had given notice of the following Motion:—

had given notice to move:—

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he would inquire from the Government of Russia whether Russian troops are being moved to Teheran, and, if that is the case, whether His Majesty's Government will protest against such a move, as opposed to the spirit of the Anglo-Russian Convention and as inimical to the independence of Persia?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it was a fact that instructions had been issued by the Russian Government for the advance of the Russian troops at Tabriz on Teheran and for the preparation of an expeditionary force at Baku; if he could state with what object Russian troops are being marched on Teheran, and was it a fact that the Nationalist forces advancing upon the capital from Kazvin and Kum have for a considerable period been maintaining order at Resht and Isfahan, and have received testimonies from the representatives of the European Powers as to the efficiency of the manner in which they have discharged their task and safeguarded the lives and property of Europeans?

In reply to the Questions of the hon. Members for Brentford and Ripon: His Majesty's Government have no information to the effect that Russian troops are advancing from Tabriz. The Russian Government have, however, decided to send a force from Baku to Enzeli with orders to advance as far as Kazvin, 86 miles from Teheran. I gather, however, that these orders may be countermanded if negotiations, which are now proceeding with the leaders of the Bakhtiaris and Nationalists, are successful. The object of this measure would be to ensure communication between Kazvin and the Caspian Sea. The further advance of a portion of this force would only take place if it becomes necessary to afford protection to the foreign Legations, to the lives and property of Europeans, and to European institutions at Teheran. The Commander of the troops is to receive categoric instructions to confine himself to the protection of foreign interests, and to abstain from all interference in the internal struggle now in progress. His Majesty's Government have no very recent information as to the state of public order at Resht and Isfahan. According to the latest reports received, Resht had remained quiet, while at Isfahan cases of disorder, robbery, and drunkenness became frequent towards the end of the stay of the Bakhtiari tribesmen in the town, while the state of the neighbouring country and roads remained deplorably bad. His Majesty's Government have received no other expression of opinion, favourable or otherwise, from their Consular representatives in these two towns as to the manner in which order has been maintained there by the Nationalist and Bakhtiari forces respectively, and it is impossible to affirm with certainty that the lives and property of Europeans at Teheran would be safe in the event of the occupation of that capital by those forces. In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Brentford, I must add that we have been kept informed by the Russian Government of what steps they considered necessary, and in view of the chaos which exists in the North of Persia and close to the Russian frontier, I see no ground for saying that any precautions which have been taken hitherto are unreasonable.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has received any request from the British representative at Teheran for either British or Russian troops to protect British interests?

No, Sir; I have not received a request from the British representative for protection, because Teheran is out of our reach, and it is impossible for us to send a force to Teheran.

Have any representations been received from His Majesty's Minister at Teheran to the effect that the lives and property of Europeans at Teheran are in his opinion in danger?

No, Sir; we have received no representations that the lives of British subjects are in danger, but there have been reports that there may be danger to some European subjects.

Before the Russian troops were moved was the sanction of the right hon. Gentleman obtained, or was it simply reported after they had been moved?

The Russian Government have communicated to us what their intentions are, but they have not asked our sanction. In a similar case of disturbance close to territory of our own, if we considered it necessary to send protection for vested interests we might have in those districts we, of course, should not wait for the sanction of a foreign Power, though we might make the communication as a matter of courtesy.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not the leaders of the popular forces stated that the lives and property of non-belligerent Europeans would be scrupulously respected?

The hon. Member uses the phrase "leaders of the popular forces." There are so many forces at present in action in Persia that I can only say at present that there is a state of great uncertainty as to what will happen from day to day in a great emergency.

Did we not actually land forces in South Persia to protect our interests in the Gulf?

Yes. That was the case at Bushire a short time ago, when we thought there was danger there, and in that case we made a communication to the Russian Government as to what we were doing, but, of course, we acted on our own responsibility.

Instead of pursuing this matter by question and answer, I beg to give notice that at the end of the questions I shall ask leave to move the adjournment of the House.

Can we get any assurance from the Foreign Office that British influence will not be used to uphold reactionary forces against the popular forces?

There is no question of British influence being used on behalf of reactionary forces. We have endeavoured to pursue a policy of interfering as little as possible in the internal affairs of Persia.

asked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether, by virtue of the powers conferred on him by the Barotseland, North Western Rhodesia, Order in Council, 1899, His Excellency the High Commissioner of South Africa appointed Colonel Colin Harding, C.M.G., to be commandant of the Barotseland Police; and whether such appointment is contained in Proclamation No. 16, of 1901, and signed, by command of His Excellency the High Commissioner, J. Perry, Imperial Secretary?

The reply to my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. I should, however, state at the same time that under the Barotseland Order in Council it rests with the British South Africa Company to nominate officers for appointment.

asked whether there is any official record that Lord Selborne, when accepting Colonel Harding's resignation, which had been handed in under the mistaken belief that the abolition of his post had been sanctioned by the Colonial Office, wrote Colonel Harding on 30th March, 1906, saying that he wished him to understand that his retirement was due solely to the reduction which Lord Selborne had agreed to in response to the urgent request made to him by the British South Africa Company?

Lord Selborne on 30th March, 1906, addressed a telegram to Colonel Harding which contained the following statement: "I wish you to understand that I regard your retirement as due solely to the reductions which I have agreed to in response to the urgent request made to me on grounds of economy by the British South Africa Company. The Company are, of course, entitled to their own opinion as to your conduct while in their service, but I assure you that the opinion which they have thought fit to communicate to you is not shared by me, and would not influence me in considering your application for any suitable appointment under my control which might become vacant in the future."

Can the hon Gentleman explain why Lord Selborne stated in his letter that Colonel Harding's resignation was accepted solely on the ground of necessary reduction for economy, whereas the hon. Gentleman said a fortnight ago that there were "other reasons"?

If my hon. Friend will look back to the answer I gave he will find that I said I did not accept without reserve the statement then made. Beyond that I did not go, and I do not go now.

Do I understand that my hon. Friend entirely concurs in Lord Selborne's view that the resignation was caused solely by reduction due to economy?

All this happened long before I came to the Colonial Office. Of course, in a particular matter of this kind, in reference to facts that took place some time ago, it would plainly be easy for anyone to give a very wrong impression of what took place by replying to a question. If my hon. Friend will ask a specific question on any point I shall be only too glad to give him an answer. But in reply to a supplementary question as to what were the motives of different people at different times, I think the House will agree that it would be most unwise to give an answer.

May I ask——

The hon. Member may ask Question No. 5.

asked whether on 14th May, 1906, Lord Selborne, as High Commissioner for South Africa, wrote to the then Secretary for the Colonies recording his opinion that Colonel Harding was an honourable and conscientious officer, who had loyally and efficiently served both His Majesty's Government and the British South Africa Company; and whether he will immediately retain the services of this officer in some suitable capacity?

Yes, Sir, Lord Selborne did write to the Secretary of State in the terms indicated. The Secretary of State is desirous of finding suitable employment for Colonel Harding, but, as I stated in reply to a similar question on the 22nd of last month, it is very difficult to find a suitable post.

asked whether the hon. Gentleman is in a position to give any information with respect to the summary dismissal at Bloemfontein of three of the inspectors in the Education Department on 17th May last?

The Secretary of State has not yet received further information from the Governor, and I am not, therefore, in a position to add anything to the answer I gave to a question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, on the 16th of last month.

asked the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the medical officer for Ross and Cromarty in his last report states that the Stornoway Infectious Diseases Hospital is in urgent need of a water supply, will he state what action has been taken by the local authority in the matter, and when a suitable supply is likely to be available?

While the water supply of this hospital might be improved, my hon. Friend must not infer that the local authority have not taken such action as is open to them, or that the hospital is without a fairly satisfactory supply. The local authority do all they possibly can to give a copious supply. The patients have never suffered from the want of water; and the hospital has a very good record to show in the number of recoveries of the patients treated. There are no residents in the hospital since May 21st last except the nurse and her assistant.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people will not go into this hospital in consequence of its insanitary condition, and that they prefer to die in their own homes?

Is not the death rate in the Lewis lower than that of Hampstead, the salubrious suburb in which the hon. Gentleman resides?

I do not pay any attention to remarks of that kind.

asked, having regard to the fact that there are 20,000 acres of farm lands in the island of Lewis not under lease, will the right hon. Gentleman state whether, in response to the applications made by the Congested Districts Board, Major Matheson, the proprietor of the island, has assigned any reason for refusing to break up these lands into new holdings; and, if so, will he state briefly its nature?

My hon. Friend was informed on November 9th, 1908, in answer to a question in this House, that, in view of the heavy burden of local taxation in the Lewis, the proprietor is not willing to consider any proposals which might possibly have the effect of increasing expenditure or local burdens. That is all the information which I have upon the subject.

Are we to understand that the proprietor positively refuses to break up this 20,000 acres so that people may get access to the land?

I have nothing to add to the answer I have given.

Would the rent not be larger from the tenants if the land were broken up than from one farm?

I cannot say. The Crofters' Commission have not yet considered the question.

Will the Lord Advocate have some inquiry made into this matter? The people are dying of starvation there.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the South Shawbost cottars, island of Lewis, now located on a small portion of the Dalbeg farm, are in such distress that the proprietors of the "People's Journal," Dundee, after a thorough inquiry into the destitute condition of the people, have forwarded to them a free supply of oatmeal to keep the families from starvation; and will he state what assistance the Government propose to render to these landless cottars?

I have caused inquiry to be made, and I am informed that no application for parochial relief has been made on behalf of these cottars, and that there is no destitution among them. I am aware that the proprietors of the "People's Journal" forwarded a present of oatmeal to be distributed among them, but, under the circumstances, I do not consider it necessary to take any special action.

asked the Lord Advocate whether the post of chairman of the Prison Commission in Scotland is now vacant; whether the compulsory retiral age for that position is 65 years; whether the late holder of it got a two years' extension of time, making him 67 years of age in June of this year when he fell to retire; and will he say whether military or legal training will be required in future for the appointment?

The post is not now vacant, a further extension of service having been granted to the present holder. The statute does not require either military or legal training for the appointment of Prison Commissioners, and it is not proposed to prescribe any special qualifications in filling the prospective vacancy.

Are we to understand that a suitable man cannot be found to succeed him?

No, Sir; my hon. Friend must not so infer.

asked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware of the statements made before the Select Committee on Feus and Leases in 1893 by the town clerk of Kilmarnock as to the enormous increase of the amount levied as casualties in that superiority since the Conveyancing Act of 1874 came into operation, prior to which an heir could be tendered as a vassal and could get off by payment of a relief, being the amount of a year's feu duty only; and whether he will take into consideration the expediency of amending that Act?

I am aware of the statements referred to by my hon. Friend. No complaints have reached me regarding the operation as mentioned in my hon. Friend's question of the Conveyancing Act of 1874, although the judgment of the House of Lords, which fixed the interpretation of the clause that produced the result referred to in the question, was pronounced so far back as February, 1880. In these circumstances I do not propose to consider the expediency of amending the Act.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will ascertain the cause of the delay in proceeding with the construction of the Cromarty and Ding-wall Railway?

When this railway was authorised, it was contemplated that the line would be constructed by the Highland Railway Company, but it appears from a letter which the Board of Trade have received from the promoters of the scheme that they are now considering the construction of the line on their own account.

May I ask if this letter is of recent date?

I think so, but I am not quite certain.

I will put another question, and perhaps the hon. Member will find out and let me know.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the anxiety in Scotland caused by the recent proposal to amalgamate the three principal railway companies, and of the dissatisfaction of traders to the demurrage charges proposed by these companies; and whether, under these circumcumstances he will add to the Departmental Committee on Railway Amalgamations and Agreements some representative of the trading interests of Scotland in addition to Lord Hamilton of Dalzell?

I cannot undertake to enlarge the number of members of this Committee for reasons already stated in answer to questions in this House. One of the original members of the Committee has, however, resigned, and in filling the vacancy due weight is being given to the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether Lord Hamilton of Dalzell is a representative of the directors, or traders, or of the Board of Trade?

If we could get a representative of the three in one it would be ideal. Lord Hamilton is put on as a representative of the Board of Trade.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the decrease of 7,122 in the Royal Naval Reserve between 1st April, 1906, and 1st April, 1909, and a reduction in the Coastguard of 688 during the same period, were compensated for by a corresponding increase in the Royal Fleet Reserve?

The decrease in Royal Naval Reserve ratings during the period named was 6,456. The reduction has been mainly caused by discharging men who completed their fourth, fifth, or sixth periods of enrolment in the Royal Naval Reserve, that is to say, men over 40, instead of allowing them to serve till 50, as previously. The increase of Royal Fleet Reserve during the same period was 4,813, a net reduction in the combined reserves of 1,643. The Coastguard have nothing to do with the number of reserves, and are in no sense reserves; they are part of the active service numbers, and are included in Vote A. Every man reduced for the Coastguard means an extra man available to serve afloat in the fleet.

May I ask what reduction in naval strength abroad has justified this reduction of over 1,600 in our Naval Reserves?

The hon. Gentleman will see that the larger part of the reduction in the Royal Naval Reserves of 6,000 was caused by the age of 40 instead of SO, and that that was not a real reduction in strength. In actual fighting strength the reduction is only 1,640, and if the hon. Gentleman will put the facts together he will come to the conclusion I certainly have come to that there is no real reduction in fighting strength.

Are we to understand that the Admiralty think that any man over forty is of no use as a reserve man?

That would not be a proper inference to draw.

asked how many officers and men were killed on His Majesty's ships while coaling was being carried on; and how many were treated for injuries in the sick bay during the last 12 months?

The number asked for in the first part of the question is six during the past 12 months—one at each of the following places: Devonport, Queens-ferry, Ballachulish, Portland, Scapa Flow, Portsmouth. With regard to the second part of the question, coaling accidents are not specified in the Returns from the sick bays.

In view of the fact that there have been six fatal accidents in the last 12 months at coaling stations at home, and an indefinite number of injuries, can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to issue some regulations by which this alarming state of affairs may be removed?

I have examined the cause in each case, and, with the exception of one case, the report was that no person was to blame.

There is nobody to blame, but is it not owing to the unnecessary competition between ships?

No; that has nothing to do with it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire if a Return can be made?

I can inquire on the point of a possible Return.

asked whether the time devoted to exhibitions and displays of His Majesty's fleets in Home waters is deducted from the time during mobilisation which would otherwise be spent in sea training, or if these exhibitions occupy time additional to the ordinary period of mobilisation; and, if the latter, what is the cost to the nation?

The inspection at Spit-head was, and the visit to the Thames and the review in the Solent, will be composed of ships fully commissioned, and not mobilised ships. These functions in no way interfere with the sea training of the vessels.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means by ships in full commission not mobilised?

Fully commissioned ships are ships with full crews, and not ships with nucleus crews or specially filled up for the occasion.

What is the cost of all this over the ordinary sea training?

These ships would not necessarily be at sea during the time the review is taking place. They might be in some harbour; they would not all be in the same harbour. It is impossible to say what the additional cost would be. The hon. Member must understand that ships are not always at sea.

Are we to understand these reviews do not cause any increased cost?

It would be impossible to say. I have no doubt there is some, naturally, because all the ships are centred in the Solent instead of some at Portsmouth and some at Devonport, to which they have to return. It is impossible to say what the cost would be, but it is not serious.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Government to abolish the Royal Marines; and, if not, will he state how many officers and men it is intended to retain?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, the numbers will depend on requirements.

Is it not the fact that the Marines have been reduced 3,000 in the last three years?

I think the hon. Gentleman has these figures on the subject; I have given them in detail.

May I ask, in order to relieve the great anxiety in the Corps of Royal Marines, and owing to the uncertainty they are under, whether he can see his way to issue a circular stating what is the Admiralty policy on the matter, or make a speech?

There can be no uncertainty. I have given a clear, definite negative to the first part of the question.

asked how many officers have joined the Royal Marines during the last two years?

Six officers were entered for the Royal Marines on 1st September, 1907. None have been entered since that date. The hon. Member must, of course, understand that the late Government, in introducing the new scheme of entry of officers, arranged for the admission of officers by the old channels of Woolwich and Sandhurst up to a given date only. Cadets, who will be the Marine officers of the future, have been entered at Osborne continuously since September, 1903.

asked what facilities for the repair and docking of His Majesty's ships of various classes exist in British dockyards to the east of Malta and to the west of Haulbowline?

I propose to circulate with the Votes the list of British dockyards referred to.—[See Written Answers this date.]

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the New Cumnock Collieries Company, Limited, Ayrshire, Scotland, have intimated by notice to their workpeople that the deductions from their wages for medical service will be paid over to a certain practitioner, who is a relative of the managing director; that a memorial signed by 300 workpeople objecting to this and directing the medical deductions to be handed over to the two medical men hitherto acting for the workpeople has been sent to the firm, who have ignored the request; that pressure is being brought to bear upon the workmen, and threats of dismissal used, to compel them to agree to recognise the medical nominee of the company and to desert the doctors of their own choice; and whether he proposes taking action to enforce those provisions of the Truck Act which are thus being violated?

I have received a report with regard to this matter, from which it appears that the facts are, generally, as stated in the first two paragraphs of the question. The company took over the mine in question last March, and an agreement was entered into at the time between them and the men employed at the mine in pursuance of section 23 of the Truck Act, 1831, for deductions to be made in respect of the provision of medical attendance by the company. The company contend that the memorial referred to in the question protesting against the new arrangement, and requesting that the deductions be paid to the same doctors as before has not terminated the agreement; and if this is so, no infringement of the Truck Act is being committed. The company state, however, that they are not making deductions from the wages of those who have personally signified to them their objection to the deductions, but they decline to collect deductions for the former doctors. The matter appears to be one for settlement between the company and the men.

May I ask whether the Home Secretary is aware that the men do not object to the deduction being made, but they do object to giving it to a man whom they do not want to pay for. Is not that an infringement of the principle of the Truck Act?

No; the point is not a new one. It has arisen in many parts of the country. Of course, there are difficulties.

Will not the Home Office instruct the Mines Inspector to enter a prosecution?

I have already explained that it does not seem clear that there has been an infringement of the Act.

asked the First Commissioner of Works if he could make any statement as to the purpose to be served by the octagonal building which was being erected in the north-west corner of Kensington Gardens?

The small building in question has been erected by the generosity of a lady who does not wish her name to be divulged, in order to provide a shelter and drinking fountain, surmounted by a clock, for the use of the children who frequent Kensington Gardens. Another anonymous donor has been equally kind in providing the swings and other equipment necessary for the formation of a playground for children immediately around the fountain. The fountain, which has been most carefully designed to harmonise in every essential with its surroundings, will, I anticipate, prove not only an addition to the appearance of that portion of the gardens, but also the greatest boon to the numerous children who have at present no playground or means of obtaining water in that part of the gardens. I am also providing a sandpit for the children.

asked the President of the Board of Education if his attention had been called to the fact that the effect of Circular 709 would be to impose upon the ratepayers of Herefordshire an additional annual burden of over £1,000; and if he could see his way to withdraw the Order?

On 25th June the local education authority of Herefordshire furnished an estimate of the amount mentioned. The particulars on which the statement is based will be investigated as soon as possible.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether the investigation of the estimates received from the local education authorities with reference to Circular 709 had been sufficiently advanced to enable him now to give detailed information of the financial effect of the circular; if so, would he state what were the minimum and maximum amounts of the increased expenditure disclosed by such estimates; and what was the amount of the increased rate involved in each case?

The investigation and discussion of the estimates furnished by local education authorities is proceeding as rapidly as possible. I hope to be able to furnish information on the matter at an early date.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that there were upwards of 2,000,000 acres of land in the Highland crofting counties used as deer forest and exclusively for the purposes of sport, would he consider the expediency of introducing some special form of taxation on those sporting areas, especially bearing in mind that the locking-up those lands deprived the Highland people of the land which was cultivated by their forefathers, and which the people now so much needed for crofter holdings?

As my hon. Friend is aware, my right hon. Friend's proposals for meeting the financial requirements for the year are now before the House, and he can hardly, in the circumstances, accept his suggestion.

Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the importance of securing some portion of his funds from this magnificent hen-roost?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could state the yield from Ireland in the last financial year of the duty paid by on-licence holders and off-licence holders respectively; and the total amount expected from Ireland out of the estimated £2,600,000?

The amounts of Licence Duty paid in Ireland in the year ended 31st March, 1909, by on-licence holders and by off-licence holders were £143,000 and £24,000 respectively. As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member for East Tyrone in reply to a question on 3rd May, the Irish contribution to the estimated revenue from the additional Liquor Licence Duties will be approximately £104,000.

I wish to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the following matter. On 9th June, according to the Votes and Pro- ceedings of this House, there were appointed to the Scottish Grand Committee five Members, who within recent months had been elected at by-elections for Scottish Constituencies. Before 9th June four of those Members had taken part, by speech and vote, in the proceedings of that Committee. I wish to ask whether the work of that Committee is nullified by The speeches and votes of those Members?

I do not understand what the hon. Member means. Perhaps he will give me notice in writing of the point on which he wishes my ruling, and I will inquire into it.

I beg to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the violation by His Majesty's Government of the Anglo-Russian Convention dealing with Persia.

The hon. Member has overlooked the blocking notice standing in the name of the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs (Mr. J. D. Rees), which will debar him from raising the question.

Does that blocking motion bar any discussion not only as regards Persia, but also as regards an infringement of the provisions of an international instrument?

The notice is drawn in very wide terms, and it is certainly intended for that purpose.

moved to insert after the words "subject to" ["subject to such deductions (if any) as the Commissioners allow"] the words "deduction of any costs and expenses of valuation or of sale or of transfer incurred by the owner in connection with the land."

Not agricultural land alone, but the whole land.

He continues:—

"If only half that amount at ½ per cent. came under the valuation, the cost would be £10,000,000 sterling."

Do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite realise that they are involving the owners of this class of property in a valuation which is going to cost them £10,000,000? Why, it simply means that the legal profession and the valuers are to get thousands of pounds for every hundred that goes into the pockets of the State. Surely it cannot be contemplated that this heavy and uncertain burden of legal transfer and other expenses are to fall upon the private individual? The hon. Member in his letter calls it "Bee in the bonnet finance—if finance at all." Although that I scarcely Parliamentary and a peculiar expression to use, as an expression it is not far wide of the mark. I beg to move.

I am rising to answer a totally different proposition to the one printed, and which I examined this morning. I will deal first of all with the question of the expenses of the transfer. The hon. Member gave us a specific case of a man buying a house for £450 and selling it for £475, and after expenses had been paid making a profit of £5. What happens? The house would be valued at £450 on the register. It is sold for £475, and the vendor is allowed the margin of 10 percent., and therefore the Act does not apply. It is absolutely free property, and that shows the advantage of the 10 per cent. margin. It clears all these small expenses and cost, and things of that kind ought to be dealt with as a whole. The hon. Member treated this as if the vendor paid this cost. I agree with him that in Germany there is an allowance for legal costs and some of the transfer taxes, but these transfer taxes are twice as heavy in Germany as here. They are more than twice as heavy—very nearly three times as heavy, and will be even after this Finance Bill is passed. In Germany there is a charge of £3 per cent.; here the charge would be only £1, even when the new Stamp Duties are imposed, and half of these fall upon the vendor in Germany. Take the case of a transfer here. I have some experience, notwithstanding what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) thinks, that I do not know much about land, of transfers, and I have perused many small leases in connection with land and minerals that might surprise the hon. and gallant Member. However, that is by the way. Take the transaction of the kind brought forward by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mason). The whole of the expenses of the transfer in that case are invariably paid by the purchaser. These gentlemen, the vendor and purchaser, go to the same solicitor, and he prepares the whole of the documents. It is not like a great transaction where an estate is sold—where the vendor is represented by one solicitor and the purchaser by another, and where they have to go into the investigation of title and of requisition. There, I agree, a good deal of expense falls upon the vendor, as well as upon the purchaser; but in these small transactions the legal expenses invariably fall upon the purchaser, and why should the vendor deduct the cost of legal expenses incurred by somebody else? There is no case at all for the deduction of these legal expenses. As to the question of valuation, why should valuation be deducted from increment? If any of these costs of valuation were deducted, the deduction ought to be made from the original site value; it is not an expense incurred after the original site value has been made, and therefore if there was any deduction for valuation it ought to be a deduction in connection with the original site value. Otherwise what would happen? I do not want to anticipate the discussion that will take place in connection with other expenses—the expenses of advertisements for instance, where the site value is practically created by the purchaser, where you have a place along the coast where probably no one would ever build a house except for the enormous sums of money spent in advertising the place. These things have to be considered in connection with the fixing of the site value, and I say the same thing applies here. It is not an expense which is incurred after the valuation is completed; it is incurred before the valuation, and it ought to be considered in connection with the original site value. Otherwise what would happen? If it is deducted after the original site value every subsequent purchaser would get the benefit of expenses which he never incurred. The expense is only incurred once by the original owner, he sells to somebody else; the second man then sells to a third. Why should they get the expenses of a valuation which they never incurred? That would be the effect of introducing this Amendment here. The hon. Member said this expense should be deducted or added to the original site value, when he states it ought to be added, I would remind him that applies to the halfpenny tax. I want him to make up his mind which horse he is going to ride. When the hon. Member talks of the vendor being allowed to deduct legal expenses, he wants to allow him to deduct something incurred by somebody else, and when he comes to the question of valuation, which he assumes is an expenditure that ought to be taken off, this certainly is not the stage at which to discuss it.

I admit there is a great deal of difficulty in estimating these deductions and in the consideration of the different valuations to be made, but I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman quite appreciated the point of the Amendment. I am sorry it was changed at the last moment, but it is a very obvious point, and the right hon. Gentleman might have known that these deductions would be asked for. In Germany allowance is made to cover these expenses in the first instance; no expenses of valuation whatever are incurred in Germany, because there they have a State register, in which all the required particulars are always to be found. In addition to that, there is a further allowance of 15 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman makes a great deal about his 10 per cent. which he has been good enough to concede, but that 10 per cent. has to cover all out-goings, and it will not be sufficient to cover them with fairness. In Germany it has to cover nothing whatever. A man is entitled to have a small income. All the other allowances are made, and it is generally agreed that when the increment is as small as 15 per cent., the owner is entitled to it. Here the allowance is but 10 per cent., and that has to cover, first of all, decrement; secondly, interest—a most important item; and, thirdly, all other expenses, which may be very considerable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says the vendor does not pay any expenses, but if the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Amendment again he will see that that answer is no answer at all. If there are none, then we do not ask for any. What defence is it to get up and tell us that the vendor does not pay? If he does not, we get nothing. My hon. Friend gave a concrete case in which £20 expenses had been incurred, and I am prepared to accept the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement. I regret if I attributed inexperience to him in dealing with land, because I thought I was paying him a compliment. I did not think this Bill could have been brought in by anyone with any such experience. I have sufficient experience to know that when I sell a piece of land I invariably get a lawyer's bill, which I pay. I am speaking of small transactions, and invariably on every transaction the vendor pays so much and the purchaser pays so much.

No.

The right hon. Gentleman denies it, but it is so. The practice must have been altered since the days when the right hon. Gentleman practised, or perhaps in mountain regions the practice is different to what it is in London. There obviously are expenses, and all that this Amendment does is to provide that where there are expenses which fall upon the vendor they should be deducted. It is not reasonable that where the vendor has to incur expenses in selling he should have to pay a tax upon those expenses. You take a certain figure at which a man has bought a certain piece of land at which it has been valued to him. He sells it at another figure and incurs certain expenses which are a dead loss to him, and which have to be deducted from the difference between those two sums. You take those two sums and charge a tax upon the whole. I say you are taxing that man upon an expense which he cannot avoid, and you are taxing him upon an outgo. There must be some reason and justice even in such a Bill as this, and I cannot see how these things can be defended. The right hon. Gentleman says that the expenses of valuation should be on the original site value. The original site value is to be estimated as from 30th April, 1909, before there was any expenses of valuation incurred. Therefore they cannot be taken into consideration in that valuation. I do not see how that is possible. The right hon. Gentleman said they were not expenses incurred subsequent to the original site value, but clearly they are. The expenditure upon valuation will be an expenditure incurred by the owner subsequent to the date at which the original site value is to be fixed, and it must be so. Therefore they are expenses incurred subsequent to the valuation, and there ought to be a right to deduct them in arriving at the tax on the site value. The point made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what would happen on the second, third, and fourth sales brings us back again to the difficulty pointed out yesterday, that if he is going in every case in the future to the Day of Judgment to throw back the original valuation, he naturally gets into all these difficulties. That necessarily follows; but if he started at the second point and made that a point of departure, an allowance made there would stand for ever. That would work smoothly; but you will get into all these difficulties if you try to throw back to the original site value in every subsequent case, however many transactions may have been incurred, however much the land has been subdivided, and however many units have to be examined. This Amendment simply allows the deduction of costs and expenses naturally incurred by the owner, which he will have to show were actually incurved. I flunk that is a most reasonable request, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a little more time to consider the point, he will see that it cannot in any fairness be resisted, and it ought not to be included in the allowance of 10 per cent. which has already been given for a totally different purpose. That 10 per cent. does not more than cover that particular purpose, and cannot be held to cover this reasonable request.

I appeal to hon. Members opposite to give all the support they can to this very reasonable Amendment, because those who are interested in land, whether they own a large or a small amount, think it is a little unfair that not only are they having this tax put upon them, but they are also having a further heavy tax placed upon them for legal expenditure in connection with valuation and other things. I will give the Committee an instance which came under my notice in regard to a small property in the home counties. This property, comprising 170 acres, was bought two years ago for £17,000. A portion of that land, comprising some 12 acres, was bought 12 years ago for £2,200. Previous to the whole 120 acres being bought by the one man two years ago the portion of 12 acres which was bought for £2,200 was put up for sale separately, and was withdrawn at £1,500 because no one would bid any more for it, and that was the reserve price. Here we have an instance of land within a distance of 11 miles of the Marble Arch which, in 18 years, has decreased from £2,200 to £1,500. I am not now discussing the question of decrement, but I wish to point out that if you are going to put upon the owner of those 170 acres the immense difficulty of ascertaining the site value of those 12 acres of land which, 20 years ago, were bought for £2,200, and which two years ago were withdrawn at £1,500, and this land was included in the 170 acres, if you are going to put this burden upon that land you will be putting an unreasonable burden upon the owner. How can anybody value those 12 acres? It is obvious that the owner of the land who is not skilled in land valuation will not attempt to value them, and he will be driven to engage a professional man. We all know that the great majority of land-owners in this country, if this Bill goes through in its present form, will be seeking expert advice from the great firms of land agents all over the country. Obviously, there is only a limited number of these firms and of people who are skilled in valuing land. What will be the result if the demand exceeds the supply? Naturally, the price of these gentlemen who are skilled in this matter will go up. Their charges are already high, and they will go up higher. The lawyers say they are already over-worked, and that they cannot work at the ridiculously low prices of the past. Their charges, therefore, will also go up. We shall not only have this extra tax put upon the land, but the land agents and the lawyers will charge much higher fees than they do at present. I would also point out to the Committee that a year ago these 12 acres, which two years ago were withdrawn at £1,500, were valued by an experienced land agent, and he charged £25. At that rate, we should not have half per cent. charged on the capital value but one per cent., and therefore, instead of 10 millions, at which the hon. Member for Walworth put the legal expenses, we should have 20 millions. I think, whether it is 10 or 20 millions, these charges ought to be met in some way, because, if you are going to put this heavy tax upon the owners of land, you ought not to impose upon them also these heavy legal expenses.

I rise because an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory in this matter, and I may tell hon. Gentlemen that when the Scotch Valuation Bill was under discussion—where the values to be made were very much the same as they will be under this Bill—I had a farm, consisting of about 140 or 150 acres, valued for the purposes of the Debate, and it took an experienced and practical man very nearly a fortnight to do it. The right hon. Gentleman will really find it is not only an expensive but a difficult thing to do, and of course everything depends upon the construction he places upon the word "structure." I do not know whether it includes main drains, roads, hedges, and everything of that kind. If it does, it would be a very costly thing indeed. It is really mean to put all these charges on the owner, and a deduction ought to be made in respect of them. My hon. Friends have made out a very good case, and I give that experience of my own as what will happen, assuming the Bill is not amended, as I hope it will be.

It cannot be true to say, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of Exchequer has said, that it is only in valuing the original site value that the owner will be put to much expense. There are a great number of cases which may arise for determining the site value for the purpose of the Increment Duty, and there may be a great deal of trouble in getting the apportionment of the original site value, which will involve very nice questions, and in which a great deal of professional advice will have to be taken. For example, where the occasion is the death of any person, and the particular plot on which the Increment Value Duty is to be charged has to be valued, much expense will fall upon the owner. Again he may have to test the value of the fee simple on the passing of various interests. There are therefore numerous points in which he will be put to extra expense when the site value is determined quite apart from the original site value. One or two calculations as to what the expenses of valuation will be quite apart from the legal charges have been made, and the leter of the hon. Member for Walworth has been quoted. A Member of a leading firm of surveyors has supplied me with another calculation. He takes the rateable value of. England and Wales as in 1906, £207,000,000. He adds a little for increment since that date, say, four per cent., and he takes off the value of the property owned by the rating authorities, leaving a round average of £200,000,000. He says the capital value will be at least 25 times the rateable value, and he arrives at a capital value of the real property in England and Wales of £5,000,000,000. Now comes the calculation as to how the ordinary scale of surveyor's fees is to be applied to the valuation of a great property like that. Of course a great deal will depend upon what the average is in any particular owner. He takes a high average, an average as large as £5,000, as the value of each owner's property in any one locality. Five thousand pounds will be the average unit with which the surveyors will have to deal. It is probably much too high. He applies what is known to surveyors as Hyde's scale to this—I believe it is ¾ per cent.—and it works out at a total cost of £38,000,000 for valuation for England and Wales. He says that if you allow deduction for surveyors accepting fees less than the Ryde scale, still you would come to something exceeding 20 millions. We do not ask that the whole of that should be deducted. All we ask is that the expenses in ascertaining the site value shall be deducted before you proceed to tax the owner.

We have this afternoon to make, as we have often had to make before, complaint of the very meagre answers given by the Government to the objections raised over and over again by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in replying to the Mover of the Amendment, complained that it had been transformed, and that instead of it being moved as it appeared on the Paper, it had been divided under two heads. That is not true. My hon. Friend thought it better no doubt to specify exactly the point he wished to put before the Committee, and to which he hoped to obtain an answer from the Government. The right hon. Gentleman said he would deal with transfer, and he proceeded to do so. He began by saying the cost of transfer could hardly be deducted from the cost of valuing the site value. As far as I am able to follow the Bill and the Amendment, that is the position at this moment. Clause 2 deals entirely with site value, and sub-section 2 says that the site value of the land on the occasion on which the Increment Value Duty becomes due shall be taken to be on a certain occasion which it specified so and so. On each of those occasions in the subsection, the omission of one of which was ruled out of order yesterday, it specifies how the value is to be calculated. Then we come to the Amendment at the end of those sub-sections, and it reads: "Such value shall be taken to be subject to certain deductions." Here is one of the de- ductions which my hon. Friend (Mr. James Mason) desires to move, but upon that point the Chancellor of the Exchequer had very little to say. What he did tell us was—and I am exceedingly glad to hear it—that he had had six years' experience in a land agent's office. It is more surprising to me that, having had that experience, he should have so little to tell us on the subject of valuation and the cost of the valuation he is imposing by this Bill on the owners of land all throughout the country. My hon. Friend behind me quoted a letter which appears today in "The Times," written by a supporter of the Government, in which some estimate is made of the burden that the right hon. Gentleman is deliberately casting upon the owners of real property in all parts of the country. I am not prepared myself to say at this moment how far the different estimates which have been made on this subject are right or how far they are wrong. There is no doubt about one thing. The expense will be enormous. The estimate of the hon. Gentleman which appears to-day in "The Times" is 10 millions of money. Another estimate given from the back benches by my hon. Friend (Mr. James Hope) is a great deal more than that. I put down a question asking the right hon. Gentleman whether this question had been considered, and whether any organised estimate had been attempted to be made by His Majesty's Government before they imposed this enormous and unwarrantable burden upon the owners of land. What is the history of that question? On three different occasions when it was asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place to answer it. I make full allowance for the very unusual and exceptional labours which are thrown upon him at present by the necessity of considering all the numerous Amendments which appear from day to day upon the Paper. At last I caught him as he was coming in, and, having obtained the leave of Mr. Speaker after the questions were all over, I put the question to him. What was his answer? It differed somewhat from the answer given on the first occasion by the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hobhouse), who said it had been considered, but he could not give the estimate. I gathered from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it had never been considered at all, because his reply to me was, "Why, obviously it is quite impossible for me to estimate what it is going to cost the owners of the land in the country, although I have placed that burden upon them." A more extraordinary statement, coming from a Minister imposing a burden of this kind upon people all over the country, I do not think I have ever heard in my life. What consideration has this subject received from His Majesty's Government? I really think we ought to be taken into their confidence, and we ought to be told whether they do really expect the owners of real property in this country to pay the cost of this burden, whether it be 5, 10, 20, or 30 millions. We ought to be told frankly whether it is to be considered additional taxation, and, if it is, then I say there ought at least to have been some estimate on the part of the Government as to this enormous charge they are imposing. I hope that even yet we may hear something more from the Government on this subject of the cost of the valuation which they are imposing upon people right throughout the country. I desire to get some further information on the subject.

The first part of this Amendment deals with only one of the many Bills which are confined within the cover of this Budget. It is interesting to note that the Government themselves are admitting that the Budget covers many Bills. The Vice-President for the Board of Agriculture (Ireland) (Mr. T. W. Russell), speaking at Belfast the other day, remarked that the Government would carry the Budget, with all the Bills inside the Budget, and he went on to point out that among the Bills included was a Valuation Bill. Everybody admits that enormous expense will be thrown upon the owners of land who are called upon to make this valuation. It is admitted by Members on both sides of the House, and I have a quotation here from the hon. Member for South Buckinghamshire (Mr. Arnold Herbert), in which he declared in this House that the mere question of valuation is going to be a very heavy burden on owners of land. I could give many quotations from speeches and from statements issued by various societies, as well as from Commissions appointed by the Government, but I think it is only necessary to add one. Various estimates have been made as to what this valuation will cost. I believe it was estimated that in the case of the City of Glasgow the cost would be something like half a million sterling, but we also have something approaching an estimate from a Government source, given by Mr. J. Grant Lawson, Secretary to the Local Government Board under the last Government, when dealing with another Bill affecting valuation. Mr. Grant Lawson stated, on 14th April, 1905:—

"This valuation and the separation of site from structure will cost a great deal of money. The cheapest estimate for London was £400,000. The estimates of other surveyors varied between two millions and four millions, and the net result to the whole country was that a valuation separating site from structure would cost at least 18 millions sterling."

I notice that the Prime Minister the other day, in one of his many interesting speeches on the Budget outside this House, boasted that it was a very fair Budget, and gave as his reason for making that boast that—

"I am imposing in indirect taxation £6,000,000, and I am imposing in direct taxation £6,800,000, and that is an eminently fair distribution of the burden."

But he did not tell his audience he was further imposing on the payers of direct taxation a sum of 18 or 20 million sterling, which would be required for the valuation. Under these circumstances, I hope the Government will find it possible to give favourable consideration to the Amendment of my hon. Friend, which, though it does not remedy the whole of the grievance the owners of real property legitimately feel, will, at any rate, do something to mitigate the injustice.

May I remark, as a humble Member of the profession of surveyors and valuers to which the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hope) has just referred, that the basis of calculation which he has adopted for the cost of valuation, namely, Ryde's scale, is, after all, only one of those ideals which it is desired to attain, but which is seldom arrived at.

It is not my calculation. It is a calculation sent me by a member of the Surveyors' Institute, and the sum of 19 millions, at which he arrives, is on the basis of half Ryde's scale.

I am very glad to find my brother surveyors are making such liberal preparations for the emoluments of the profession. I have never been guilty of cutting down prices, and I do not intend to begin doing so, but it does seem to me that, when figures of this kind are submitted to the House, it is necessary to examine them quietly. The first suggestion is that Ryde's scale is the proper scale for valuing under this Act, but if hon. Gentlemen will make themselves acquainted with the fees that are paid to eminent surveyors for valuations in some of our urban districts they will certainly find that that scale is not general. As far as the great estates in this country are concerned, it will not be necessary in most cases to go outside and employ a surveyor either on Ryde's scale or on any other scale. I do not know a wellmanaged estate office which has not in its own possession plans, schedules, and valuations of the property of the owner, and which has not on the staff a practical man quite competent to make such a valuation as will be required under the provisions of this Act. Then, again, to arrive at the many millions with which my colleague has dazzled the House it will be necessary to include the cost of valuing the house property. But may I point out that an expert surveyor would not necessarily value every house separately on the property? After all, this house property is usually built in streets, and, having valued one house, it would only be necessary to multiply the total result by the number of houses included in the property. I venture to submit, therefore, that these calculations as to the cost of valuation are most grotesquely exaggerated. Still. I have a little sympathy with some of the difficulties which will face owners of land in valuing certain classes of property. I look upon this self-valuation principle as only a temporary expedient. I am afraid if a scale of surveyors' fees is allowed under this Act for the purpose of arriving at the Increment Tax you will stereotype that self valuation and that scale of fees for all time. I do not want to see that done. I want to see a really effective system of State valuation, because I think that would produce a much better return for the Treasury. May I point out one case in which difficulty is likely to arise? We will take two ten-acre fields of undeveloped building land adjacent to a town, and for all practical purposes having the same value. One field is part of a large estate. The other is owned by a man who has recently bought it, and cannot afford to keep it idle. Both those owners have to go through the same process of self-valuation. But they will look at the matter from an entirely different standpoint. One owner will say to himself, "I will not develop that field for many years to come. It gives access to the remainder of my estate, and I will not develop it until the whole estate is ready for development." He is concerned not so much about the increment as about the Land Tax, and, therefore, he puts the valuation as low as possible. But the owner of the adjoining field, who has to develop almost immediately, does not bother about the Land Tax. He is concerned with the Increment Tax, and he, therefore, puts the valuation as high as possible.

I have allowed the hon. Member to develop his argument, but it seems to me he is now discussing a point which properly comes in on Clause 16. This is an Amendment to allow the deduction from the increment value of the expense of the valuation on sale or transfer of the land. The whole question of valuation hardly arises here. It is germane, I think, to point out that the cost of valuation will be very heavy, and I have allowed that argument to be advanced, but I do not think it is in order on this Amendment to go into the whole question of the cost of the valuation.

I will not pursue that further. I was only attempting to make this point, that, instead of allowing the surveyor's scale for valuation in connection with this particular case you should aim, in the near future, at getting a proper valuation made by the State. The object of my illustration was this: these two men would value from very different standpoints, and they would arrive at two very different values—one would be four times as much as the other. Although this self valuation may be a necessary and temporary expedient, I do not want it stereotyped, because it is not satisfactory. I hope that, as soon as possible, the right hon. Gentleman, by cooperation with rating and other authorities and by the appointment of proper valuers, will be able to arrive at some satisfactory basis upon which this Increment Tax can be calculated. I do not look upon the present proposal as a permanent arrangement, and I hope that it will not be long before we get a more effective system of valuation.

We all listened with interest to the hon. Member who has just addressed the House, knowing that he is closely in touch with the difficult problem of valuation. But I do not think he perfectly realised the character of the suggestion he has just made to the House. He says that the system proposed in the Bill is unsatisfactory on the ground that it involves hardship, and he urges that it should be treated as a temporary expedient, provided the Government hold out hopes of having a State valuation. I am not sure that this topic is in order, but may I just make one observation? The hon. Member is actually advising the Government to persist in a measure which is going to throw a prodigious burden on a particular class, that prodigious burden being only temporary, and not constituting a permanent or satisfactory settlement. I think if he will reflect upon that proposition he will see that he is greatly aggravating the grievance we complain of. If he suggests that this enormous burden is not to have any permanent effect, is to be a mere stop-gap, until the Government step in to do what it is probable they ought to do now, and that is to carry out their own valuation at their own cost, it will add to the grievance. I confess I was a little disappointed with the speech in regard to the cost of valuation of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Tudor Walters). He is a great expert in this matter, but he only took up a position of purely destructive criticism and supplied us with no constructive calculation, or information, as to how we should arrive at the cost. He derided the idea that it would cost this sum, or that sum, or that the Ryde scale should be adopted in its entirety, which was never suggested on this side of the House. All that has been suggested on this side is that, according to the calculations of some expert's, half that scale should be adopted, but with regard to that I am not in a position to form the smallest judgment as to whether any of the estimates which have been put forward has the smallest basis in fact. There has been an estimate given of 10 millions by the right hon. Gentleman opposite; there has been an estimate of 18 to 20 millions by an official of the Local Government Board in 1905, and there have been later estimates, bringing up his estimate of 20 millions to 30 millions. I have not the least idea which of these estimates is accurate, or whether any of them are accurate; whether the basis of the charges in them is excessive, or is not excessive, or whether the lowest and the smallest of them does not fall short of the actual needs of the case. Have we not, however, a right to ask the Government for some assistance in this matter? It is all very well for the Government to get up and say, "your valuations are extravagant and fallacious," but surely if all these people, whom we are obliged to rely upon, in default of official information—if all these estimates are incorrect, the Government ought to have given us some estimates beforehand. I cannot make out that they have even taken the trouble to estimate the number who will come under their Bill, which I should have thought was the first thing that would have been done. But they have not made the smallest attempt, so far as I know, to tell us what kind of burden will actually be thrown upon the owners of property in land and houses in our big towns and our agricultural districts, and they take up, like the hon. Gentleman, a purely critical attitude, without giving the smallest assistance, upon a point which everybody must admit is very important, from the point of view of the actual working of the Bill.

This Debate has been conducted by all the speakers to-day from the point of view of the heavy burden you are going to throw upon the owners of property in land and houses. They approached it simply from the point of view of the magnitude of the grievance, and if the Government and the right hon. Gentleman do not think it is a great grievance, they should supply an estimate which would correct these extravagant figures, which they say have been given by my right hon. Friend, and should prove that those figures are extravagant and fallacious. I do not wish, however, to approach this matter from the point of view of the grievance to a particular class in the community, namely, the owners of houses and lands, the owners of property solely, but I want to approach it from the point of view of the principles upon which you ought to carry out taxation of this kind. Consider what you are doing! You are determined to get the increment on a particular class of property, and surely you ought to see that the increment is the net, and not the gross, increment. We had a Debate yesterday, to which I mean to do no more than to refer, in which the case was stated of a man who ran his property as a part of his business. On some of the houses he was dealing with he made an increment profit, on others he made no profit at all, or made a loss, and it was then pointed out that if you treat that man as you treat any other member of the community he ought to be permitted to set off his losses against his gains. That was refused; I cannot see on what grounds, but the Government were supported by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) on the ground that it should not be treated as an Increment Tax at all. Very well, then, let us abandon for a moment the view that anybody dealing with land or houses may set off losses against gains, and pay on the difference between the two. I still think that is fair; but surely you are going much further. You are going to say to a man, "You own land or property, which, owing not to any exertion of yours, but to the exertions of the community, has become valuable, and we mean to take off 20 per cent. of that increment value." Let us grant, as we are bound to grant, for the purpose of considering this proposal, that that is a just plan. It is a question we shall have to discuss at a later stage, and I am not going to argue it now, but at the present I assume it is just, but if you impose it, see that it is 20 per cent. of what the man makes by the work of society; if it is the work of society, see that it is 20 per cent. of that work on which you are going to take toll, and before he gets it into his pocket, see that it is on what he gets into his pocket. Is not that part of the business, but that is not the proposition of the hon. Member for Leicester. It is quite a different proposition, and I maintain that it is an unanswerable proposition. The Government say, "Oh, you are raising on this Amendment the general question of the original valuation." No, Sir; we are not raising on this Amendment the question of the original valuation, and everybody must see who reads this Bill that whenever the payment of this increment value is made there will be transactions connected either with the transfer of the property or with the estimate of the freehold value of the property inferred from some interest in the property, complicated calculations, the very complexity of which embarrass unhappy Ministers when they try to explain them to the Committee, and which, when translated into the concrete transactions of every day life, will cost money to the man who makes the transfer. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken will, I am sure, not deny that, although he may differ from the estimates of the amount of the cost; and if that is so, you are taxing a man not really upon the increment which he gets, but upon something much more than increment. That must really be the case, and on your own process that must be unjust.

At all events, the Government have got to defend this, have got to say something more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer has so far condescended to tell us; they have got to explain how it is just and fair, when you are taking 20 per cent. of the increment a man gets from his property, you are taking that 20 per cent. not on what he gets, but on what he gets plus an expenditure on lawyers and surveyors and assistants, whom no one doubts he must call in to assist him whenever this tax becomes due. That is the case, irrespective of the magnitude of the sums concerned. As to the magnitude of the sums concerned, we have a real grievance against the Government, that they give us no assistance or estimate. We shall refer to that later, but at this moment I do not wish to press upon them the magnitude of the burden. I wish to press upon them simply the plain equity of the request, that when you tax a man upon increment it should be really on the increment he gets, and not upon an imaginary increment, and not at a cost which in the view of every man in this House will be thrown upon the owners of this kind of property. I hope the Government will feel that this is not a point which they can really ignore, and that in order to make their Bill just, on their own principles of justice—on that peculiar code of justice which they are now proposing—even in accordance with that, some substantial concession must be made to the principles advocated by my right hon. Friend.

The right hon. Gentleman has chosen to assume that no answer at all has been given by the Government to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. J. F. Mason), but I made two answers to it, to not one of which the right hon. Gentleman—I will not use the word "condescended," which he was good enough to apply to me—but not one of which, at any rate, he even claimed to have considered. At any rate, I can claim that either those arguments are really not worth any notice on the part of the right hon. Gentleman or perhaps have been forgotten, but the two answers I gave have never been referred to. It is perfectly true that he went on to answer other arguments advanced by the hon. Member, and he said, "You ought to charge these owners, these unfortunate owners, upon the real increment." That is what you are going to do. It is perfectly true that we make all allowances in respect of anything which has contributed to the value of the land—at any rate, that is our intention. I think we have done it. If we have not done it it can be strengthened, but anything which is done in order to create the increment which we propose to tax shall be fully recognised with regard to it, but we object in the first place to deduct legal expenditure, which in these small cases is never paid by the owner himself but by somebody else; and, in the second place, we object altogether to a deduction in respect to a payment which is only made once for all on fixing the original site value, and which, if it is to be charged at all, ought to go on the fixture of the original site value. The right hon. Gentleman never referred to that argument at all, and never answered it. Let me come to the question of the expense. The right hon. Gentleman complained that we did not give an estimate, but I ask him how is it possible to frame an estimate under these circumstances? He might have used exactly the same argument with regard to the Death Duties. He might have said, "Here you have the value of the land, the value of the buildings on the land, the value of the minerals under the land, all to be valued for the Death Duties. It will involve an enormous expenditure every time, an owner dies, and surveyors must be employed and paid under Hyde's scale." Let me point out, in regard to this expenditure, that every time anybody dies it is capable of being argued in exactly the same way, and the valuation there is quite as important, because 15 or 20 per cent. on the whole has to be paid, while here you are only calling upon a man to pay 20 per cent. on a mere margin, or the halfpenny tax on the part of the property which is undeveloped. The cost of the valuation, therefore, is as important, and more important, in the case of the Death Duty. I agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Tudor Walters), in his able and interesting contribution to the Debate, that what really happens is, that in all these great estate offices there is a man much more capable of valuing the whole of the estates than anybody from outside, and that is what happens in most of these cases. They are men with great experience. Men who know all the facts. They prepare the valuation and submit it, and put it through. That is exactly what will happen in this case.

What will happen if there is an allowance made under Ryde's scale? There is no deduction made in the case of Death Duties for valuation, and although hon. Gentlemen opposite have been in office for 10 years after the Finance Act was passed, they have never attempted to introduce this principle into the Finance Act of deduction in respect to the cost of valuation, and it is just as necessary and fair and equitable in the case of the Death Duties as it would be in the case of valuation for this purpose. If the money has to be paid to carry out the obligation of an Act of Parliament, why should there not be a deduction? As a matter of fact, those who do the work now do it as part of their daily work as agents in an office, and they are not paid for it; and if a percentage was to be deducted the whole thing would be whittled away by imaginary expenses which would never be incurred. We took all this into account when we fixed the amount at 20 per cent., and there is no case at this stage for considering the deduction of an amount which may or may not affect the original site value.

The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the tax which he proposes is very much smaller than the tax imposed in Germany. We shall judge of that better when he has carried out his promise and given us full particulars of what that tax is. In the meantime I will point out that while the percentage, which is taken here is in every case 20 per cent., in Germany it does not arrive at 20 per cent. till the profit has by a great deal exceeded 100 per cent. altogether. Then the right hon. Gentleman says it is on a different principle, and that the profit in Germany is on the total value of the property. I have tried twice on different occasions to prove that that is precisely what is going to be done by the Bill. You are going, in the name of increment profit, to take in reality the whole profit which, in future, is made on the real estate. I tried twice in the small hours of the morning to get an answer from the Government as to whether or not I was right in making that statement; and the only answer I got was in the one case to refer me to a later clause, and in the other to move the closure. I am convinced that I can satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that that difference does not exist between the system in Germany and the system here, but that in both cases the total net profit will be taxed.

To come to the point which the right hon. Gentleman rose to answer, he first of all gives as his reason why you should not take the tax on the net increment, that he makes allowance for anything that the man has done to improve the property. What in the world has that to do with it? The net increment does not arise—no increment arises until all that has been taken into consideration, and, therefore, that argument falls absolutely to the ground. Then he says it is precisely the same as the Death Duties. No one knows better than he does that there is no comparison as to the difficulty of these two valuations. I believe it is his intention, out of that magnanimous feeling to land-owners which he expressed so fluently in the first Budget speech, to impose this additional burden upon them, but at present the valuation cannot exceed a certain amount of the net annual rent. That at once limits it, and makes the calculation enormously easier than it, is at present.

The next point I wish to make is to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Tudor Walters), which the right hon. Gentleman told us was a most valuable contribution to our discussion. It is evident in how great straits the Government must be when you consider that that speech was any contribution, valuable or without value, to our discussion. He told us, in the first place, that the valuation will present no difficulty to the big estates, because they have people who are capable of dealing with them. Does he not see that that means, at all events, that they are going to impose an immense burden on the class which they profess not to touch—the owners of small estates? Then the hon. Gentleman made another extraordinary statement. He said when you come to value house property, all you have to do is to take one house in a street and value the rest of the street on the basis of the one house. Was ever such a proposal put forward by a sane person? If all you wanted was to have some statistical information to satisfy curiosity, such a valuation might do; but this valuation is one which is going to cost money, and ordinary self-preservation will make it absolutely essential for the owner to get the best advice, so as to see that he is not unfairly treated by the Government. If anyone were asked to lend money on a house, he would have a most elaborate valuation, in order to see that he did not lose his mortgage, and the same principle of self-interest must apply here—you must have a careful and accurate valuation in order to see that when you sell property you do not pay the Government far more than you ought to. It must be thoroughly and carefully made, and it will therefore cost a great deal of money.

The right hon. Gentleman really has not dealt at all with the point put forward by my right hon. Friend. You profess to tax increment value. On what principle of fairness, or of justice, even taking your own Bill, can you tax a man for an increment value which he does not get? It is perfectly obvious that he does not get the increment value if from the amount of assumed profit you have to deduct the expenses to which he is put by the Bill. That is the point, and there is no answer to it. Surely anyone with any sense of fairness must see that if you are going to tax increment value, and in getting that tax are going to put an enormous burden in the way of valuation upon the owner, the very least you can do is to deduct the expense to which he is put before he pays the tax. That is made much stronger for the reason that the valuation must entail a great expense. It is easy enough for hon. Gentlemen to say that we exaggerate the amount of the expense, but in one of these discussions in the small hours the Attorney-General, who perhaps was not so wide awake as he generally is, made this admission, that the valuation will be elaborate, costly, and extensive. Can you have a valuation which is elaborate, costly, and extensive, and which is not going to cost a great deal of money? This burden is going to be thrown upon the people who pay the tax, and the Government refuse to give us any estimate of what that cost will be. Yet everyone must see that the cost is an addition to the tax, and I say there is no principle, either of fairness or justice, which can make it right for the Government to refuse the Amendment.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has compared the cost of valuation under the Bill with the cost of valuation for Death Duties. Like many of his other comparisons, it is more ingenious than ingenuous. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the valuation, though it might be costly, though not so costly as we made out, would only be paid once on the original site value. He seems to have forgotten his own Bill. There is a quinquennial valuation of undeveloped land, so that the cost of valuation will fall upon the owners every five years.

I do not see what that has to do with the Amendment. The Amendment is the deduction of the cost of valuation for increment value, and undeveloped land valuation has nothing whatever to do with it.

I think if the valuation is taken quinquennially the cost must be increased. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Walters) alluded to two fields, one undeveloped, which might have a value put upon it, and if that argument is used I have a right to use the same argument that undeveloped land will come under the quinquennial valuation and will be valued for the purpose of increment. What is the object of quinquennial valuation if nothing is to be based upon it? The right hon. Gentleman is slurring over the point when he says the cost of valuation will only come about once, and only on the site value.

That does not come in connection with the Amendment, and the hon. Member has no right to argue it in regard to the Amendment. The Amendment deals with increment value only.

I was alluding to a remark made by the hon. Member for Sheffield.

I warned the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Tudor Walters) that he was getting beyond the bounds of order.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, referring to the cost of valuation put upon land-owners, said they had persons employed in their estate offices who would perform the valuation for them. Am I not entitled to reply to that remark?

If the hon. Member will go on with his speech I will tell him whether I consider he is out of order.

On the point of order. The Amendment asks that a remission of Increment Value Duty should be made in respect of all valuations of whatever character in regard to land, whether under this clause or any other, and I submit that that is in order. The suggestion is that this should be deducted. That is the point of the Amendment. Whether the valuation is for increment value or not does not affect the matter.

I will hear what the hon. Member has to say.

What the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Walters) said as to the cost of surveying may be quite true. I have no doubt that large land-owners will employ surveyors to make the valuation, but what about the poor land-owners? What about the ordinary squires throughout the country? It is all very well for the hon. Member for Sheffield to talk about the surveyor's work being a cheap matter, but it is not at all a cheap matter to a poor man who has a small estate. If every small land-owner has to employ surveyors and solicitors, it will involve very con- siderable cost. It is all very well for hon. Members to sneer, but I say that the cost will be enormous, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may see that this is a matter which ought to be considered.

I am not concerned with the question whether this work of valuation will be done by surveyors or by land-owners, and I will not enter into it. The Amendment, as I understand it, covers all costs and expenses connected with the valuation of the land. I think it would be impossible to justify an Amendment so widely drawn as that. The question I want to put to the Government is this: Supposing a man is selling his land, and he employs an auctioneer to sell it by auction. He has the land surveyed. Is he, or is he not, to be allowed to deduct the cost of that from the consideration in the transfer? That seems to me to be a case which ought to be covered by the Bill. The second case which I would instance is this: Supposing a land-owner employs a land agent to get a purchaser for his land, is the landlord entitled to deduct the commission which he pays to the agent in connection with the transaction? I wish to ask whether either or both of these cases are included in the deductions allowed by the Bill? If they are not, I am sure the Government will see their way to put them in.

I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite that in the case of large estates in this country there ought to be found some man permanently employed who will be in a position to give fairly and accurately the different valuations required by the Bill. I do not, therefore, anticipate that on the large and rich landowners of this country there will be a heavy burden as regards the cost of valuation, but to some of the smaller and poorer land-owners the cost will be appreciable. Only the other day I tried to find out how many land-owners there were in my own Constituency, which is almost entirely an agricultural Constituency. I found that there were 2,800 ownership voters. I was pleased at this, because I felt that they would vote solidly for me at the next election. Hundreds of these men own only small portions of land, and if each has to send in the different valuations which are required by this Bill it will cause a considerable tax upon them, and a great deal of irritation among them. There can be no doubt that they will be put to large expense, which they will be unable to deduct should a windfall come their way, and should they be able to make a little money out of what may have seemed to them an unprofitable investment. As regards this Amendment, I think the Government ought to make some concession, for the cost of the valuation will be an imposition which will fall very hard indeed on a large number of the smallest and poorest land-owners. I was surprised to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Walters) in the terms which he used, because I listened carefully to that speech, and it appeared to me that he took the part of Baalam, inasmuch as he ended by cursing the proposal in the Bill as soundly as he could. The hon. Member said he did not like this method of valuation and the cost falling upon the individual. He considered it would be much better if the Government would prepare their own valuation and pay people to do it. He did not look upon this as more than a temporary measure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said when you have got the valuation done by this process there would be no other valuation. The whole moral that could be drawn from the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield was that he thoroughly disapproved of this method of valuation.

The original site value is the most important valuation that will ever occur in the whole history of this tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the question of the Death Duties. I do not profess to be an expert upon that question. I object very strongly to the Death Duties, because a large proportion of what the heir has to pay does not go to the Treasury, but to lawyers, valuers, and other hangers-on of that description. [Laughter.] I apologise to the legal gentlemen for using that expression. I admit that they are very valuable interpreters of the law, and, perhaps, I may be allowed to withdraw the expression "hangers-on." There was nothing offensive meant by that. I should rather say that they are valuable aids in conducting business of this kind. We are going to have the system to which I object in connection with the Death Duties perpetuated under the tax you are placing upon landowners. We should go in for purity of finance, and see that all the money paid goes into the Exchequer. I always thought that was the great doctrine preached from the Government Benches. When we come to the question of the valuation, it is a far easier thing to arrive at a capital tax than to arrive at those difficult valuations you are going to set up by this Bill. The landowners of the United Kingdom do not all die in one year, so that the number of estates to be valued each year is limited. In connection with the Death Duties the Revenue officials ascertain what a man's income was, and they multiply it by so many years' purchase and say that that is the value of his property. I am not a land valuer, but I could do that myself. Having found out what a man's income is, I could multiply it by 15, 20 or 30 years' purchase and say that the estate is worth BO much. Without any mathematics at all you could arrive at that. This is an entirely different question. When you come to estimate the value of land for this Increment Duty you must go through the process of separating the land from the houses on it. It may be possible to arrive at such a valuation in towns, but I can only say from my knowledge of country conditions that it will be very difficult indeed to arrive at site value when you are dealing with potato fields. A man owning a country estate will have to give the capital value of a site, and the other values as well, and thousands of ordinary land-owners will have to go to large expense in consulting solicitors and land valuers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to adduce some better arguments in support of the proposal than by simply referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, which was really against this method of valuation.

I am quite sure it is the desire of the Noble Lord to keep the cost of these valuations as low as possible. I do not know that anything is better calculated to add to expenditure on the ubiquitous persons to whom he referred than the Amendment. I think it would be impossible to accept the Amendment, because of the cost it would entail. On the other hand, the question of the incidental methods by which the valuation shall be conducted are most intricate. I do not think it should be assumed that this new general valuation can be counted as exactly the same thing as the existing valuation for the Death Duties. It is a much bigger matter. On the estate with the regular offices the expenditure would not, I think, be large, but there are considerable classes of estates, the mineral and the building estates, without any estate officers where the expenditure might be considerable, and even in these cases I think it would be found very difficult to meet the expenditure by a deduction, as is proposed on the lines of this Amendment. The uncertainty in the matter is as to the attitude of the Inland Revenue Department and the conditions they may lay down, as they have absolute power in this matter. If there was an independent valuation, were the Inland land Revenue and the executor to appoint a valuator mutually, as is done in ordinary valuations, then I do not think the difficulty would arise. But at present it seems to me that they are absolutely at the mercy of the Inland Revenue, who could lay down any condition that they like, and that being a Department which, under the Bill, has absolute authority, might lead to great expenditure on the part of individuals in order to meet the conditions laid down by the Department. I am not quite sure that you can always be certain of the reasonableness of a Government Department. One is often told that in the case of Government Departments behind the frowning countenance you find the smiling face, but it is sometimes the other way round; and I believe that the true solution of the difficulty would be to have the valuation made by a list of recognised valuers who are nominated jointly by the individuals concerned and by the Inland Revenue. What we have to guard against is putting this tremendous power into the hands of the Department and the Department laying down its own conditions and being in a strong position to intimidate the individual.

The discussion as to the Commissioners will come on on another Amendment, and ought not to be dealt with here.

I did not mean to go into that. I only meant to say that the Government cannot accept the principle of the Amendment; but when we come to deal with the Commissioners we might consider whether in certain classes of cases the Government might contribute something towards the necessary expenses, in exceptional cases, I think in common justice both sides in a case of this kind ought to contribute their share of the costs. That is the ordinary rule, and I think it is a fair one. But those costs would have to be very severely restricted, or the waste which the Noble Lord (Lord Willoughby de Eresby) deprecates would be a regular pandemonium of expenditure under the clause as it would stand if so amended.

I think that the Government might accept this Amendment at least as far as rural land is concerned. What the hon. Member for the Brightside Division (Mr. J. T. Walters) said in regard to town land is perfectly true. It is a very simple thing to value property in towns or to value whole rows of houses; and, in fact, the values of land in towns are ascertained. It is constantly changing hands, and it is a very simple thing, therefore, to arrive at what its actual value would be; but the case of the country is entirely different. You do not find rows of fields exactly alike. I am quite prepared to go as far as any Member on this side with regard to the taxation of ground values in the sense of ground rents in big towns. It is an open fact, recognised by both sides in this House, and by none more than by some distinguished Members of the Conservative party, that these vast profits which are made are legitimately made an object of taxation. But rural lands are entirely different. The conditions of rural land vary from field to field, and if the owner of land has got no other income except that derived from land the taxation on him will be extremely heavy indeed. So that while the argument of the hon. Member for the Brightside Division is correct as regard land in towns, it is utterly fallacious as regards rural areas.

I would draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the extreme difficulty of making this valuation with regard to minerals. It is difficult enough on large estates which have been mentioned, but in my own part of the world a company has lately ventured into business over a large area of country, which includes a large number of small owners with 50 acres here and 50 acres there, etc., and how it is possible for these people to make the valuation is in itself a matter of consideration. The reason is that it is an extremely difficult thing in mineral areas to know when these small properties will be worked. For instance, say there is a mineral area of 7,000 acres, which does exist in the county to which I belong, which has become leased to a company, and which is made up of a number of small estates, ranging from 50 to 100 or 200 acres. How on earth is the valuer to find out when 50 acres, we will say at the farthest distance from the pit's mouth, will be worth its value for increment purposes? And I venture to say that the people who own these minerals will be placed in a very difficult position, because if they do not have the valuation made on their account they are liable to have the valuation made by the Government, and they must accept what the Government says as to the value of the minerals without any appeal. And I should also like to mention another circumstance. In the neighbourhood where I come from, and where there are many minerals at the present moment being developed, there are certain agricultural estates on which coal is known to exist, and which do not belong to the great land-owners of whom we have heard so much, but belong to small country gentlemen, also gentlemen of the yeoman class. I venture to urge that it would be a very great hardship on these people if under this Increment Tax, on granting a lease or at a death, they have to pay for this valuation. It is all very well to say that the valuation can be conducted easily. It cannot be conducted easily. It is absolutely essential in valuing land that everything connected with the land should be taken into account. And, in fact, I go so far as to say that even on the great estates of which we have heard, where there are offices, it is extremely difficult for the permanent staff in an agent's office to find the true valuation of the land, although they may know a great deal about the local conditions. And I do not think that the country realises that under this Increment clause a large additional burden is going to be imposed on land-owners situated at various points from time to time in the matter of valuation of land and everything appertaining to it. And I do hope that if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd-George) wishes to make this Bill at all events apparently a fair Bill he will accept the Amendment which has been proposed from this side of the House, and which has got so many adherents on the other side of the House.

I would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider his attitude, at all events so far as regards sub-section (a). I do not think very much of the objections taken by hon. Members who support the Amendment, so far as regards grants of leases or deaths, but I do think that in the case of sales expenses ought to be deducted. I may suggest one concrete case. An estate is offered for sale by auction, and the sale is abortive. Subsequently it is sold by private contract conducted by the solicitor, and, say, it is sold for £2,000, £100 of that £2,000 purchase money is set down and accepted as representing the amount of increment upon the estate since the last transaction. The expenses of the vendor in that case might easily amount to £8 16s. in respect of that £]00 alone. There would be the solicitors' charges of about £2 10s. for negotiating and carrying out the sale. There would be an apportionable share of the expenses of the abortive auction, which might be put at one-twentieth, which would be three guineas. And possibly three guineas a minimum charge for valuation of the growth of increment since the last transaction. I think it is quite possible in every case of sale that the expenses of the landowner might amount to 8 per cent. The amount of money which the vendor puts in his pocket as regards the £100 increment would be £92 instead of £100, and 20 per cent. on £92 is only £18, while 20 per cent. on £100 is £20; so that the Government would in such a case be getting 2 per cent. more actual duty upon the £100 increment than they are asking for under the Bill. I think, therefore, that in cases of sale there is a very good case made out for allowing the deductions for costs and expenses properly incurred by the vender. I do not think the case of death is quite in point. What you tax for estate duty is either the land which he has not sold or the cash which the man had in his pocket. If a man has land worth £100 and dies you charge the duty on the £100 estimate. If he sold it two days before and has received his purchase-money—that is, £100 less £8, he has only £92 cash, and he has only to pay duty on that amount. From this it would be seen that in cases of sale there is very strong reason for allowing a deduction in respect of costs and expenses properly incurred.

With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin, he was not here during the discussion when quite a similar point was raised by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. J. F. Mason), and I pointed out that the concession already made by the, Government more than covered all that question. My hon. Friend presupposed a transaction with an increment of £100 on a £1,000. I propose to deduct 10 per cent. in every case, and in the case of £2,000, I do not propose to start charging the increment until it is over £200. That is until it is over the one-tenth of the £2,000. My hon. Friend supposed the case of £100, but in that instance there is no increment at all. That is really the answer to both these cases. If you begin to enter into an elaborate calculation with regard to the charges, at any rate they will depend upon the quality of the work, and they will vary. My hon. Friend will bear me out that it will depend on the quality of the work. Although I do not suggest there would be fraud, I have no doubt at all that the charges put down by the surveyor would never be charged to the owner, but would be made a claim for deduction. It is far better, therefore, to have a hard and fast rule of 10 per cent. to cover all these minor charges. Though in some cases that might not be enough, in other cases it would be more than enough. Having answered all the points that have been put, I do hope that the Committee will now go to a Division.

This Amendment is an attempt to reduce the matter to a business proposition. I was very much struck the other day in looking over the books of a very large firm who buy and sell considerable quantities of property. I knew the amounts which the firm paid for portions of property, and I knew the amounts for which they sold several properties. When I looked at the books in regard to the amounts, I found I could not recognise the figures. I asked a question, and received an answer which conveys the very point I now desire to put to the Committee. Supposing you buy a property for £1,000, what sum of money does a business man put down as the cost? He puts down £1,020, because he has to pay £25 for the stamp and cost of conveyance, and although he has given £1,000 for the property, which is the consideration named in the deed, the actual cost to him is £1,020. Let us take the case of the sale of the same property for £1,200. The amount of the costs which he has to pay is £25. The difference between £1,000 and £1,200 is £200, and, roughly speaking, that is the increment. What, however, is the actual increment? It is £155.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is again ignoring the concession made by the Government. The increment in that case would be only £100.

I quite appreciate that you are taking off 10 per cent. I understand that the 10 per cent. is not merely going to be the first 10 per cent., but 10 per cent. in all the transactions, deducting the charges from the balance. I think that is a very great concession, and if it were intended to meet merely this question of expenses I should not have anything more to say. But I would remind the Committee, as on the very Amendment that has been moved, that every concession that has been asked for in every direction, this has been the sole reply—this particular 10 per cent. is to cover the whole position. Instead of £200 being put into this man's pocket on the transaction between the £1,000 and £1,200, the nett amount he receives is £155, and that is the amount which appears in his books, because he has to charge the expense on both transactions. I do not think you ought to pass this Bill in its present state and stereotype for all time that a man makes a nominal profit of £200, while his actual profit is only of £155.

It has been said that in large estate offices expert valuers would be able to make these valuations without any expense to the owners. It is forgotten that the vast majority of people who own land in this country are small holders, and if it happens that there are minerals on their land it is absolutely necessary that they should have expert valuers.

The hon. Member is only repeating what has already been said.

I wish to refer to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire (Mr. New-