Lord-Lieutenant through an Order in Council which must lie on the Table of Parliament. An Address must then be presented to His Majesty. The initiative rested with the Lord-Lieutenant. The position of the third Commissioner he would not go into. It was somewhat doubtful exactly what it was, but there seemed to be a difference between it and that of the others. The Government desired to put all three on terms of equality. Their proposal was that they should hold office by the tenure of a County Court Judge. Their salaries would still be paid by this House, which would leave their action open to discussion, but, like County Court Judges, they would only be removable by an Address on account of misbehaviour. No doubt a recent letter was merely the expression of an angry man in a fit of temper, who had no serious intention of acting in any improper manner when his party became responsible, and there was a great difference between what a man might say when he was angry and his words when he was invested with office and felt it his bounden duty to behave as Christianity and religion dictated he should do. The Commissioners were entitled to be saved such things and to have the satisfaction of feeling that they were entrusted with important duties and that although as executive officers they were subject to some extent to Parliament and the Minister in charge, so far as judicial business was concerned they had the tenure of Judges. There must have been some misunderstanding or misapprehension when another place struck out that clause. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Birrell.)

    said it had always been a puzzle why this particular clause found its way into a Bill dealing with evicted tenants. Now they had learned from the Chief Secretary the reason of this proposal to give the Commissioners a newstatus. The reason was a letter of which they had heard mention more than once—a letter written by the Member for North Armagh in which he made some indiscreet remarks on one of these Estates Commissioners. He was bound to say it was a new idea that because one indiscreet letter was written or one hasty word said, therefore they were suddenly to discover it was necessary to put the people to whom the letter or the language was addressed on quite a new footing. The Chief Secretary had told them that the position of the third Commissioner was one of some doubt, but that he held on a different tenure from that of the two others. He had never been able to the see why the Estates Commissioners should be on better terms of service than other civil servants. They already were on better terms, and now it was proposed to put them on the same terms as County Court Judges. At the time the change in the law was made Mr. Wrench was under a certain tenure and would not have changed his position if he were not given security of tenure, but the case of the other Commissioners was different. He could not understand the attitude of the Government. They seemed to want to make these officials absolutely independent of the Executive Government. The change was not justified by the facts. He would record his vote against a change which he believed to be undesirable.

    said there was nothing inconsistent in his speeches, but hon. Gentlemen above the gangway were strangely inconsistent. When the Bill was in Committee their object was to secure protection for the Estates Commissioners against pressure being brought to bear on them. When it was proposed to protect them from pressure they objected to it. There were three Commissioners, two who were supposed to be friendly to the tenants, and one who was supposed to be friendly to the landlords. The one friendly to the landlords was secure in his tenure, the other two were not. They wanted to make those two secure.

    said that when the Act of 1903 was before the House the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and his friends insisted on those two gentlemen being kept in the position they now held.

    said that was not so. He insisted on their being kept in a position where they could be criticised.

    said what the hon. and learned Gentleman said in 1903 was that these gentlemen were to he officials not judges.

    said he only meant that in the sense that they ought to be at liberty to criticise them.

    said he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman had been as candid as he usually was in dealing with the position of Mr. Wrench. The reason Mr. Wrench's position was different was that, at the time he took office, Mr. Wrench was an Irish Land Commissioner with security of tenure. The other two gentlemen were not, and were quite satisfied with the tenure given to them. He was opposed to the proposition, because he was convinced that they would never have heard of that Evicted Tenants Bill if it had not been for that clause.

    said he quite expected the astonishment the right hon. Gentleman had expressed. Still that was his conviction. He was also opposed to the proposal, because it had been received with such extreme éclat by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, who usually covered judicial persons in Ireland with abuse, contempt, and ridicule.

    thought the House should understand what the late Chief Secretary and the late Attorney-General for Ireland objected to. A County Court Judge could not deal with cases of more than £50, the Estates Commissioners dealt with £110,000,000. The House of Lords, who received that money, objected to giving the Commissioners the same tenure as County Court Judges. They had to remember what had happened since 1903. The hon. Member for North Armagh had written a letter—he would never get out of it — the hon. Member who was continually attacking the Irish people in connection with threatening letters had himself attempted intimidation.

    said they were nearing the end now, and he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not go back unduly upon a matter which had already been sufficiently before the House.

    said the question they were discussing was whether the same tenure was to be given to the two Estates Commissioners as to the other Commissioner. It was very necessary that it should be, when the hon. Member for North Armagh sent them threatening letters, an offence for which miserable peasants were sent to gaol. Question put. The House divided:—Ayes, 139; Noes, 19. (Division List No. 454.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.Brunner,J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh)Donelan, Captain A.
    Ainsworth. John StirlingBurke, E. Haviland-Duffy, William J.
    Ambrose, RobertBurns, Rt. Hon. JohnDuncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness
    Baring,Godfrey(Isle of Wight)Byles, William PollardDunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
    Barnard, E. B.Carr-Gomm, H. W.Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)
    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.Elibank, Master of
    Barry,Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.Essex, R, W.
    Beaumont, Hon. HubertClancy, John JosephFarrell, James Patrick
    Benn,W.(T'w'r Harnlets,S.Geo.Clough, WilliamFenwick, Charles
    Birrell, Rt. Hon. AugustineCondon, Thomas JosephFfrench, Peter
    Boland, JohnCooper, G. J.Field, William
    Bowerman, C. W.Corbett,C.H(Sussex,E Grinst'dFindlay, Alexander
    Brace. WilliamCullinan, J.Flavin, Michael Joseph
    Branch, JamesDelany, WilliamFuller, John Michael F.
    Brodie, H. C.Devlin, JosephGill, A. H.

    Ginnell, P.M`Hugh, Patrick A.Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n
    Goddard, Daniel FordM`Killop, W.Rickett, J. Compton
    Gulland, John W.Maddison, FrederickRobertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd
    Gwynn, Stephen LuciusManfield, Harry (Northants)Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
    Halpin, J.Markham, Arthur BasilRobinson, S.
    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)Meehan, Patrick A.Rowlands, J.
    Haworth, Arthur A.Montgomery, H. G.Russell, T. W.
    Hayden, John PatrickMooney, J. J.Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne
    Hazel, Dr. A. E.Muldoon, JohnSheehan, Daniel Daniel
    Hazleton, RichardMurphy, John (Kerry, East)Sheehy, David
    Healy, Timothy MichaelMurphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)Silcock, Thomas Ball
    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)Nicholls, GeorgeSloan, Thomas Henry
    Henry, Charles S.Nolan, JosephSmyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim,S.)
    Higham, John SharpNorton, Capt. Cecil WilliamStanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)
    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary,MidStanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)
    Hogan, MichaelO'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)Strachey, Sir Edward
    Illingworth, Percy H.O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)Summerbell, T.
    Johnson, John (Gateshead)O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)Taylor, John W. (Durham)
    Jowett, F. W.O'Doherty, PhilipToulmin, George
    Joyce, MichaelO'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)Walsh, Stephen
    Kekewich, Sir GeorgeO'Grady, J.Ward,W.Dudley(Southampton
    Kennedy, Vincent PaulO'Malley, WilliamWaring, Walter
    Kilbride, DenisO'Shee, James JohnWaterlow, D. S.
    Lamont., NormanParker, James (Halifax)White, J. D.(Dumbartonshire)
    Lardner, James Carrige RushePearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)White, Patrick (Meath, North)
    Lewis, John HerbertPower, Patrick JosephWhitehead, Rowland
    Lough, ThomasPrice, C.E. (Edinburgh,CentralWhitley, John Henry (Halifax)
    Lundon, W.Radford, G. H.Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
    MacNeill, John Gordon SwiftRainy, A. Rolland
    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.Reddy, M.TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
    MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal, E.Redmond, John E. (WaterfordWhiteley and Mr. J. A.
    M`Callum, John M.Redmond, William (Clare)Pease.
    M`Crae, GeorgeRichards,Thomas(W. Monm'th

    NOES.

    Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry, N.)Courthope, G. LoydPease,HerbertPike(Darlington
    Beach,Hn. Michael HughHicksCraig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh)
    Bull, Sir William JamesFetherstonhaugh, GodfreyThomson, W Mitchell-(Lanark)
    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)
    Carlile, E. HildredGretton, JohnTELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
    Cavendish,Rt.Hon.VictorC.W.Harris, Frederick LevertonForster and Marquess of
    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-Hunt, RowlandHamilton.
    Chamberlain,Rt.HnJ.A.(Worc.Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(Dublin, S.

    Lords' Amendment—

    "After Clause 15 to inert new Clause D, 'Duration of Act.'"
    "D.—The provisions of this Act conferring powers for the acquisition of land and for the determination of tenancies shall continue in force for three years after the passing of this Act."—read a second time.

    said he moved to accept this clause, but he would substitute for the word "three" the word "four." He would also add words that would enable any matters coming before the Court of Appeal or the Judicial Commissioner which were still pending at the end of four years to be determined, but would not enable any new matters to be determined. It was quite possible, as the House would see, that there might be a good many matters which would occupy the attention of the Court of Appeal for a long time and in regard to which a final decision could not be given until after the four years had expired. He proposed at the end of the new Clause D to insert the words "and as regards any matters then pending before the Court of Appeal or the Judicial Commissioner until such matters are finally determined." Lords Amendment, amended as proposed, and agreed to. Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to. Committee appointed to draw up reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill. Committee nominated of—Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Birrell, Mr. Clancy, Mr. Muldoon, Mr. John Redmond, and Mr. Russell. Three to be the quorum. The Committee to withdraw immediately.—(Mr. Birrell.)

    Transvaal Loan (Guarantee) Bill

    Considered in Committee.

    said that, as the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies knew, they had agreed on the Front Opposition Bench that they would not on the Committee stage of the Bill discuss questions of principle which had been raised on the Second Reading. He wanted, however, to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question which they could not touch on during the Second Reading debate. It was a small point of detail, but of some importance. In the White Paper on the Finances of the Transvaal, which was circulated preliminary to their discussions on this Bill, there was included a telegram from the Governor to the Secretary of State dated 17th June, which concluded with this sentence—

    "To avoid having large balances lying idle, Ministers propose to adopt the suggestion made by the Prime Minister in London that such moneys as may be required for loan service before issue of the loan should be advanced by Imperial Treasury."
    He presumed the Prime Minister mentioned there was the Prime Minister of the Transvaal, and not of this country. He did not know that any reference to that suggestion was made in any subsequent telegram included in the White Paper, nor did he see any provision made in the Bill to carry out the suggestion. What he wanted to know was whether the Government intended to carry it out, and, if so, what were the words in the Bill which would enable them to do so.

    said he was very glad it was not the intention of the Opposition to renew on this stage of the Bill the serious and far-reaching discussion of principles which occupied the greater part of the previous day. With regard to the point now raised, the telegram which appeared on page 5 of the White Paper was of course only the view and opinions of the Transvaal Government. The reference to the Prime Minister meant of course General Botha when he was in London. The representatives of His Majesty's Government discussed matters with General Botha in London and they knew that the Transvaal would not require all the money at once, but would require it in certain sums from time to time. Therefore, it was thought that short date Treasury Bills might be advanced. What was intended was that they should be Transvaal Treasury bonds, but power would be taken in the Bill to enable the Government to extend the guarantees to such bonds when they should be issued by the Transvaal. The decision would be as it appeared in the Bill and not in the paragraph to which the right hon. Gentleman had properly drawn attention. Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-marrow (Wednesday).

    Public Works Loan (Remission, Etc)

    Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the extension of the period for the repayment of certain Loans made by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, and to authorise the remission of a debt due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners from the Cullen Harbour Commissioners, in pursuance of any Act of the present session, to grant money for the purpose of certain Local Loans out of the Local Loans Fund, and for other purposes relating to Local Loans."

    Resolution agreed to.

    Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill

    Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments reported, and agreed to.

    To be communicated to the Lords.—( Mr. Birrell.)

    Adjournment

    Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn."—( Mr. Whiteley)—put, and agreed to.

    Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter before Eight o'clock, a.m.

    Private Bill Business

    Docks and Railway (Additional Capital, &c.) Bill; Barry Railway Bill; Metropolitan Water Board (Various Powers) Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to. London County Council (General Powers) Bill. Lords Amendments, in pursuance of the Order of the House [19th August], considered, and agreed to. Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.] Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment. Inverness Royal Academy Order Confirmation Bill. Read the third time, and passed.

    Message From The Lords

    That they have agreed to, Metropolitan Water Board (Charges, &c.) Bill, with an Amendment.

    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Lanarkshire County Council." [Lanarkshire County Council Order Confirmation Bill] [Lords].

    Lanarkshire County Council Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Ordered under Section 7 of The Private Legislation Proceedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to be considered To-morrow.

    Petitions

    Education (Special Religious Instruction) Bill

    Petition from West Derby, against; to lie upon the Table.

    Marriage With A Deceased Wife's Sister Bill

    Petition from Bardwell, against; to lie upon the Table.

    Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill

    Petition from East Lothians, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.

    Returns, Reports, Etc

    Workmen's Compensation

    Copy presented, of Statistics of Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, 1897 and 1900, and The Employers' Liability Act, 1880, during the year 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

    Reformatory And Industrial Schools (Ireland)

    Copy presented, of Forty-fifth Report of the Inspector for the year 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

    Local Taxation Returns (England)

    Copy presented, of the Annual Local Taxation Returns for 1905–6 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 321.]

    Post Office

    Copy presented, of Fifty-third Report of the Postmaster-General [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

    Clergy (West Indies)

    Copy presented, of Return of the Amount payable on 5th January, 1907, out of the Consolidated Fund for Ecclesiastical purposes in the West Indies [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

    Papers Laid Upon The Table By The Clerk Of The House

  • Adjournment Motions under Standing Order No. 10, Return relative thereto [ordered 19th August;Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed. [No. 322.]
  • Closure of Debate (Standing Order No. 26), Return relative thereto [ordered 19th August;Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed. [No. 323.]
  • Public Bills, Return relative thereto, [ordered 19th August;Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed.
  • Public Petitions, Return relative thereto [ordered 19th August;Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed.
  • Select Committees, Return relative thereto [ordered 19th August;Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed.
  • Standing Committees, Return relative thereto [ordered 19th August;Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed.
  • Sittings of the House, Return relative-thereto [ordered 19th August;Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed.
  • Business of the House (Days Occupied by Government and by Private Members), Return relative thereto [ordered 19th August;Mr Caldwell]; to be printed. [No. 324.]
  • Private Bills and Private Business, Return relative thereto [ordered 19th August;Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed.
  • Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905

    Return ordered, "as to the proceedings of Distress Committees in England and Wales, and of the Central (Unemployed) Body for London, under The Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, during the year ended the 31st day of March, 1907."—( Mr. John Burns.)

    Education (England And Wales) (Small Schools)

    Return ordered, "of the number of Departments of Public Elementary Schools within the area of each local

    Local Education Authority.Total Number of Departments.Number of Departments with average attendance not exceeding 40.Number of Departments with average attendance exceeding 40 and not exceeding 50.Number of Departments with average attendance exceeding 50 and not exceeding 60.
    Certificated Head Teacher.Other Qualified Head Teacher.No Qualified Head Teachers.Total.Certificated Head Teachers.Other Qualified Head Teacher.No Qualified Head Teacher.Total.Certificated Head Teacher.Other Qualified Head Teacher.No Qualified Head Teacher.Total.