moved, "That, in the case of the Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill, Standing Order 193A be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time."

At the present moment no one knows what is the Standing Order. The Standing Orders are very extensive, and without some explanation we cannot expect to know what the suspension means. I beg to suggest that the Motion of the suspension of the Standing Order stand over for a day in order that we may see really what it means.

I will put the Motion down for to-morrow (Wednesday).

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give any information with regard to Persian affairs?

I cannot on the general situation add the news which has appeared in the Press, and which records day by day the state of affairs as clearly as can be expected under the circumstances, certainly as clearly as I can do it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is a fact that the elections to the Persian Assembly are to commence in a few days time; is it a fact that the posts and telegraphs and other machinery for conducting the elections are still in the hands of the Court party, while those personages who possess the confidence of the Persian people, and of whom many were returned to the late Parliament by their votes, are still in exile; and will he represent to the Persian Government the desirability of postponing the elections until satisfactory guarantees have been given for the faithful observance of the amnesty, and until the statesman whose name they have notified to His Majesty's Government has returned to Persia and taken over the reins of Government?

The elections are, according to the information last received, to be held as soon as possible; the posts and telegraphs are, in so far as the latter are not managed by foreign officials, under the control of the Government in power, but there is no indication to show that a partial or improper use will be made of these facilities for communication. A general amnesty for political offences, with licence for exiles to return, has been proclaimed in a separate decree issued on l0th May. I do not think that a representation such as the hon. Member advocates would serve any useful purpose or contribute to the earlier re-establishment of Constitutional Government on a satisfactory basis, or be generally desirable.

Is it not a fact that the Persian people elected their representatives to Parliament last summer, and that many of those representatives are in exile? Is it seriously proposed to summon Parliament before these gentlemen have had an opportunity of returning to Persia?

May I ask whether the Foreign Office has any means of knowing which persons possess the confidence of the Persian people, and whether the fact that they were once elected proves that they do possess that confidence?

I am quite willing to give such facts as I possess, but I cannot enter into arguments about the Persian situation.

Is it proposed before these gentlemen return to Persia, and have had the opportunity of submitting themselves for re-election, that Parliament should assemble?

That is a question that should be more properly addressed to the Persian Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the State of Persia has promulgated the new electoral law; and can he state what changes are introduced by this law?

The electoral law was signed by the Shah on 23rd June. I have not yet seen the text, but His Majesty's Minister at Teheran has reported that it is of a most democratic character.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secre- tary of State for India is aware of the dissatisfaction of the European community of Bengal with the Code of Regulations for European Schools in Bengal, 1908, which is to take effect in 1910; and whether he will have the operation of the code postponed until the schools are better prepared to meet the increased expenditure that will be involved?

The Secretary of State has received no representation from the European community of Bengal and has no information on the subject. Any memorial sent in the usual manner will, of course, be considered.

You might have been at it all your life.

asked the Under-Secretary for India whether, in the case of the alleged murder of her husband by one Gulab Bano, heard on appeal at Lahore in January last, he can state what action was taken by the Government of the Punjaub in regard to the police officers implicated in the charges of outrage and torture of the woman made against them by the judges of the chief court; whether these police were removed from the service of the Government; and whether any criminal proceedings have been taken against them?

The Secretary of State has as yet no information as to whether any action has been taken in regard to the police officers concerned. As was stated in reply to a question last Tuesday, an inquiry has been held, and the report is being considered by the local government.

asked whether the last reported revenue from the sale of intoxicating liquors and drugs in the Madras Presidency was £1,699,830; and, if so, why, since the population is only slightly less than that of the United Kingdom, and is judged by the returns one of the most temperate in the world, the Madras Government has been urged to adopt measures to check further increase of the consumption of alcoholic liquor?

The figure given by the hon. Member is correct according to the revised estimate of 1908–9. It shows an increase of 24 per cent, on the revenue derived in 1906–7 from intoxicating liquors and drugs. The Madras Government considers that the consumption of spirits and drugs has increased among certain classes of the population to a regrettable extent, and that further restrictive measures are necessary. It is not acting under external pressure, but on its own judgment and initiative. The hon. Member can hardly suggest that the fact of the Madras population being one of the most temperate in the world is a good reason for allowing it to become less temperate.

Is it not the fact that on the motion of an hon. Member of this House the Government urged the Madras Government to take steps as if they were dealing with a drunken population?

Do not the Returns of the Excise revenue in India show a three-fold increase in the last 30 years?

I cannot answer these questions without notice.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the comments made by the High Court of Calcutta in the Midnapur appeal upon the conduct of the magistrate of Midnapur in procuring confessions of guilt from the accused, which were not voluntary, and upon the procedure of the joint magistrates in recording them; and whether at the inquiry which has been ordered those gentlemen will be given an opportunity of explaining their conduct?

The Secretary of State is aware of the comments made in the High Court's judgment on the action of the magistrates referred to in the question. The inquiry, which is proceeding, will include all points in which the conduct of the local officers has been impugned, and those officers will have the fullest opportunity of explaining their conduct.

Is it a fact that the magistrate, Mr. Weston, has been appointed as an assistant to the Commissioner who is making the inquiry?

I must ask for notice.

Are there any magistrates among the accused?

I should like notice.

asked whether, in view of the fact that upwards of 150 persons were originally arrested by the police as being concerned in the alleged conspiracy at Midnapur, that only three of the accused were found guilty by the magistrate, and that the convictions of those three have been set aside by the High Court as being based on confessions extorted from the accused by grossly illegal methods on the part of the police, he can state with what object or upon what fresh evidence the Government of Bengal has ordered a further inquiry into the circumstances of the alleged conspiracy?

The late Lieut.-Governor of Bengal announced in August last that an inquiry into the existence of a conspiracy in Bengal would be held, and the terms of reference, under which the present inquiry is being held, have been so drafted as to carry into effect the intention which was thus made public. As to this, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Nottingham last Tuesday.

Is not the Government of Bengal competent to order inquiries at its own discretion without disclosing such facts as would render the inquiry unavailing?

I must ask for notice.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the rates of the Hut Tax collected in Rhodesia and in Nyassaland?

In Southern and North-Western Rhodesia there is no Hut Tax strictly so-called, but there is in Southern Rhodesia a Native Tax at the rate of £1 per annum for each adult male native, with ten shillings per annum for each wife in excess of one. In Northwestern Rhodesia there is power to provide by proclamation of the High Commissioner for a tax at the same rate, but the amount actually collected is understood to be at the rate of from five to ten shillings per annum, according to the ability of the natives in the various dis- tricts to pay. In North-Eastern Rhodesia the amount of Hut Tax payable varies from three to five shillings for every hut occupied. In Nyassaland the rate is six shillings a hut, or three shillings if the native can show that he has worked one month during the year for a European. In Nyassaland districts may be proclaimed within which the rates shall be double those mentioned, but so far no districts have been so proclaimed.

asked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies if he will inform the House by whom the staff is employed and controlled, orders placed, rebates and private commissions received, and patronage exercised in connection with large engineering works in the Colonies, if not by the Crown Agents; whether their operations, income, and expenditure are free from control, scrutiny, audit, and the inspection to which the business of other Government Departments are subject, on the part either of the Colonies or of the Home Government, in matters in which the Imperial Parliament votes money and incurs responsibility; if he will state the original estimate of cost and time for the completion of the tunnelled portion of the Kowloon Railway, the untunnelled portion, and the entire line' respectively; whether a responsible firm was willing to construct it efficiently within those limits; the actual expenditure by the Crown Agents to the date of the latest accounts; the present estimated further cost and time for completion; the difference in cost and time compared with the original estimate; and whether he has read the intimation in the Governor's address to the Legislative Council of Hong Kong on 13th May last, that further supplementary estimates for this railway may be necessary?

In engineering works in the Crown Colonies carried out depart-mentally the staff is employed and controlled by the Colonial Government concerned. Orders other than those placed locally are placed by the Crown Agents. Appointments are made either by the Colonial Government or by the Crown Agents acting on the recommendation of the consulting engineers. No rebates or private commissions are received, and any discounts are credited to the Colonial Government. All the operations of the Crown Agents are subject to the control of the Secretary of State. Their income and expenditure are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and moneys expended by them on behalf of a Government for which they act are audited precisely as other Colonial expenditure. In matters in which the Imperial Parliament votes money the Comptroller and Auditor-General audits the expenditure. As regards the Kowloon Railway, the original estimate of time for the tunnel was three and a half years, within which period it was thought that the rest of the line would be completed. The estimated cost of the one tunnel which alone was required on the original alignment was 1,833,200 dols., and that of the remainder of the work was 3,166,800 dols., making a total of 5,000,000 dols. As it was decided to construct the line departmentally, no tenders were invited, and I am not aware that any offers were received from private firms. The actual expenditure by the Crown Agents up to date has been £127,575 0s. 3d. It is hoped that the line will be open for traffic throughout by August, 1910. The latest revised estimates have not yet been received from the Colony, and I am therefore unable to state their amount. During construction it has been found desirable to make considerable alterations in the alignment, including four additional tunnels and other works, and to provide increased accommodation at the terminus, involving extensive and costly reclamation on the sea front. The address referred torn the concluding part of the question has not yet been received by the Secretary of State.

I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether there is; the slightest foundation for the suggestion contained in the question that private commissions are received at the office of the Crown Agents for the Colonies?

I am glad that question has been asked. I assumed that no suggestion of improper conduct was conveyed in the phrase "private commissions." The exact contrary is the case. The Committee over which I had the honour to preside, and containing men of such financial ability as Sir Francis Mowatt, decided unanimously that there was no possibility of the suggestion of anything but the utmost financial probity on the part of the Crown Agents, I was confident that no hon. Member of this House would make charges against public servants who by the rules of the Service are prohibited from defending themselves.

When will the recommendations of the Committee referred to by the hon. and gallant Member come into effect? Do the Colonial Office discern any disposition on the part of the Crown Agents to think that railways made by others than themselves at a less cost than they make them themselves are less efficient than the railways they make at a greater cost?

The recommendations of the Committee will be carried out in due course. With regard to the last part of the hon. Member's question, I am so stupid that I cannot apprehend the long words he uses in putting these supplementary questions.

May I point out that the longest word I used was——

Order, order.

Are the Crown Agents under the control of the Colonial Office to the same extent, and in the same respect in which Government; officials are under control in this country?

Yes, Sir, it may be said that they are in all respects a Government Department.

asked whether the consent of the Colonial Office is necessary, and is always obtained, before the Crown Agents undertake the construction of a railway or other engineering work in any Colony or Protectorate; and, if so, whether the Colonial Office will in future withhold its consent in each case until tenders for the execution of the work by contract have been publicly invited, and the result considered by the Colonial Office?

The Crown Agents do not undertake the construction of railways or any other engineering works. If the Government of a Crown Colony desires to undertake such works, the consent of the Colonial Office is necessary. Upon the question whether such works should be carried out Departmentally or by contract, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to refer to the answer which I am giving in writing to another question of his to-day.

asked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the number of carters and others who are dealt with in the burgh courts of the large cities in Scotland at the instance of tramway managers and officials; whether he is aware that in these instances the tramways belong to the corporations, and that the lay magistrates who decide these cases are members of these corporations; and whether he will introduce legislation which will deal with this state of matters?

I am aware that under the Tramway Bye-laws, as well as at common law, a large number of cases are tried in the police courts of the City of Glasgow at the instance of the Procurator Fiscal on information laid by tramway officials against carters and drivers of other vehicles for obstructing and delaying tramway cars, for driving on tramway rails, and for reckless driving and colliding with tramway cars. I am, further, aware that the lay magistrates who try the cases are members of the corporation. But no complaint has reached me relative to the administration of justice in the police courts in tramway cases; and I see no cause, therefore, for introducing, legislation on the subject.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the extent of this evil in Scotland—of the practice of judges sitting on cases in which they are interested?

I cannot admit there is any evil existent.

asked when the Report of the Local Government Board for Scotland will be issued?

The Report referred to has now been issued.

asked the Lord Advocate whether Major Matheson, the proprietor of the island of Lewis, has now definitely decided to break up the farm of Mangersta, Uig, Lewis, into new holdings; and, if so will he state the number of crofter tenancies likely to be created?

Communications are still passing with the proprietor; and, meanwhile, I am not in a position to make any statement.

asked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the cottars of South Shawbost, Island of Lewis, who recently occupied a small portion of the farm at Dalbeg, were driven to take this course owing to the crofters on whose lands they were formerly located being unwilling to -continue any longer to bear such' additional burden on their holdings; and, seeing that these cottars are anxious to secure new holdings at fair rentals, will the Congested Districts Board communicate with Major Matheson, the proprietor of the island, on the subject, with a view to ascertain whether it is possible to break up some of the farms for crofter settlements?

Two schemes of settlement in the Island of Lewis, viz., Aignish and Battery Point have already been carried out with the co-operation of the proprietor, another scheme is under consideration, and he is perfectly aware that the Congested Districts Board are willing to consider any similar proposals which he may think fit to lay before them. No further communications are, therefore, necessary.

With a view of preventing these poor unfortunate landless cottars being turned out on the moor as they have been, will arrangements be made speedily with the proprietor to bring about a settlement, and not to allow this state of things to go on for two or three years?

The Congested Districts Board will act with dispatch.

asked the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that John Maclean, aged 72, a cottar under the Act, to suit the convenience of his landlord, Earl Lovelace, has been evicted from his house at Annat, Torridon, Ross-shire, built by his father 90 years ago, and is entitled to compensation under Clauses 9 and 10 of The Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886, will he state what steps the Crofters Commission propose to take to secure to Maclean his rights under the Act, seeing that Earl Lovelace demolished the house at the time the eviction took place, and so deprived the Commission of the power to determine the compensation due to Maclean, as set forth in Clause 10 of the Act?

The Crofters' Commission are not precluded from entertaining an application from Maclean for compensation under the sections referred to by my hon. Friend, if otherwise competent, because of the demolition of the house. I am assured, however, on behalf of the landlord, that he has always been willing to compensate Maclean, to whom he made an offer on 14th June.

Does he approve of this system of allowing Highland landlords to clear people out of their houses on to the roadside before compensation is arranged in accordance with the Act of Parliament, or, in other words, does he approve of the law of the land being overridden in this fashion by the landlord?

I gave the facts to my hon. Friend a few days ago, and according to the facts, as I know them, there has been no overriding of the law of the land.

Does he not override the law of the land when he allows Lord Lovelace to turn this man out on the road without the compensation contribution having been arranged for the house, which this man should get in accordance with the Act of Parliament?

If the hon. Member will recall the facts as I stated them, he will see that no injustice has been done or want of consideration shown.

If this man had been turned out without a proper arrangement of compensation, and there had been demolition, is that demolition not overriding the statute?

No; everything was done in conformity with the law.

asked the Lord Advocate whether he has received an application from the Aberdeen Distress Committee for a grant for the employment of unemployed workmen on the dock extension scheme; whether such grant has been promised; whether he is aware that it is proposed to dismiss men now employed on the dock extension in order to employ the unemployed at lower rates of wages in their stead; and whether this has the sanction of his Department?

In response to an application made by the Aberdeen Harbour Commissioners last winter, the Local Government Board for Scotland agreed on 6th January, having regard to the then situation, to works at the harbour being executed by the unemployed through the distress committee, subject to certain conditions. The distress committee did not intimate their acceptance of these conditions, and were informed on the 12th May that the conditional approval had reference to the circumstances existing when it was given, and that the Board could not sanction works to be started at this season. The Board would certainly decline to approve any proposal which would have the effect of displacing ordinary labour, and the Harbour Commissioners state that their scheme would not have this effect. Should the proposal be renewed, the Board will consider it afresh, and with special reference to the point raised by the hon. Member.

asked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the fact that on 22nd October, 1907, it was found in the Report made to the Government by their inspectors that the burgh and county councils of Dumbarton, as well as private individuals, were committing a nuisance in terms of the Rivers Pollution and Public Health Acts by polluting the River Leven, he has taken or proposes to take any steps, or to call on the local authorities to take steps, to remedy the state of matters as condemned in the Report?

As the result of communications with the local authorities, I understand that the nuisance under the Public Health Act due to sewer outfalls was effectively removed. The Report referred to was laid before the county council with a view to action under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, and was considered by the county authorities in consultation with the Western District Committee of the county and the manufacturers interested. Various remedial measures were stated to have been adopted, or to be in contemplation, and no recent complaints have reached the Office of the Secretary for Scotland.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the number of poor persons deceived by associations failing to pay benefits promised in exchange for fixed contributions, as shown by several recent court cases, whether he proposes to acquire fuller powers to prevent the formation of such associations or arrange for such supervision as will protect the working classes who may join them?

I am fully conscious of the necessity of safeguarding in every possible way the savings of the poor, and in order to check the growth of mushroom companies which in the past have proved unable to pay the benefits promised, a Bill has been introduced in the House of Lords by which it is proposed that all bond investments companies and house-purchase companies should be brought under the laws which have proved so effective in the case of life assurance companies. The Bill, though largely uncontroversial, is, however, a long one, and only the goodwill of all parties can secure its passage.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now state whether the Census of Wages of Railway-men being prepared by the Board of Trade is complete; and, if so, when the same will be laid upon the Table of this House?

The preparation of Returns of the earnings and other particulars covering all the workmen employed on and in connection with the railways in the United Kingdom has necessarily proved to be a laborious task. The companies have been actively assisting the Department, and I can assure the hon. Member that there will be no unnecessary delay at the Board of Trade in tabulating the Returns furnished and preparing a Report. I cannot, however, yet fix a date for the completion of the task.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the contents of Command Paper 4,695, which gives the heads of agreements between the London and North-Western and Midland Railway Companies and between the London and North-Western, Midland, and Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Companies; and whether, in view of the statement on behalf of the companies concerned that they were agreeable to the publication of the terms of the agreements, he will take steps to have the respective agreements presented in full?

I understand that in neither of the cases named has any formal agreement been made beyond the heads of agreement, which have already been published. If and when a formal agreement is signed by the three companies I will see whether anything can be done with a view to its publication.

asked whether it is proposed that the Thames Conservancy Board shall hold their meetings in Beading instead of London; and whether the sanction of the Board of Trade will be given to this arrangement?

I understand that a proposal to this effect has been under consideration by the Thames Conservators, but the Board of Trade have not been informed of their decision. The place of meeting is a matter entirely within the discretion of the conservators. The sanction of the Board of Trade is not required.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state whether Article 12 of the King's Regulations, in which all persons belonging to the Fleet are forbidden to publish or cause to be published, directly or indirectly, in a newspaper any matter relative to the public service, is still in force; and whether, if so, they are Admiralty instructions?

Article 12 of the King's Regulations is still in force, though the terms thereof are not correctly set out by the hon. Member. The King's Regulations are the Admiralty instructions, as sanctioned by His Majesty in Council.

Does this Regulation include the First Sea Lord?

No; the First Sea Lord is not a person belonging to the Fleet.

Can the First Sea Lord enter into correspondence with the Press when he chooses in his own office?

That is another question, but I do not think it arises under Article 12.

Will he make inquiries of the First Sea Lord?

No, I will not undertake to make inquiry of the First Sea Lord.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state how many copies of the fourth letter in the Bacon-Mann series, mentioned by Sir George Armstrong in his letter of 19th June, were printed; and how many were circulated from the Admiralty?

I regret that I can add nothing to what I have already said on this subject.

Will he say whether there are any more letters that are likely to be circulated?

I think the hon. Gentleman had better address the question to Sir George Armstrong.

Does the right hon. Gentleman still maintain that Sir George Armstrong was paid to get these letters?

No; I never suggested that Sir George Armstrong was paid.

What is the position of Sir George Armstrong in these matters? What is his copyright in Bacon's essays?

Does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to give the information asked for because he cannot get it, or because he thinks it undesirable in the public interest?

I have nothing to add to what I have said.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to an extract from a printed letter, written during the month following the publication of Captain Bacon's letters, by a junior captain of the Fleet to the First Sea Lord, and referred to by Sir George Armstrong on 19th June, in which the writer says that he returned the papers to the First Sea Lord's secretary; and if he will state whether the First Sea Lord still adheres to his statement that the letters referred to were not circulated?

I have nothing further to say on this subject.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state whether, when His Majesty's ship "Hermes" recently went into Trincomalee for repairs, there were no straps or bellows available owing to their having been sold?

His Majesty's ship "Hermes" has not been at Triucomalee recently, or at any time since October, 1906.

When she was there in 1906 was this the case?

I will inquire further.

This would be one of the forts which is now dismantled, would it not?

Yes.

asked if it is the intention of the Admiralty to maintain in service two cruisers bearing the name "Indefatigable," or do they intend to scrap or rename the protected cruiser at present so named?

It is intended to rename the old "Indefatigable" when she is recommissioned.

asked whether the Admiralty know the dates on which the "Nassau," "Westfalen," "Posen," and "Rheinland" (German "Dreadnoughts") were actually laid down; and when were the six later German "Dreadnoughts" ordered and commenced on the stocks, respectively?

The reply to the first part of the question is that the official date for laying the keels of the ships named is the first week in August, 1907. As regards the six later "Dreadnoughts," the contracts for the three of the 1908–09 programme were given out before August, 1908, and the ships were commenced on the stocks late in the same year. The official dates of laying down the keels have not been made known to us. Of the three ships of the 1909–10 programme, the contract for one was given on 1st April; the others, it is stated, have not yet been ordered.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of a communication from the members of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers of Sunderland protesting against the employment of stokers in His Majesty's Navy on skilled work instead of fully qualified mechanics; whether he is aware that a few years ago the Admiralty appealed for mechanics for the Royal Naval Reserve, stipulating that such mechanics must have served an apprenticeship before being accepted; and, if so, whether, in view of the foregoing, he is prepared to take action whereby the skilled mechanic will have greater opportunities of filling the skilled positions?

I have received the communication mentioned, and I am aware that the qualifications for entry as engine-room artificer in the Royal Naval Reserve practically ensure that candidates chosen have served an apprenticeship. No further action is necessary, as the intention is being fulfilled that positions where highly skilled mechanical work is required shall continue to be filled by the engine-room artificers, who are the skilled mechanics.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he has looked into the memorial of the people of Ballysimon, county Limerick, asking that the post office in that district be reopened; whether complaint has been made of the hardship imposed on the people by reason of the distance they must travel in order to get money orders, stamps, etc.; and whether, taking all the circumstances into account, he can see his way to again reopen this office so that an end may be put to the inconvenience that now exists?

I have carefully considered the question of reopening this office. I find that the value of the stamps sold at the Ballysimon office averaged only about a shilling a day, the postal order transactions only one a week, while only one parcel a week was posted. The postman will now carry and sell stamps, and will accept parcels, and will obtain postal orders on requisition. In these circumstances, I do not think that the closing of the office will cause any serious inconvenience, and I regret that the business is quite insufficient to justify the expense of keeping up the office, especially in view of the fact that the Postal service in the locality is carried on at a heavy loss to Revenue.

Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's very unfavourable answer, if the people of this locality guarantee the Post Office against any loss will he reconsider the question?

I will consider the point, but I am afraid the whole of the transac- tions in this office are so very minute that the guarantee will not be found to meet the position. I shall be glad to consider any proposal the hon. Member makes.

It is a very serious matter for the people of the locality.

I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it is in order for an hon. Member to describe the answer of the right hon. Gentleman as an unfavourable answer? I ask the question because, unfortunately, I have on a former occasion incurred your censure for using an almost identical term.

Obviously, it is undesirable, and also disorderly, to comment upon the answers received. Hon. Members must keep their opinions to themselves.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he has yet completed his inquiry which he promised in response to a petition received from the inhabitants of West Kensington praying for better postal facilities; and whether he is now prepared to give the result of his inquiry?

The question of improving the facilities for postal business at West Kensington is still under consideration. I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as a decision is arrived at.

asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the privilege granted to two or three stores in London to use the Post Office business as an advertising medium by allowing them to stamp the name of their firm to all registered letters, parcels, telegrams, and money order and postal order transactions at the post office in their respective buildings, and whether, as a matter of fairness to competing traders, he will cause such practice to discontinue?

Sub-post offices have been established at certain large stores, clubs, and hotels, in order to meet the convenience of the public. It is, however, a condition in each case that these offices should be freely accessible to all members of the public. In accordance with the normal practice, all registered letters, par- cels, etc., are date-stamped at the office of origin with a stamp bearing the name of the office at which they are handed in, but I will consider whether in the cases in question the designation of the office should not be changed so as not to include the name of the firm.

Have other drapery establishments in London similar offices, and do their names appear on official documents in the same way as at Harrod's?

As I said, there are three or four stores and some clubs and hotels where there are these facilities for the convenience of the public, but I do not think it is right that it should in any sense stand for an advertisement for these particular stores, and therefore, having had my attention drawn to it, I shall see that the stamp does not contain the name of the firm.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the "Draper's Record" of last week, which publishes very fully this matter, with these names on every postal document?

Yes; I have. My attention was drawn to it.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that in future the names of the firms shall not appear?

What I propose is that the date stamp shall not bear the name and address so that it shall not form in any sense an advertisement. I do not attach any blame to the stores for having used it, because in the natural course that was the date stamp which they were entitled to use. Their attention having been drawn to it, I think they themselves will recognise the propriety of it.

asked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that in January, 1908, the Local Government Board discovered that for 29 years the guardians of the Ecclesall Bierlow Union had carried on a regular system of offering to every able-bodied man that applied for relief not the workhouse, but paid employment at piecework rates; that no food was supplied to the men; and that they went out like workmen at midday to get their own meals, and at 5 p.m. they were paid their earnings for the day, and that these earnings were not entered as relief but as wages to journeymen woodcutters, the men not being entered as paupers or subject to disfranchisement; and whether, seeing that this system of setting the poor to work was witnessed by the inspectors at every visit and went on from 1879 to 1908 without official objection, but was, in the latter year, stopped by the Local Government Board, he will state the reason why the Local Government Board put an end to the system?

The attention of the Local Government Board was called to this matter in 1907, and they pointed out to the guardians that it was not their duty to find work for men out of employment, but to relieve destitution, and in connection with such relief to set the men to work as a test. They added that the relief should not be regarded as payment for work done, but be granted according to the necessities of each particular case, and for short periods, and that the circumstances of the applicants should be carefully inquired into by the relieving officer from time to time. The guardians admitted that the regulations in force in the Union had not been strictly observed, but represented that the system adopted by them had been in force for many years. The Board, however, felt bound to adhere to the view they had expressed on the subject, and the system was altered by the guardians.

asked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention had been called to the case of Thomas Dickerson, labourer, who was working for the Romford Board of Guardians, and who was put to work breaking stones by and for the guardians, and in doing so received such injuries as resulted in the loss of his left eye; and whether, in consequence of the injured man not being able to obtain compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Local Government Board will raise any objection if a compassionate allowance is granted to the man?

My attention has been called to this case. I understand that the man applied for relief and was set to work in the stone yard, where the accident happened. He sued the guardians in the County Court for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, although his solicitor had previously been informed that the guardians were not liable. The case was dismissed by the County Court judge with costs, but the latter will have to be borne by the guardians. The guardians have given the man relief, and I am informed that they would probably have continued it had he made application. Whether they would be willing to make him any payment by way of compassionate allowance I am unable to say. If they apply to me on the subject, I am prepared to consider the application.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that boxed boneless meat is not permitted as an import into Germany on account of the impossibility of satisfactorily examining it for disease; and will he say whether he will adopt a similar system in this country?

I understand that the importation of fresh boxed boneless meat into Germany is not allowed. As regards this country, regulations have been made on the subject under the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act, 1907. Boneless pork, not being scrap meat, can only be imported if it is officially certified as having been found free from disease in the country of origin, and all scrap meat, whether pork or not, is excluded.

Has the right hon. Gentleman ascertained whether the traders of this country who deal in this meat would suffer much loss if it were entirely excluded?

I have already said boneless scrap meat is excluded, and the question whether traders would suffer much loss and inconvenience has to be tempered by another consideration—whether the consumers' interests would be imperilled if we were to allow this to go on.

Does the right hon. Gentleman find these foreign certificates are reliable?

So far we have only had two instances of their unreliability, and the Governments of the countries from which the meat came have taken very active steps to prevent any fraud in the future.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to recent cases of striking children on the head in schools, tried at Leeds County Court on 12th March last and at Ruthin Police Court on 3rd May; and whether, seeing that injury or death may be caused in this manner, particularly in unobserved cases of children suffering from acute meningitis, he will as soon as possible take such action as will put a stop to the practice of striking school children on the head?

I have seen a report of the Leeds case, to which the hon. Member refers. Irregular punishments, such as striking children on the head, are strongly disapproved of by the Board, and are, I believe, prohibited by the regulations of most local education authorities. Such practices are of comparatively rare occurrence, and my right hon. Friend does not think any further action is required.

Did the Board express its disapproval with the local education authorities?

The attitude of the Board is perfectly well understood. I think the local education authorities can be trusted.

asked whether land which is developed for the industry of market gardening will be exempt from the Undeveloped Land Tax under the Finance Bill?

Land used for market gardening is agricultural land within the definition contained in Clause 27 of the Finance Bill, and will, therefore, be subject to Undeveloped Land Duty under Clause 10 (2), unless its value does not exceed £50 per acre, or unless it comes within the other exemptions specified in Clause 11.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of putting an Amendment exempting market garden land, because I do not suppose any market gardening land is under £50 an acre?

I will convey that expression of opinion to my right hon. Friend.

asked if, by the Finance Act of 1902 on the imposition of the Corn Duty, the allowances on exported British spirits were raised by an additional 1d. per gallon; whether, on the abolition of the Corn Duty, the allowances on exported spirits were also reduced by 1d.; and, if not, why was it not reduced?

The answer to the first question is in the affirmative and to the second in the negative. The reasons for not reducing the allowances and surtax on the abolition of the Corn Duties are set out in Appendix No. 1 to the Report of the Industrial Alcohol Committee, 1905 (Command 2,477), to which I beg to refer my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the officer whose case he referred to on 4th May was removed from a position of responsibility for refusing to punish prisoners for disobeying a regulation which has since been withdrawn; whether his request at the time for inquiry to be made at other prisons was ignored; and whether, seeing that by a circular issued in November of last year it is stated that the Secretary of State approved of certain privileges to prisoners, one of which was the right to use without remonstrance the utensil for the use of which the officer in question had refused to punish them, and in view of the public service rendered by the officer in securing the abolition of an inhuman punishment, he will restore him to his former rank and allow him compensation for the hardships he has endured?

The answer to each of the questions is in the negative. The hon. Member has been misinformed. The reasons for the reduction in rank of the officer in question were not connected with the matter to which the hon. Member refers. The references to the withdrawal of a regulation and the abolition of an alleged punishment are not in accordance with the facts.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in Germany there are permanent exhibitions of appliances for the prevention of accidents to workmen; and whether, in view of the number of accidents which occur annually in this country to workers engaged in the manipulation of machinery, in the working of railways, and in seafaring, he will consider whether such an exhibition of safety appliances can be established in this country?

The question of the establishment of an exhibition of safety appliances has been under my consideration for some time, and inquiry has been made with regard to similar exhibitions in Germany and elsewhere. Owing, however, to the large additional expenditure in connection with the factory department entailed by the recent additions to the inspecting staff, it has not been found possible to proceed further with the project at present, but I hope before long to be able to take some steps in this direction, so far as the matter comes within the jurisdiction of my Department.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the amount paid by the Crown as allowances to consignors of British spirits exported during the last financial year; and can he state what proportion of that amount was paid to the distillers?

The net amount was £114,393. The Board of Customs and Excise have no means of knowing what proportion of this amount was paid directly or indirectly to distillers.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the allowances originally made are no longer got by the consignors, but by middlemen?

My information is that the consignors still get them.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many evicted tenants have been reinstated in county Limerick since the passing of the Land Act; and how many have yet to be provided for?

There have been 130 evicted tenants or their representatives reinstated or provided with new holdings in the county Limerick, and 65 others have been noted for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, if the national school managers in Ireland undertake to be responsible for half the cost of cleaning and heating the schools, he will see that the Treasury enable the Commissioners of National Education to meet the other half of the cost?

As I have already stated, I am prepared to consider fully, and to submit for the consideration of the Treasury, any suitable and financially practicable scheme for the heating and cleansing of national schools which may secure general acceptance in Ireland.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have yet completed their negotiations as to the reinstatement of evicted tenants on the Kenmare estate, county Kerry; and, if so, what has been the result?

The answer is in the negative.

Having regard to the fact that six inspectors have gone down to the estate and that the proceedings have been going on already for eighteen months, can the right hon. Gentleman say when the negotiations will be completed?

I will communicate with the Estates Commissioners, but I am not in a position at present to say when the negotiations will be completed.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received a further resolution from the Athlone Board of Guardians in which some of his statements in reference to the clerical staff of the board of the Athlone (Nos. 1 and 2) Rural District Councils are denied; and whether, in view of the statement of facts mentioned in this resolution as to the former clerical staff and the salaries allocated for the new staff, and of the further fact that in at least four other instances, viz., Sligo, South Dublin, Oldcastle, and Dromore West, a division such as that proposed in Athlone has been sanctioned by the Local Government Board, he will request the latter body to reconsider its decision in regard to Athlone in order to give effect to the wishes of the representatives of the ratepayers?

I have received the resolution referred to. As I stated in my reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for South Westmeath on 17th May last, one official was responsible for the duties of the three offices which the local authorities desire to separate. I understand that the clerical staff referred to in the resolution was only the usual assistance allowed to an executive officer for discharging minor clerical duties. I see no reason to question the view as to the suggested salaries taken by the Local Government Board, and indicated in my previous reply. In the four instances cited the Board were satisfied that a division of duties was desirable for the proper administration of the districts. This is not the case in the present instance. No fresh facts have been brought forward in the guardians' resolution to warrant a departure from the decision already arrived at by the Local Government Board in the matter.

had given notice of the following question: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether a quantity of smuggled hashish or bhang was recently discovered by the Egyptian Customs officials on board the Indian transport "Braemar Castle"; whether a fine of £2,000 was inflicted; who paid the fine; what steps have been taken to discover the parties actually responsible; and what punishment, if any, has been inflicted upon them?

I understand that it is the wish of the right hon. Gentleman that this question should stand over pending the result of an inquiry now proceeding?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the reservists who leave the Army and register their names at St. George's Barracks for employment are found employment in rotation; and, if not, will he state the method adopted in selecting Army Reserve men from the unemployed register?

Men whose names are registered at St. George's Barracks for employment are selected in rotation, subject to the following exceptions: For employment under the Post Office men are taken to fill vacancies in a postal district from the list of men who live in that particular district. Preferential treatment is given to men who have been previously employed under the Post Office, and who are asked for by name by the postal authorities, and to men of exemplary and very good characters. Men with special qualifications have them taken into consideration when candidates for employment in special appointments or trades are asked for.

May I ask a question of which I have given notice several times? Now I see the Minister in his place, I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government have formed any estimate of the approximate cost to the owners of land of the returns which are required of them by the Commissioners by clause 16 of the Finance Bill; and, if so, will he state what is their estimate of the approximate cost of those returns?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to apologise for not answering this question before. I am afraid it will be quite impossible for me to answer at question time on the days when the Finance Bill is in Committee. With regard to the question, I have to say that my attention has been repeatedly called to this. It is obviously impossible to prepare any approximate estimate of the cost of providing individual valuations. It would be just as easy to do it in the case of the Land Duties as in the case of the Estate Duties.

May I ask a question in regard to a matter of privilege? I desire to ask whether your attention, Mr. Speaker, has been called recently to the fact that the chairman appointed on a Private Bill Committee in this House was objected to by some of those interested in the Bill. May I ask whether the Railway Chairmen's Committee have resented that objection, and insisted on the appointment of this Gentleman, and whether you can give the Members of the House any information on this point, which very nearly touches our privileges?

I do not think I have any further information to give than that which, it appears, the hon. Gentleman himself has, namely, that objection was taken to the appointment of an hon. Member to act as Chairman of a particular Committee, and that the matter did come before the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills. They entirely disapproved of the course taken by the Parliamentary agents, and they renominated, or, at all events, they persisted, as I think quite properly, in the nomination which had been made. I think it must appear to the whole House that, having delegated to a particular Committee the duty of selecting a Chairman, it would be an intolerable situation if then-decisions were liable to be overruled or objected to by any outside parties.

I am much obliged for what you have said. May I ask whether the action of the Parliamentary agents or others interested in a Private Bill, in imputing motives in any way to the Chairman or to any Member of any of those Committees, is or is not a breach of the privileges of the House?

I do not think that under those particular circumstances there was a breach of privilege, but I can quite imagine that such a case might arise in future. Of course, it is my duty to watch that very carefully, and if my attention is again drawn to it I should probably have to bring it directly before the attention of the House.

The discussion on this clause in connection with this Amendment is entering on rather a new phase. Hitherto a new tax has been undoubtedly levied in some accordance with ancient custom; that is to say, when a tax is levied by the State there is some income from which to pay the tax; there has been money passing, there is consideration, and, therefore, to some extent it has followed the practice that has been adopted previously, namely, that the State only takes a portion of the consideration which passes. But with the Increment Tax we enter on a question of what is purely one of estimate and conjecture. In the uncertain circumstances which arise at death this Increment Tax is always to be charged and paid. In the first place, I would point out that there can be no question in this case that you are exacting from the estate a double Increment Duty. You have already the Estate Duties, because the estate is valued at the present value, and you proceed to tax it on certain percentages, according to its size. You now propose to put a second duty upon the very same corpus and the very same estate, and it is practically a double Estate Duty which you impose, and that at a time when there is no consideration passing, and when it is extremely inconvenient for the money to be found. The other day we were discussing the question of sale and transfer, and I would be quite willing to rest my case upon the excellent argument used against this particular form of tax by the Attorney-General. He put the question with extreme plainness; at all events, we so far quite agree on both sides of the House that his opinion is to be taken on this point. He said:—

"We may have estates, large estates, kept in the same hands from year to year and from generations to generations; and in order that such estates may contribute their fair quota of this Increment Duty, the only way of getting at them is by taking it on death, but that is certainly the least satisfactory of the necessary ways of getting at them. Where you are dealing with transfer on sale during life, you have, as I said, got the original site value fixed as in 1909, and then you have the value with which you compare it given in the transactions itself. When you are dealing with it in death, you have no selling price to guide you in what I may call the second or later valuation which is made the subject of the tax. There you have to deal with it largely by estimate. Nobody can compare an estimate in point of certainty with the actual sale price by which you proceed in case of life; and therefore to give up the tax or not to collect it when you can on a natural sale price with certainty of precision and at a moment when the owner is getting money with which to pay and select an occasion when you have to proceed by way of estimate instead of an actual sale price, and when you have to collect the tax at a time no profit is being brought to the owner, but when the money has to be raised by those who have to pay by drawing upon some other source of capital is, I say, a most foolish suggestion."

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General was arguing, of course, on another point; still his argument was very much apropos of the present discussion. It is hard, even in the opinion of the Government, to take the tax at death; it is a very inconvenient course, and they are only driven to it by the fact that they must get the increment of the estate which does not come by transfer or sale, and which remains in the same family for many years. After all, you have already received the increment through the Estate Duties, and why should you get a second Increment Duty which, where the estate remains in the same hands, only comes into being when there is an actual sale and transfer and money is actually received? Take, for instance, the case of a man living in a large house surrounded by 10 or 15 acres. There is no increment really to him as long as he keeps that 10 or 15 acres as necessary for the purpose of enabling him to live in the house. If he sells them, his house and one acre would be valueless, and therefore the land remains in the same hands, and the increment value is of no advantage whatever to the owner, because the increment does not come into being. On these grounds it seems to me to be extremely hard that the tax should be levied at a time when it is highly inconvenient to the person who has to pay. Not only does he not receive any consideration, but he has also to find a large sum of money, and he is driven to other sources of capital in order to find the money for the tax which the community has put upon him. That is undoubtedly a most unsatisfactory way of encouraging the accumulation of capital in the country.

The hardest case may perhaps come to the owners of moderate sized estates, where there is no other source of capital to fall back upon. There they have to pay Succession Duty, Estate Duty, and Legacy Duty, and they have to find the money probably by annual instalments, and in other ways to pay these duties. There, again, you impose a further duty for which no provision is made by which they can pay it easily, and which at once becomes a charge upon the estate without any mitigation whatsoever. See what it means to the owner of an estate valued at £100,000. On some portions of that estate it is very possible that a charge at death might mean 40 per cent. That surely is an unfair amount to take from the corpus of any estate, especially when it is of such an unrealiseable character, as so many of the smaller estates are. It is not only to the larger or richer owner that this proposal applies. You have taken precautions in connection with the Estate Duties that estates under a certain value are not to pay those duties. But this Increment Duty may fall upon the very poorest; there is no mitigation at all in reference to the wealth or property of the individual concerned. It is quite possible that when a man has been in possession of an estate for a considerable number of years the Increment Duty may prove a very serious incubus at death, seeing that it has not been paid for forty or fifty years, or even a longer period. If you are obliged to have this duty—of course the House has now decided that this duty is to be paid—it would be far better to have some periodical payment rather than the uncertain lottery of payment at death, which is admitted to be an extremely inconvenient time. If there were periodical payments people would then know that at a certain period they would have to find the money, and therefore they would be prepared, but in the case of death it is purely a lottery and gamble. It has always been urged, and urged very strongly some years ago on the other side, that in the case of the Death Duties the owner could insure against them. But here it is impossible for a man to do so in the case of the Increment Duty. He is unable to estimate it, because it might be sudden and might occur at any moment, and the amount has to be approved by persons over whom he has no control and against whom there is no appeal. In these circumstances it seems to me that it would be a difficult matter to obtain any insurance that would be satisfactory to guard himself against the consequences at death. I do hope after what was said by the Attorney-General with reference to this matter the Government may see their way to suggest some better means than to fall back upon this crude method of merely repealing the Estate Duties. There should be consideration in this matter, whether it applies to the land or to the minerals, for they are also included. Many difficulties will arise if the present scheme is to be adopted. It will be far better that you should really limit yourself on this particular Question to raising the tax when there really is consideration to be paid. It is not a question of policy. In reference to the further taxes with which we shall deal later, the Undeveloped Land Tax, undoubtedly the Government confess they are putting it forward with a view of preventing the holding back of land and in order that it should be made use of to greater advantage, in their opinion, for the sake of the community. This tax has nothing to do with that question, because it seems to me that the effect of an increment value must be a deterrent to any person. As it is not a question of holding back, it is therefore unnecessary to load the unfortunate owner with this particular tax. I think there is every reason why we should desire to place this Increment Tax on a more satisfactory basis than can be done if you apply it in case of death, and, therefore, I hope the Government will very seriously consider the question, and either leave it out altogether or, at all events, give us some certainty by applying a periodical payment, but with a longer period than they have allowed to public companies. That would enable us to know what we have to pay, to some extent, instead of reducing the matter to a pure gamble.

I also have an Amendment similar to that which has been moved by the hon. Member. I have no objection whatever to the Increment Tax in principle, but my objection is to the method of collection. It is a canon of good taxation that taxes should be levied, so far as may be, conveniently to those who have to pay the taxes. I think undoubtedly in this case it cannot be said that on death is a convenient time to levy the tax. The hon. Member (Mr. L. Hardy) very truly said that is just the time when landed property has to face the Death Duties, and that Death Duties are more difficult to pay on landed property than they are on personalty. That is a very good argument, and I think that unless it is absolutely necessary a further tax at that time should not be levied upon landed property. There is undoubtedly a considerable grievance that a man may pay this tax and then the property may-fall in value afterwards, and that he may have paid on a sum of money which he has never realised at all. If the tax were only raised when property was sold, and were not raised when death occurred, that grievance, which is a very real one, and which will occur much more often than a great many people imagine, would be entirely done away with. Death will be a very difficult time at which to raise money on landed estate, and I know that in very many cases a man has to sell a piece of his property to pay the Death Duty. It is no argument at all to say that you can sell a piece of land as you can sell Consols. It is an answer that will not be agreed to by anybody who knows anything about land in this country. After all, when you are selling stocks and shares, as a rule there is probably a large demand, and it does not matter to the buyer whether his share is No. 1 or 500. They are all the same to him.

It is very different in the case of land, because every piece of land differs more or less from any other piece of land, with the result that there are a very limited number of buyers for a piece of land. It may be that a particular piece of land was wanted a few years before, or it may be that a few years hence it may be wanted, but it is quite on the cards that nobody at the particular moment will require that piece of land, with the result that it will be impossible for the owner to get the real market value of his land. That will be a distinct hardship. If it were necessary I should say it was a necessary hardship that appertained to the ownership of land, but it does not seem to me that it is necessary. It is not as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not get just as much money if he waits until the sale of the property. Take the case of land which has increased, say, from £50,000 in value to £100.000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to get on that £10,000 for increment. Whether he gets that in driblets of £2,000 at a time, or whether he gets the sum total of £10,000 all at once, really does not matter to the Chancellor in the long run, except from the point of view of interest. After all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in raising this principle is not going on a minor point like that, but on the bigger question of the increased value. If the Chancellor does not get the increase now, then some future Chancellor will get it. I think he might select a more convenient season for this tax than the time of death. We all know the question of valuation is going to be a very serious one, and that a valuation for increment purposes must be of an exact character. If we can reduce the number of such valuations and give the Chancellor the same amount of money in the long run, it seems to me we ought to do what we can to so reduce them. The valuation for Death Duties is a rough-and-ready calculation, and everybody is willing to accept it because we know that valuations in such cases are always taken on a very low scale indeed. Capital valuations in America are done in a rough-and-ready way, but that does not matter so much, because there you are not taking part of a man's capital but merely rating him on the capital value. Therefore if there is an error one year it can be rectified the next. When you come to the case where you are taking away part of a man's capital you must then have a very careful valuation, which must be expensive, and therefore I urge upon the Government to limit the number of those valuations if they possibly can. If you get rid of the valuation on death and only take on sale, at any rate to some extent you will limit the necessity for this expense. I most seriously ask the Chancellor to take into consideration whether he could not give way on those points. I am sure it will be politic to do so, and that he would get rid of many grievances and a great deal of friction.

What is the position of our case? It is assumed for the moment, for the purposes of argument, and it is assumed in all sincerity by my hon. Friend (Mr. Ashton), that the Increment Tax is a fair one, and the question is the method by which you propose to collect it. When we were discussing the collection of the Increment Tax on sales exactly the opposite argument was used. We had then two very able speeches delivered, and speeches which made a considerable impression not merely on Members of their own side of the House, but on the House as a whole. Their argument was if you are going to collect an Increment Tax it is infinitely fairer that you should collect it at death, and they produced elaborate arguments to show that collecting on sale was unfair, that it interfered with the purchase and sale of land, and threw all kinds of difficulties in the way, and that the right time to collect it was at death. That is an argument not merely used by them but cheered. That was the case that was made on Wednesday, and now that we have disposed of that we are told by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. L. Hardy) that we should collect it on sales when a man is realising his cash. That was the exact sort of speech made by the Attorney-General in his reply, and exactly the same argument, and really the hon. Gentleman might have studied the speech of my hon. Friend and used the argument used on that occasion. His argument was that is the time you have got in the cash, and that is the time to collect, and not at death, when you do no realise. Other Members say you ought really to collect it periodically. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. W. W. Rutherford) has always taken that view, and I feel that if the Government say, "We will collect it on a certain definite purchase," we will be told "Why do you not collect it when a man realises it?" It really does not matter what period we put down; it is always the "other" period that is said to be the fair one. Will the Committee realise what would happen unless we had this provision? All a man would have to do would be to hold up his land, and he would never pay Increment Duty. In fact, if you have not an alternative of this kind, merely to charge increment on sales will be a detriment to the sale and purchase of land; it will be an inducement to an owner not to sell. My hon. Friend (Mr. Ashton) says, "All you have to do is to wait. It is true you are losing revenue; you may have to wait 50 or 100 years; but it is certain to come, if you only wait long enough." That is really the argument also of the hon. and gallant Member for Essex (Mr. Pretyman), who asks, "Why do you not wait until 1930 for your tax? You may not get it when you want it; you want it now, and you may not want it in 1930; but still you will get it." Unless there is this alternative there is a considerable amount of increment which may never be taxed at all for the purpose of revenue. An hon. Member opposite said that there is no consideration paid at death. That depends on the interpretation of the word "consideration." I agree that when you are buying and selling something passes between the parties. But what happens in the case of death? A man gets a property and gives nothing in return. According to the hon. Member there is no consideration: if a man pays for a property there is something which ought to be taxed; but if he gets it for nothing it ought not to be taxed. There was no consideration paid for the Morrison millions. There came to a number of legatees property which did not belong to them, to which, according to British law, they had absolutely no more legal right than anybody else. The property comes as a gift, and I say that it is a very fair thing upon which to tax a man, and certainly it is just as fair an occasion as when he gives something in return for which he gets the property. But then my hon. Friend (Mr. Ashton) says that it will involve a valuation. Surely the Death Duties involve a valuation. But, says my hon. Friend, that is merely a slipshod, rough-and-ready valuation. I do not know what cases he has in mind, but in the cases with which I am familiar most careful valuations are made. Let the Committee follow the argument of my hon. Friend. Take the case of a man who has to pay now a total of 20 per cent., not for Increment Duty on a small parcel of the property, but on the whole of the property. My hon. Friend says that when he pays 20 per cent, on the whole of his property a slipshod valuation will do; but if he has to pay 20 per cent, on only a small corner of the property, then the valuation must be very minute and careful, and the slightest precaution must not be neglected. I should have thought that if you wanted a careful valuation at all it would be when you were paying 20 per cent. on the whole of the property, and not on a certain portion only. But, as a matter of fact, my hon. Friend is misinformed. Every careful executor values his property very closely. It is true he does his best to put a low valuation. That is his business, and is only natural. The same thing will happen with regard to increment. I have not the slightest doubt that low valuations will be made. A man will try to prove that there is no increment at all or, if any, a very small one. The same tactics will be pursued, and really the same identical valuations will do for both purposes. It is purely a question between charging at certain definite periods and charging at death. The reason we make our proposal is that then you will be charging when a man is getting something to which he is not legally entitled, which is an absolute gift to him, whether by a relative or a stranger. At that time the executor goes through the process of valuing the estate, and it does not involve a separate valuation. Instead of having a separate valuation at stated periods you have a valuation already. The first thing an executor does is to make a valuation of the property.

Not the site.

Of course it includes the site. The site has already been valued before this is arrived at. All you want in the case of death is the total valuation, and then you arrive at the increase in the site value. It is the same process that takes place in any other transaction. I trust the Committee will stand by this proposal, otherwise a considerable amount of increment will escape taxation altogether.

There are certain arguments which seem to come naturally to the right hon. Gentleman. Those arguments are considered good enough for the Committee, and are trotted out every time. There is one argument in particular which I think we have heard sufficiently often, and which I do not think impresses the Committee. In defence of a tax which is levied on all the land in the country and will fall equally in amount on rich and poor together, the right hon. Gentleman invariably trots out the case of the Morrison millions. In the case of a millionaire who has to pay 15 per cent, or 20 per cent, the right hon. Gentleman holds that it is no hardship, and that because the successor of a millionaire can afford to pay this particular tax he contends that it is therefore a fair tax to levy on all the owners of land in the country, including thousands of small owners, upon whom the tax will fall as an excessive burden. The right hon. Gentleman ought to try and defend his tax in the average case, and not merely the extreme cases with which really we are not concerned. It is invariably assumed, both on the platform and in this House, by the defenders of this tax that our object in attacking it is purely to defend the rich. Take one point which the right hon. Gentleman was arguing. He said that where the tax was so high as 20 per cent., as in the case to which he referred, the mere addition of another 20 per cent, upon a small portion of the property was hardly worth considering.

I really never said that.

I understood that to be the argument the right hon. Gentleman used.

I was addressing myself to the point made by my hon. Friend that the valuations now made were of a slipshod or rough-and-ready character—that there was no great need for careful valuation at present, but that there would be such need for the Increment Duty. I said that if a careful valuation was required when the 20 per cent, was charged only on the increment, a careful valuation was certainly necessary when 20 per cent, was charged on the whole of the property.

At any rate, there was a comparison between the heavy duty of 20 per cent, leviable in Death Duties on the whole of the property and the 20 per cent, which is levied only on part of the property. That may apply in the case of a large estate, but it does not apply in the case of a small estate where the duty is-20 per cent, on the increment, but possibly-only 5 or 6 per cent, on the total value of the estate. Where a man is a small owner of land, the Increment Value Duty may be quite as heavy a burden upon him as the Death Duty, and the two duties will fall upon him together. I will come to the question of valuation presently. At present I wish to confine myself to the incidence of this tax at death. The greater part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech was taken up not in defending the justice or fairness of his proposals for taxation, but in trying to point out inconsistencies in the arguments used on this side of the House in attacking different portions of the tax. It is our duty in considering each Amendment to point out the particular hardships and objections germane to the part of the Bill under discussion, and in doing that we naturally contrast those with other conditions which-will occur. When the Amendment under discussion dealt with sales, we pointed out that there would be more interference with business if you levied the duty on sales and transfers than there would be if you levied the duty at death.

We are perfectly justified in drawing that conclusion, which is a true conclusion. We are perfectly justified in our attitude with regard to the hardship upon the individual having to pay two duties at one and the same time, when it will be most hard and inconvenient to the property. It is an extreme hardship, because, taking the ordinary case of an average agricultural property of the capital value of, say, £100,000, this is the value of a fair-sized agricultural property. At what will be the duties valued? There will be 9 per cent. Estate Duty. In case of a settled estate, as land usually is, there will be 2 per cent. Settlement Estate Duty as well. There will be Succession Duty, and, at the lowest, that will be about 2 per cent. Then there will be 20 per cent. Increment Duty on that part of the estate on which the Increment Duty is payable. Where the estate comes in direct succession, the duty will be something over 30 per cent. Where it does not come to a lineal descendant, it will be 40 per cent. [Cries of "No, no."]

20 per cent, only is the Increment Duty.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not quite catch what J said. I said on that part of the estate which was due for Increment Duty value. I said that distinctly. Of course, it would not amount to 40 per cent, on the whole.

Not on the capital value?

Yes, on the capital value. [Cries of "No, no."] Yes, certainly, clearly. Of course, the increment is capital, and is assessed as capital.

The hon. Member is always adding these figures together, and saying: "Now, here is 20 and 20, and that makes 40 per cent, on the whole." I do not think he wants to be unfair. I am sure he is in effect, because it is not 40 per cent., not even on that value which is increment. It is 20 per cent, on the whole of that part. It is not 40 per cent, on the whole of the estate.

I really think that the light hon. Gentleman has not gained much by this interruption. When an estate is valued for Death Duties it is valued as a whole, and at certain capital value. You do not divide the estate into parts. You aggregate it, and in this particular instance I put it at £100,000. To that £100,000 a certain amount will be accrued increment. On that accrued increment value 40 per cent, will be levied in the case I have specified. I went no further. I said particularly it would not be on the whole estate, but on that part of the estate which has accrued as increment value. Whether it would be on the whole of the estate, of course, would depend entirely upon what proportion the increment bore to the total value. But is this great injustice, this gross hardship, this confiscation—are those words too strong?—to take place by your descending upon a few individuals who happen to be so circumstanced? A man may have happened to have got a little bit of building land near a town which is the only property he possesses, and where the increment value is a very large proportion of the value of the property. Is the injustice less because you only fall upon a few individuals? Has not one man as much right to justice as another so long as he is obeying the laws of the country? It is not necessary for me to show that everyone, or a majority, or a large number of people even, are going to have to pay 40 per cent. If I can show that under these taxes a few people in special circumstances may be practically squeezed out of existence by having to pay anything from 30 to 40 per cent, of the value of their property, then I think I will show a case for reconsideration. Even if 3, 4 or 5 per cent, had to be paid it would still be a very heavy burden. Is a burden of 20 or 25 per cent, all told one which this House desires to impose upon the owners of small pieces of land?

After all it is supposed to be the object of this legislation, and the whole of the proposals affecting land in this Finance Bill to break up large estates, and force people into the market. I am of the opinion that it will not so much have that effect, because the owners of large estates have usually other resources from which they can meet the duties for the time being. But you are making the ownership of land so burdensome that the poor man will no longer be able to hold any. Perhaps hon. Members below the Gangway will answer this question: There is a heavy burden on land now on the poor man in the form of a rent. They are invariably saying that the poor man is over-burdened with the heavy rent which he has to pay to the landowner. What difference will it make to the poor man who wishes to occupy a piece of land whether that heavy burden upon it is in the shape of a rent or taxes?

"It will be easier."

How will it be easier for that man to enjoy his piece of land or house built upon it if there is a heavy burden upon it in the form of tax or rent?

May I answer the question of the hon. Gentleman? Simply because that he will be relieved pro tanto of his other taxation.

I think the relief he would prefer would be the money which comes into his own pocket. I do not think it would be much encouragement for him to know that the taxes that he has paid are going into the general pocket of the community instead of going into his own pocket.

If these taxes are necessary, and a tax on bread or the other necessaries of life would otherwise be levied, I think his wife would be very thankful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

If we are going to argue the incidence of the different taxes I am afraid the Chairman will consider we are straying beyond the subject. The burden upon the ownership or occupation of land by the poor man is a thing we ought to avoid, and by these taxes you are placing this crushing burden upon the poor man.

In regard to valuation, the right hon. Gentleman declared that valuation for the Death Duties was comparable in every way to the valuation for the site value for the Increment Value Duty. It is very difficult to contradict, and I do not wish to be so discourteous as to contradict the right hon. Gentleman about his own Finance Bill, but we are bound to study the Bill so far as we can, and discover from the Bill, and so far as we know from the practice in the Death Duties, how the matter stands. It does not seem to be as the Chancellor has said. Where an estate comes in for Death Duties a single valuation is made. First of all, the agricultural value is calculated on a certain number of years purchase, and then on the gross extra value due to that part of the property which has building value outside or beyond the agricultural value. These two sums are added together, and that is the total value for the Death Duties. Is that same process here? I take it that as I understand it, and as the Finance Bill says, what is to be done to calculate the increment value due is this: there is to be first of all a separate valuation on every occupation or on every part for occupation which the Commissioners may desire to have separately valued. That valuation is the total capital value which is not taxable. In order to arrive at the tax- able increment value you have to take from that certain items which I need not enumerate, but which have been discussed here over and over again, and which include what is called the value of land, good-will, anything personal to the owner, and which items I believe are likely to be added to a good deal before we get through these discussions. After all these deductions have been made you then arrive at something taxable in the form of increment value. Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot suggest that these two operations are identical, that one is as easy as the other.