asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is assumed that the cavalry of the Territorial Army would act in war in conjunction with the regular cavalry?

Yes, Sir.

May I ask what would happen if the order to charge were given to the Yeomanry——

That is a hypothetical question.

On a point of order, Sir, may I say that the question is to suggest that there is a difference in armament?

In asking the Minister for War what would happen if the Yeomanry were ordered to charge the hon. Member is really projecting his imagination too far.

inquired of the Secretary of State for War on what grounds the sword is retained for the officers of the Territorial cavalry?

Officers of all branches of His Majesty's land forces carry the sword. There appears to be no valid reason why officers of the Territorial cavalry should be deprived of this weapon.

Are they allowed to carry an automatic pistol as well?

That is another matter altogether.

asked the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the statement appearing in Appendix B of the recent Memorandum by the Army Council [Cd. 4811] that there were, in January, 1909, 94,256 regulars serving in the United Kingdom, and that the normal number was 92,534, whether a further reduction of 1,722 regulars was contemplated, or whether it was intended to increase the number of men serving abroad; and, if so, when?

The number 94,256 regulars serving denotes the number of men who were actually serving in the United Kingdom on 1st January last. The number 92,534 represents the normal number which it is actuarially calculated would be produced by the present peace establishment as available for service on mobilisation. It happens that at present the actual number of men available is slightly in excess of the actuarial forecast, but no reduction of regulars is contemplated, nor is it intended at present to increase the number of men serving abroad.

asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention had been called to the Memorandum on inspections of the Territorial force, presented by General Sir John French, dated 24th May, 1909, to the effect that the position of adjutant in the Territorial force otters few advantages and has certain disadvantages which deter many keen officers from considering the possibility of accepting these appointments; and what steps are being taken to better the condition of these important officers?

The matter is under consideration.

When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be in a position to make a statement in respect to this matter, which strikes at the very root of the efficiency of the Territorial forces?

I quite agree as to its importance. We are doing everything in our power to secure that the adjutants of the Territorial forces should be the most efficient man obtainable. But it takes a good deal of time to get out of the old order of things and into the new.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the 27 extra reserve battalions of the Special Reserve will undertake any part of the duty of training drafts for battalions in the field in time of war, or whether they will act only as units for Home defence or to reinforce oversea garrisons or the Army in the field?

If the hon. Member will kindly refer to a statement which I made in Debate on Army Estimates of 27th July last he will find the functions of these 27 battalions clearly set forth, and that they are liable to supply drafts.

inquired of the Secretary of State for War how many of the five supposed typhoid-carriers at Millbank, reported on in Paper Cd. 4609, who were undergoing treatment in January-March of this year, are now pronounced to be free from bacillus typhosus; whether these men exhibited any signs of ill - health beyond the excretion of such bacilli; whether the cases treated with general vaccine continued to excrete bacilli many weeks after the vaccination; what results have attended the use of the specific vaccine from which better results were hoped for; and whether cases are recorded in which two years after cured of typhoid these bacilli have been found in excretions?

One only of the five men is believed to be cured at present. None of these men exhibited any signs of ill-health beyond the excretion of the bacilli. The general vaccine had no effect on the excretion of the bacilli, and the excretion continued until treatment with the specific vaccine was commenced. The specific vaccine has not given any better results than the general vaccine. With regard to the last part of the question, if my hon. Friend will refer to the Report contained in Command Paper No. 4609 he will see that such cases have been recorded.

If my hon. Friend would let me know the points which he wants information upon, I shall take care that it is obtained.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a Yeomanry regiment, after church parade on Sunday, 30th May, was asked by the commanding officer to enrol for foreign service, and that, as a result, all the men signed articles undertaking to serve in any part of the world; and whether this procedure is to be adopted in the case of other Yeomanry regiments?

The hon. Member is presumably alluding to the case of the King's Colonials Yeomanry. This corps, which is composed of subjects of His Majesty's Dominions Overseas temporarily resident in this country, and has allied to it regiments in the Dominions and Colonies, was desirous of undertaking liability for service in any place outside the United Kingdom under the conditions laid down in Section XIII. (2) of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act. I have gladly accepted their offer. In reply to the second part of the question, no other case has as yet arisen.

May I ask, are all the members of this regiment Colonials?

Yes, all or nearly all. They all wish to be regarded as upon that footing.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of invasion or imminent national peril, the War Office could immediately provide the hundreds of thousands of men who have served in, but retired, from the regular and auxiliary forces with rifles, ammunition, and uniform; and, if not, what steps will be taken to make these trained men useful in case of sudden hostilities?

The question of forming a reserve from the sources mentioned is at present under consideration, but without proper organisation and the requisite proportion of officers and non-commissioned officers such a reserve would be of little military value. In considering the main question the subsidiary question of the supply of arms, ammunition, equipment and clothing will not be lost sight of.

Would these seasoned, fully-grown men for garrison duty not be much cheaper than those at present bid for for the Territorial Army; and does not the right hon. Gentleman consider he is running a great risk in not getting these men, who would be willing to serve at a very cheap rate?

I am well aware of these things, and a great many others besides.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the grounds on which Mr. W. J. Webber was refused repayment of the moneys expended by him on the direct authority of his commanding officer in South Africa?

I must ask the hon. Member to refer to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for South Antrim on the 7th instant.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer given then was that no reason could be given?

No; I have personally investigated this case.

asked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made with the census of horses in the United Kingdom; and when is it estimated that the information will be complete?

As I informed the House on the 25th June, a complete classified census has been taken for the county of Devon, and the Home Office authorities are arranging for a similar census to be taken in the remaining counties this year, if possible.

asked whether, in view of the fact that the same horses may be hired for any number of Yeomanry regiments, and that consequently a serious shortage of suitably trained horses may arise in time of urgent need, he intended to take any active steps to put this matter right beyond the taking of a census of horses in the United Kingdom?

The hon. and gallant Member is evidently unaware that owing to the fact that the periods of training of many Yeomanry regiments overlapped, the utilisation of the same horses to the extent suggested was rendered impossible. As I recently informed him, a census of horses must necessarily be a preliminary to the formation of a scheme for the provision of horses on mobilisation.

asked the Secretary for War whether he will consult his advisers with a view of preventing horses being hired to more than one Yeomanry regiment in the same year, so as to ensure that every yeoman will be able to turn out properly mounted on a suitably trained horse at short notice?

It is impossible to consider any scheme for the provision of horses on mobilisation until the census has been completed.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he authorised the loan of the trained horses of the Royal Artillery to the Lancashire Territorial regiments for the Manchester review on the 5th instant; and, if so,. whether the usual work of the Royal Artillery had to be suspended meanwhile?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Will the right hon. Gentleman let me know the batteries from which those horses were taken?

I can easily do that.

asked if it is proposed at once to make provision for remedying the increasing shortage of horses for our Regular Army, or to continue the present practice of lending Army horses for short periods to different branches of the Army as and when required on particular occasions?

The hon. Member is presumably alluding to the provision of horses on mobilisation with which I have just dealt in reply to a previous question. There is no shortage of horses for maintaining existing establishments. As regards the last part of the question, which apparently alludes to the loan of horses to the Territorial Force, there are mutual advantages to the Regular and Territorial force to be gained by the utilisation of horses in this manner.

Has the right hon. Gentleman now established some satisfactory arrangement with the regular troops for letting their horses, and, if so, would he circulate the Army Order bearing on it?

Yes; but I do not think it is an Army Order. The matter was settled a fortnight or three weeks ago, and then made known.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state the number of horses now in the Army?

I should not like to commit myself from memory. There are certainly over 20,000 horses for the peace establishment, and there are a large number registered. We increased them by several thousand last year, and also the peace establishment.

asked if, before selling the land at Bembridge for £700 which cost the War Office £1,500, he communicated with the Admiralty and other Government Departments to see whether the land in question would be useful for some other Government purpose at the present time or in the near future?

Yes, Sir. The Admiralty, which was the only other Department likely to be concerned, was consulted.

Was any inquiry made as to whether this was the normal price?

We got the best price we could.

Will the right hon. Gentleman grant a Return of the number of cases in which the War Office sold land in tile last four years?

If the hon. Member puts that question down I will answer him. There may be some reason for not granting a Return that I am not aware of; otherwise we ought to be able to grant it.

asked the Secretary for War whether any inquiry was held into the cause of the three suicides and one attempted suicide occurring in the Royal Garrison Artillery in Malta, between 1st September, 1907, and 30th April, 1909; and, if so, what were the findings?

Inquests were held on two of the cases of suicide, and therefore no military inquiries were held. As regards the third case of suicide, which occurred in April last, no report has reached the War Office, but doubtless the same procedure was adopted. As regards the case of attempted suicide, the court found that the man was guilty of cutting his throat with a razor with intent to commit suicide. The prisoner pleaded ignorance of the act owing to heavy drinking.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the latter part of my question.

The findings were the Civil findings at the inquest. The finding was that the man was guilty of cutting his throat with a razor with intent to commit suicide. The prisoner pleaded ignorance of the act owing to heavy drinking.

asked the President of the Local Government Board what was the nature of the Report made by the Board's inspector on the suitability of the site for the proposed council school at Usk?

The Report of the inspector showed that the site was open to objection, and I understand that the Board of Education do not propose to approve of it.

asked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the medical inspector has condemned the water in the town of Ramsey, in Hunts, as unfit for drinking and the drainage as insanitary; if he is not aware of the epidemic, will he take steps to make himself acquainted with the fact; if no report has been given to him of the outbreak of infectious disease, will he send an inspector into the district; if he will say how many deaths have occurred from the epidemic within the last two months; and, if he is not aware of the number, will he make inquiries?

also asked whether the expense of laying down a suitable system of drainage in Ramsey, Hunts, and the provision of a suitable supply of water fit for drinking was put forward by the urban district council as an excuse for allowing the state of things now prevailing to continue and persons to die from the epidemic of scarlet fever; and, seeing that complaints were made years ago on this question to the Board and that his attention had been directed specially to this question, would he state what steps he now proposed to take to put into operation the provisions of the Public Health Act, and so save further loss of life in the district?

I am aware that the consulting medical officer of health of the county council reported unfavourably on the water supply and disposal of the sewage of the town. The urban district council decided to take some tentative action as regards the water supply; but, as I stated in reply to my hon. Friend's question on Wednesday last, they consider the expense of providing a new system of sewers, which would also necessitate a water supply, to be prohibitive. I have made inquiry and find that 53 cases of scarlet fever were notified to the medical officer of health in the months of May and June last, and that five deaths from the disease occurred during those months. As I have stated twice before, I have not received any such complaint of default on the part of the district council with respect to sewerage and water supply as would enable me to take compulsory action under the Public Health Act. I have, however, given directions that one of the medical inspectors of the Local Government Board shall visit the district and make a Report with respect to it.

asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if the Department has made application to the Admiralty for some fast gunboats to assist in preventing illegal fishing off the Irish coasts; and, if so, with what results?

The only illegal fishing which the Admiralty undertake to prevent is the infringement of the territorial limits by foreign fishing vessels. Offences of this kind are rare in Irish waters. The Admiral in Command at Queenstown has always responded to representations made by the Department, and has on occasions told off for fishery service a fast torpedo-gunboat or other available craft. One case of trawling in territorial waters occurred during the past year. His Majesty's ship "Colleen" brought the offending vessel into Queens-town, where the master was tried, convicted, and fined.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) said that at present his Department was quite unable to cope with the illegal fishing; and that the Admiralty stated in answer to a ques- tion of mine the other day that if representations were made from the Irish Agricultural and Technical Department for protection, it would be supplied? Has such application been made?

I cannot say as to the latter part of the question, but I think the answer I have read shows the Admiralty are anxious to give all the assistance they can to protect from illegal trawling the parts of the coast that come within their jurisdiction.

asked the Vice-President of the Department whether, in consequence of the frauds which recent investigations have proved to be practised in London and Liverpool by selling margarine for butter, the Department is obtaining samples in other centres of population in Great Britain with the view of testing how far this fraudulent trading prevails, and of taking steps to prevent the same?

The answer to the question is in the affirmative. The hon. Member may rest assured that the Department will do everything possible to cope with the fraudulent practice referred to, but it would be obviously undesirable to indicate publicly the steps to be taken.

asked whether any, and, if so, how many, prosecutions have been instituted against traders in London and Liverpool who were recently found in 93 cases out of 115 samples taken by the Department to have sold margarine for butter; and what steps it is proposed to take to check this wholesale fraud on producers of butter and on the consumers who are charged butter prices for margarine?

No prosecutions were, or could be, instituted under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts in respect of the samples referred to, which were taken in-formally for the purpose of obtaining information to put before the responsible local authorities. The whole matter is engaging the attention of the Department, but it would be undesirable to mention specifically the steps proposed to be taken, as such a course might tend to frustrate the object in view.

May I ask if the Irish Department cannot institute prosecutions in England, will they communicate with the English Board of Agriculture and with the Local Government Board with a view to prosecuting, seeing the increase there is in these very fraudulent practices?

I cannot promise, but if the Department think they discover a case of fraud they will use every means in their power to have a prosecution instituted. If they can prosecute themselves they will do so.

That is not quite an answer. Will they put pressure on the Departments in this country to take some steps?

Each individual case will be considered on the merits and with the advice of the Law Officers. You cannot undertake to put pressure beforehand.

Do the 93 eases referred to in this question represent 93 separate traders, and were the 150 samples taken at random or from selected traders who were already suspected?

I really must ask the hon. Member to put that question down.

Was not all the information on that point given in the Committee upstairs? There were 93 distinct prosecutions.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies it the British settlers and claimants for land in the New Hebrides will be prejudiced by the action of the French Government in lending officers and men to assist the French claimants to make surveys of the land they claim in that group?

In Article 22 (3) of the Anglo-French Convention of 1906 surveys are specified as only one of several "acts proving open exercise of the right of ownership," which are to be taken into account by the joint court in dealing with a claim partly based on occupation. There is nothing in the Convention to make it material whether surveys are made for claimants by military officers and men temporarily seconded from the Active List or by private surveyors.

Will the British settlers be prejudiced if the French settlers have the assistance of those men making their surveys and plans and the Englishmen have not?

I do not think so. I do not think there is any fear that the British plans will not be adequately supported. We will carefully watch matters, and if the hon. Member has any particular information to furnish us with we shall be very glad to look into it.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state on what grounds, respectively, the following named persons, resident in the Manor-hamilton, county Leitrim, old age pension committee district, were deprived of their pensions: Mary M'Cann, Glencar; Catherine Clancy, Glencar; James Rooney, Glencar; Margaret Haste, Cloonaquin; and Francis Mooney, Glenaiff; whether their names appear on the Census Returns; and whether, having regard to the fact that the Census Returns have been proved to be incorrect and unreliable as evidence of ages in Ireland, such people would be afforded an opportunity of proving their ages through right of appeal or by filing a new application?

The names of the persons in question were submitted to the Record Office, Dublin, for verification of age, with the result that each was found to be under the statutory age. A question was then raised by the pension officer, but was disallowed by the local pension committee. On appeal, however, the Local Government Board disqualified the pensioners, and their decision is final.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether any members of the Irish Valuation Staff have been specially engaged by the Treasury in advising on the Land Clauses of the Finance Bill?

No, Sir.

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me how much of the Irish Development Grant goes at present to meet the deficiency in respect of the issue of stock at a discount for the purpose of land purchase; what amount of the grant will be released by the passing of the Land Bill (Clause 6); will the grant have to bear any of the deficiency in future; and, if so, to what extent in any one year will it be charged; and whether there is any mortgage on it for the deficiency already incurred?

The sum of £138,700 is allocated in the Ireland Development Grant Estimate for 1909–10 (Class VII., Vote 4) to meet charges for deficiency in respect of the issue of stock at a discount for the purpose of land purchase. No part of the grant will be set free from liability for such charges by the Irish Land Bill of this Session, any further deficiency resulting from the further issue of stock at a discount being met out of the Development Grant, until that grant is exhausted, and thereafter out of moneys provided by Parliament.

asked the Postmaster General whether he can say what loss-had been sustained by his Department per annum for the past 10 years at the Ballysimon post office, and what guarantee will be required for the reopening of this office, as the ratepayers of the district are prepared to give such a reasonable guarantee as may be required; is he aware that there were about 18 or 20 old age pensioners in this locality who must travel into Limerick in order to receive their pensions, very often in bad weather and at considerable risk to their health; and whether, taking all the circumstances into account, he can see his way to reopen this sub-office when it can be done without loss to the State?

I cannot give the figures of loss which has been sustained on the working of the Ballysimon office alone for the period named. The present loss on the post by which Ballysimon is served is about £43 a year. As I have already explained to my hon. Friend, the postal business which would be transacted at Ballysimon is exceedingly small. I should not, therefore, be justified in reopening the office, unless a guarantee were given to defray (half-yearly in advance) the mini-mam expense involved, namely, £10 a year. On receipt of such a guarantee, however, I should be prepared to reopen the office.

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me whether the postmaster at Limerick will now be empowered to enter into the necessary negotiations with the ratepayers of the district with a view to the reopening of the Ballysimon post office?

Yes, Sir. I understand that the guarantee will be forthcoming.

asked the Postmaster-General what sum is now paid to the Highland Railway Company in respect of carrying the Wick and Thurso (including Orkney) mails; and whether, in view of the fact that the Wick and Thurso (including Orkney) mails will arrive at a later hour than previous to the arrangement recently made, he will take an early opportunity of reviewing the contract with the railway company?

further asked (1) if the right hon. Gentleman is unable to enter into a satisfactory arrangement with the Highland Railway Company to deliver the Orkney mails at Thurso within a reasonable time will he inquire whether the Orkney mails could be delivered at Kirkwall or Stromness by steamer direct from Aberdeen at an earlier hour and probably at a lesser cost?

And (2) whether the right hon. Gentleman has received petitions from the Orkney County Council and from the burgh of Kirkwall praying that the mail service shall be placed on a more satisfactory footing than at present; that for years past, during the tourist season, the mails have been delivered hours after time solely to suit the convenience of the Highland Railway Company, and the mail steamer forced to perform in the darkness an always dangerous crossing; if he has also received a memorandum from the town clerk of Kirkwall bearing on the subject; and if it is in his power to secure a better mail service for the entire county of Kirkwall, and also for the large towns of Caithness, Wick, and Thurso?

It will perhaps be convenient if I deal with these three questions together. No special payment is made to the Highland Railway Company in respect of the Wick and Thurso (including Orkney) mails, as that service is covered by the general mail contract with the company. The question of the retiming of the mail trains has received very careful consideration. The Highland Company state that they are expending a large sum in improvements with the view of ensuring greater punctuality, but that on account of the growth of traffic and of the irregular arrival at Perth of passenger trains from the South, added to the fact that the line is a single one, it had become impracticable to maintain the ordinary hours during the summer season. I have, therefore, agreed, as an experiment for the present summer, to a slightly later-timed arrival of the night mail train at Wick and Thurso, and to a corresponding alteration in other trains. The company are confident, in consequence of the improvements they have made, that they will be able to maintain a much greater degree of punctuality, and that the arrival of the mails in the North, though nominally timed somewhat later, will be actually earlier than in recent years. I do not, therefore, propose at present to review the mail contract with the Highland company; but at the end of the season the result of the adoption of the modified time-table will be carefully considered.

I find on inquiry that if the Orkney mails were sent by steamer from Aberdeen instead of viâ Thurso, as my hon. Friend suggests, they would reach their destination later, while the cost of the service would be much increased. I have received the Memorials and Memorandum to which my hon. Friend refers, and I hope that the arrangements made with the company will result in a more satisfactory and punctual service.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether that portion of the reply is strictly correct in regard to the late arrival at Thurso?

I understand that it is due partly to unpunctuality at Perth, and also to the other causes to which I have referred.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he can explain the cause of the delay in extending the telephone trunk system to Sligo in view of the fact that the guarantee required by the General Post office was completed in December of last year?

I am in correspondence with the Treasury on the subject of the proposed extensions of the telephone trunk system to Sligo, and hope shortly to obtain authority for the acceptance of the guarantee.

asked the Postmaster-General if he can state he number of times since 1st January of his year that the mails have arrived late at Wick and Thurso respectively; and what 6teps he proposes to take to ensure a more punctual mail service to these places?

I have called for a Report on this subject, and on its receipt I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

asked the Postmaster-General if there are in any of the contracts with railway companies or steamship companies for carrying the mails penalties for late delivery?

There is no provision in mail contracts with railway companies for penalties for late working, but there are such penalty clauses in a few of the contracts for steamship services.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give a list of the steamship companies concerned where there are penalty clauses in the contracts"

I must have notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to his telegram to Mr. Herbert Samuel, announcing for the first time that the Government intended to introduce a Miners (Eight Hours) Amending Bill, whether he will tell the House when it is proposed to introduce such a Bill; and whether he will explain why such special and exceptional information was given to a Parliamentary candidate for use during his election campaign at one of his election meetings?

I hope to introduce the Bill very soon. The point- involved, that of the Saturday shift, is a small one, not affecting the principle of the Act, and it would certainly have been provided for in the Bill of last Session had attention been called to it. The question of an amending Bill has been under my consideration for some time, and it had to be promptly decided when the difficulty made itself felt, especially in Cleveland, owing to the coming into operation of the Act on July 1st. An announcement would in any case have had to be made at the same time and in the same quarter.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the giving of this exceptional information, at an exceptional time, under an exceptional difficulty, during an exceptional election, does not bring his action within the Corrupt Practices Act?

There was nothing exceptional in the matter. I could not have withheld the information owing to the mere incident of a by-election.

Are we to understand that it is the settled practice of the Government to invent new legislation on the eve of an election to assist the return of Ministers?

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this information, which was most useful to the Government candidate, was offered to anybody else before?

Anybody who had asked for it could certainly have had it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an answer to my question?

asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the action of the local education authority at Peterborough, who are proposing to provide a new school at the expense of the ratepayers when adequate accommodation has already been provided by the Great Northern Railway Company; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

The local education authority have given notice of their intention to provide a new public elementary school. In the event of an appeal being made on the ground that the school is not required, it will be the duty of the Board of Education to determine as to its necessity in accordance with Section 9 of the Education Act, 1902. The existing school accommodation in the area would, of course, be taken into consideration.

Am I to understand that the Board of Education will take steps to hold that inquiry, and will the right hon. Gentleman inform me whether a request for an inquiry will have to be made by the people interested if it is desired that such an inquiry should be held?

An application will have to be made.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether a firm of solicitors acting on behalf of the Board of Trade obtained statements from the officers and crew of the "Woodburn" on her arrival in this country after being fired upon by Russian warships; if so, whether he has received their Report; whether he has communicated such Report to the Foreign Office; and, if not, whether he will do so without delay?

I am not aware that any statements have been obtained from the officers or crew of the "Wood-burn" by solicitors acting on behalf of the Board of Trade. A deposition, of which a copy has already been sent to the Foreign Office, was made in the ordinary course before the Chief Officer of Customs by the injured fireman, Michael Coyne, on his arrival at Bo'ness. I understand that steps have been taken by the Foreign Office to obtain a statement from the master.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take into consideration the desirability of granting exemption from the Increment Tax to the owners of property below a certain value?

The Government have under their consideration proposals having this end in view, and hope to be able to make an announcement on the subject shortly.

Am I to understand that the exemption which the right hon. Gentleman is now considering in regard to Income Tax on small properties is also to be extended to the Undeveloped Land Tax?

No, sir. The question put to me was whether the exemption for Income Tax was to apply to owners of property a certain value.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he had any Report made to him by the Treasury officials as to the condition of the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund; and if he can place such Report upon the Table, or otherwise communicate the contents of it for the information of those concerned in the matter?

No Report has been made since those which were presented to Parliament in 1907 (Command 3400).

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would state the amount of Income Tax received during the financial year now closed on profits and incomes resulting from investments abroad; the amounts on which the tax was paid, discriminating between those earned in foreign countries and those from British possessions; and whether there has been any increase or decrease as compared with the figures of the previous year?

No figures are yet available for the year 1908–9, but I am causing to be printed with the Votes a table giving for the years 1906–7 and 1907–8 such statistics bearing on the hon. Baronet's question as are within the cognisance of the Board of Inland Revenue. I may at the same time refer him to the explanatory statement relating to income from abroad which appears at pages 182 and 183 of the 51st Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can see his way to the nomination of a Select Committee to deal with the question of the appointment of magistrates?

I am doubtful whether a Select Committee would be the best instrument of inquiry into this matter, which is not being lost sight of.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Lord Bishop of London on 27th May took part in a procession at All Saints, Margaret-street, at which incense was carried in procession after public worship, and that on 30th June the same bishop was present at a service at St. Cyprian's, Dorset-square, at which incense was used to cense persons and things; and whether he will take the earliest opportunity of providing by legislation for the prompt and effectual restraint of episcopal action which contravenes the law?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask him whether, in consideration, as is suggested by the question, of the advisability of legislation for coercing the clergy and prelates of the Anglican Church in reference to their services, he would bear in mind the fact that the majority of the Members of this House are not Anglicans at all, and that many Anglicans are anxious to have their Church freed from the trammels of the State?

I am informed by the Bishop of London that on both the occasions referred to by the hon. Member the use of incense was in accordance with the regulations laid down by himself and his predecessor, and was not what is known as "ceremonial use." I am not prepared to take action in the manner suggested by the hon. Member.

Is the Prime Minister aware that this practice has been definitely held to be illegal?

I am not, without notice, prepared to answer these very delicate questions, but I am told by the Bishop, who ought to know, that the use of incense on this occasion did not fall within the category of what is called "ceremonial use," and therefore did not fall within the prohibitions issued by himself and his predecessors.

In view of the evidence I have placed before him, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it advisable to make some further inquiry without entirely accepting the evidence of the Bishops?

No, I must take the Bishop's statement.

Will the right hon. Gentleman establish a High Commission Court?

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to the change created by Chapter X., Religious Instruction, in the recently issued Regulations for the Training of Teachers in Elementary Schools; and whether, in view of the change thus made in the policy of the Education Department, the chapter will not be put into operation until this House has had an opportunity of discussing the matter?

I understand that the Regulations referred to will not be operative until 1st August next. The House will have an opportunity of discussing the matter on the Board of Education Estimates, which are put down for Thursday next.

What is the number of political pensions which, under the provisions of the Pensions Act, 1869, are available, how many of these pensions are now held, and how many are in abeyance?

The maximum number of pensions which may be granted under the Political Offices Pensions Act, 1869, is four in each of the three classes into which these pensions are divided. The pensions now held are two in the first class and three in the second class. There are no pensions in abeyance.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that Sir John Gorst, in resigning his pension, said he did so in consideration of honesty and of honour, and has the right hon. Gentleman received any intimation from any other pensioners of their intention of following such an excellent example?

I have received notice from Sir John Gorst resigning his pension, and it is the only one that I have received.

asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that the county court judges are unable to cope with the amount of business at present assigned to the county courts, it is the intention of the Government to make a large addition to the number of county court judges in the event of the Bill just introduced for the purpose of removing the limit of jurisdiction of the county courts becoming law?

I am informed that it is not the fact that county court judges are unable to cope with the amount of business at present assigned to them. If the Bill just introduced becomes law, there will be a considerable transfer of work from the county court judges to the registrar in cases below £5. Also, it is quite possible that the work may be further reduced by alteration of the law in regard to imprisonment for debt, which would take a very great part of their work away.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can ascertain from the Estates Commissioners the amount of the purchase money of the untenanted land at Faha, on the Morrogh Bernard estate, county Kerry, which the Commissioners propose to be allowed to be sold to a person who holds a large ranch at present in the Argentine Republic; and if he can induce the Commissioners to make any better use of public money or better provision for evicted tenants in Kerry than the sanction of such a sale?

The hon. Member has already been informed, in reply to a question asked by him on 15th March last, that the owner is repurchasing these lands in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. The price has not yet been fixed by the Commissioners.

Does the answer mean that the Estate Commissioners propose to sell a ranch in the county of Kerry to another rancher in the Argentine Republic?

No. I did not refer to him as a rancher in the Argentine Republic, but as the owner of the land in question. He has exercised the rights conferred upon him, or, at all events, he has taken the opportunity offered him of purchasing this land under section 3 of the Act.

asked the right hon. Gentleman if any inquiry has been made into the complaints made against Sergeant Long, of Patrickswell, county Limerick; Constable McCormack, Abbey-dornay, county Kerry; Constables Drum and Greany, of Castleisland, county Kerry; and Constable Doyle, of Cordal, county Kerry, at the recent eviction of Mr. Walsh, at Cordal, county Kerry; and what has been the result?

The constabulary authorities tell me that no formal complaints have been preferred against these men. Some observations with regard to the action of certain members of the force were made to the officers in charge at the eviction, but they assure me that nothing was done by the police in excess of their duty. I am not aware of anything in the matter calling for inquiry.

Is there no way of getting the other side of the question at all?

There are no doubt two sides to every question, but I have had very full reports of all the proceedings on this occasion, and I have no ground for thinking the police have in any way exceeded their duty.

In view of the great interest which has been aroused in this matter, and in view of the fact that there is considerable conflict of evidence as to what the action of the police really was, will the right hon. Gentleman, even in the interests of the police themselves, as well as everybody else, order an impartial and fair inquiry into the whole matter?

No; I am perfectly satisfied, were I to do so, that whenever the services of the police were called into requisition on such occasions, an inquiry would be at once demanded.

Is the right hon. Gentleman, after his experience of the Irish Acts, prepared to take every word of a policeman as Gospel truth?

No; I am not prepared to take anybody's word.

Is the right hon. Gentlemen aware that I reported Sergeant Long myself for having struck the vice-chairman of the Tralee Board of Guardians, a district remote from where the disturbance took place, and is not that sufficient to induce him to do something better than take a policeman's answer?

I have already informed the hon. Member that I have had a full report of the whole proceedings; and, after careful review, I am quite satisfied the police did their best under difficult and trying circumstances.

If these circumstances had taken place in this country, would an English Member have been refused?

That is a hypothetical question.

asked the maximum amount which an individual is allowed to purchase under the Land Acts; whether Henry Davis Kenny purchased under the Land Acts, in July, 1386, 204 acres at Kilcunahinmore, on the French estate, county Tipperary; in August, 1890, 211 acres at Ballingarry, county Tipperary; in May, 1900, 286 acres at Cullagh, county Tipperary; in June, 1906, 543 acres at Rossdarragh and Cappalinuan, Queen's County; and a further property at Ros-donagh, Queen's County; and the acreage and the money paid for these properties purchased by Henry Davis Kenny under the Land Acts?

Under section 1 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, the maximum advance which can be made under the Land Purchase Acts to any purchasing tenant is £7,000, but there is no limitation on the amount of land which one person may buy. I understand that there are two persons of the name of H. Davis Kenny, one has obtained advances to the amount of £4,945. and the other to the amount of £5,000. The statutory limit has not been exceeded in either case.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these large graziers held under the 11 months' system, and the landlord was so satisfied to sell the property that he made them yearly tenants and got some additional thousands of pounds in consequence?

I believe that in all these cases the purchasing tenants did advance sums on their own account in addition to the amount advanced under the Land Purchase Act, 1903.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman do something to stop these proceedings whereby a few men take up all the grazing land in the country?

I have no particular jurisdiction in the matter. The advances are obtained from the Estates Commissioners and are within the limits laid down by the Act.

What were the names of the Commissioners who allowed these men to get all this money?

If I give him the names of the persons who entered into these fraudulent transactions will the right hon. Gentleman order the Estates Commissioners to inquire further into the matter?

So far as I know, none of these transactions were of a fraudulent character.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can ascertain from the Commissioners of National Education the number of assistant teachers from whom salary was withdrawn in the year ended 31st March, 1909, owing to a decline in the average attendance of the schools with which they were connected; and whether he can ascertain how many assistant teachers received notices of withdrawal during the same period for the same cause.

The Commissioners of National Education inform me that during the year ended 31st March, 1909, 623 notices were issued to managers of National schools warning them that the average attendance had fallen so low as to jeopardise the positions of assistant teachers. Only 49 assistant teachers, however, lost their salaries owing to a low average attendance during the year referred to.

asked whether Martin M'Gowan, an evicted tenant on the Johnston estate, Kinlough, county Leitrim, who was reinstated in March, 1908, made an application to the Estates Commissioners for a free grant; and whether, having regard to the fact that this man was kept four years out of possession and his house destroyed, the Commissioners would give him a grant to enable him to repair his house and stock his farm.

This application will be inquired into by the Estates Commissioners when the estate is being dealt with in order of priority. Proceedings for its sale were only instituted in October last.

asked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the three inspectors recently dismissed in the Orange River Colony asked for an inquiry into the vague charges made against them, and that a meeting was arranged with them, first for 22nd April and then for 30th April, by the-Attorney-General; that these dates being-abandoned the Director of Education, urged that the said meeting should take place at the earliest possible date; that, notwithstanding these arrangements, before any meeting was held the three inspectors were summarily dismissed from their office; and whether, in view of the effect of such action upon the tone of public life in the Colony, and to the insecurity caused to Civil Servants by the feeling that on the strength of untested charges they are liable to be dismissed without being allowed to state their case to the responsible Minister, he will say what steps His Majesty's Government-have taken or propose to take in the matter?

We are still awaiting a full report from the Governor, but, as I stated in reply to a supplementary question put by the right hon. Gentleman on 16th June, I do not see what action could be taken in such a matter, which is within the competence of a self-governing Colony.

Am I to understand from that answer that the Government consider that, in consequence of the grant of responsible Government to the Colony, they are debarred from making any representations in the interest of British subjects in the Colony?

I can only repeat that this is a matter well within the competence of a self-governing colony. If the right hon. Gentleman implies that gross hardship is inflicted, I can only again say that in the absence of full reports we are unable to say whether hardship has or has not been inflicted. The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that the Attorney-General for the Orange River Colony is due in this country on Saturday, and it is very undesirable I should now make a statement on imperfect knowledge before he arrives.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware it has been publicly stated by the Bishop of Bloemfontein that the facts are as stated, and is he unable under these circumstances to make any representations to the Orange River Colony on the subject?

I am aware that the Bishop of Bloemfontein has said that, but I am aware also of statements made by other officials in whom we have confidence. I repeat it would be most unwise to make any representations at present to the Government of the Orange River Colony.

I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the Blue Paper just issued on the taxation of land, a question of which he could have had private notice. The object of the question is to request him to postpone the further circulation of this Paper until he is able to supply the information, which I suggest the House should allow me to ask for, on Part 3, dealing with the first item—the Housing Committee, 1884, one would imagine that Lord Goschen's——

The hon. Member is making a speech now. If his intention is to ask a question without notice perhaps he had better put it down.

But the matter is urgent. I am afraid that unless you allow me to go into the matter in some detail— and I will not be very long——

The hon. Member cannot do that now.

May I put it in this way: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will postpone the further circulation of this Paper until he has had inserted in it the result of the different Commissions which tell against his taxation proposals, as well as those in favour of them? At the present moment only those in favour are included, and that is calculated to give a very false impression to the country.

I wish I had had notice of the question. I agree that the Reports against should be published, as well as those in favour. I can only tell the hon. Member what I have intimated to other hon. Members, that if there are any Reports which he thinks ought to be published I will certainly take steps to issue a second or a supplementary volume. It is of very great importance that Reports on both sides should be published, and I gave definite instructions that that should be done. If it has not been done, I will take steps at once to publish any further Reports that may be deemed necessary.

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I was quite sure it was only necessary to bring the matter to his notice. I may quote the case of the 1906 Commission; we have not got the Minority Report on that case.

When may we expect to see on the Paper the words which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to move with reference to the Agricultural Land Increment Tax?

I did read my proposal out to the House, but I also promised to consider if any alternative would be more satisfactory. I have not had time to formulate the words, and, as we have passed the sub-section dealing with this particular tax, it cannot now be done on this clause. There is, therefore, plenty of time, but I guarantee that the words shall be put down.

I thought it was understood it should come at the end of Clause 2?

No, I think it is impossible to do that, as we have already passed the sub-section dealing with agricultural land.

I think it will be conceded that this section (3) deals with about the most delicate and intricate part of the machinery of the whole of this Bill, but although this Amendment proposes to reject the sub-section. I quite admit that some such machinery as this is necessary, and that if what is described in this subsection were not adopted, it would be necessary to substitute for it something else of a more or less similar nature. What makes this particular proposal so intricate and difficult to my mind is, that to begin with. Clause 2 contains no qualification having regard to encumbrances, or Land Tax, or tithe, and that consequently the effect of any encumbrances and of Land Tax, or tithe, will have to be taken into consideration in apportionment, for which this section makes provision. I would like to point out to the Committee that this section provides only for a division of the original site value itself, and, so far as I can make out, there is no provision anywhere, either here or in any other part of the Bill, for a further division of any increment on which duty has already been paid on the site as a whole. The section, as I understand, makes no provision for a case where the original site-value on a given area has once been settled and where that land has later passed either by sale or death, and has paid Increment Duty on the whole as a whole. It makes no provision for the case of its being subdivided into small lots after that: for the subdivision of the increment as well as the site value. It is an important point, as there is, in my opinion he such provision in any part of the Bill. gave the matter some considerable attention the other day, and I have drafted an Amendment, which I have in my pocket, and which I think may deal with the question, though I am not quite sure it actually deals with it.

What is the Amendment?

The Amendment is at the end of the section, and is, "Provided that where subdivision of value is necessary, when Increment Duty has already been paid on any land as a whole, then the increment on which duty has already been paid shall be subdivided in the same manner, but not necessarily in the same proportion, as the original site value" I venture to think the point is a serious one and is one which should be made somewhere in the section, because it is a case which is extremely likely to happen.

The hon. Member is assuming a case where land passes as a whole either at sale or death and there is no subdivision on the first occasion. Then there is a second occasion, where part of the land is sold, and I understand the hon. Gentleman's point is that this section does not deal with the case. Is that the point?

Yes; I think that accurately describes it. This section, dealing as it does with the subdivision of the original site value, makes no provision for the subdivision of the increment which subsequently accrues upon it. Supposing a case of five acres, of the value of £500 an acre, or a total value of £2,500, and that land remains undeveloped for five or six years, but it is claimed that in the interim there is an increment of £1,000 on the whole, and that land is then valued at £3,500, then a new owner, finding an opportunity of developing it, has an opportunity of selling a small plot, say an acre, and it is necessary to subdivide the original £2.500 and also the £1,000, which has been added to the value. I think it is quite possible in such a case the increment will have been due to a particular part of the land, and may not necessarily be divided in exactly the same way as the original site value. I think it is necessary to make adequate provision for such a case. It is the same case where the owner of a certain area of land sacrifices one part of that area in order to provide amenities and to improve the rest. Take a case which is, perhaps, more easy to put than the other— the case of the owner of 10 acres of land who, in order to develop that land, deliberately makes two acres in the middle of it into a garden, or something of that kind—we will say a public garden. In sacrificing those two acres, which he does deliberately, because he never can realise on them without losing the additional value which his action gives to the other eight acres, it is quite evident that the site valuation of the whole 10 acres, in order to create a just position to the owner, would have to be put on the building value of the eight acres, because the two acres have no building value, and if they were built on they would diminish the value of the other eight acres. It is quite obvious also that unless the original value were spread over the eight acres, it would be quite possible for the owner to pay Increment Duty on eight acres, and still be left with a loss on the two acres. It is possible to reply that, if the whole of the site value were put upon the eight acres, it would leave the other with no site value at all. That would be so, and that would mean that these two acres were free from Undeveloped Land Tax. Again, take the case, an actual one, of a portion of 250 acres of property, already with some considerable building value, being given up in order to make a golf links; in order to sell or develop the other 200 acres the owner gives up 50. That is another case, though I do not think such a striking one as where the two acres are taken as a garden. There is only one other case which I think we ought to consider in discussing this section—where the owner of an acre worth, say, £1,000 divides it into 10 building plots, and he sells one building plot for £150. The original site value presumably being divisible between the whole 10 plots equally, the sale of the first plot would show an increment of £50 on which duty would presumably be paid. The total original value is £1,000; one-tenth of the acre is sold, and presumably under this sub-section £100 of the original site value would be allotted to that tenth, and therefore the increment on the first sale is £50. Supposing for some reason over which neither he nor the community has any control the locality becomes unfavourable to building, and the development does not continue as favourably as it began, and eventually he has to sell the other nine-tenths at under £100 an acre, so that in the end when he realises the whole of his sales he has only realised £900. There is a case where the increment which was paid on the first plot is distinctly unjustified by subsequent events, and ought to be recoverable when the total area is sold.

This sub-section suggests questions of extreme difficulty —when a number of years have passed— for the Commissioners to solve, because we take the first site value as in the present year, and it will be a matter of extreme difficulty for the Commissioners to say what was the original site value in 1909 of any part of the land then valued. Let me ask the Committee to project themselves in mind to the second millennium, 91 years' hence. Some prophets, of course, say there will then be a Chinese Government, but, assuming that is not so, the task of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue will be a peculiarly difficult one when the old unit which was taken for the original site value comes up before them to be broken up. They will have to turn up the new Domesday Book of the present year to find out what was the original value of the whole block. It may be a 1,000-acre farm, and by 90 years' time one little corner of it may come in for building purposes. Putting aside the argument that the value of money may have entirely changed, the prices of different descriptions of land may have changed enormously. We see the sort of change going on under our eyes.

For example, a few years ago the frontage site was infinitely more valuable than the back site, but on many a road where there is a great deal of main traffic the frontage sites are enormously depreciated. I am told that on the Bath Road, outside Maidenhead, the frontage is absolutely unsaleable, and those speculators who bought in the hope of a rise some year back have suffered a very heavy decrement, and it is the back land down the lanes which has the value now. Then the Commissioners will not have to consider the value at the time, but what was the back value in 1909. By that time there may be a reversion again. Motors perhaps may have been made perfectly silent and not provocative of much dust, and a great deal of conveyance may by that time have become aerial. That may restore the value of the frontages to some extent, and in developing property of that kind you will always have to allow some dock, free from the wind, where aerial conveyances may lie in safety. That means that an amount of land which is valuable now will not be valuable then, and these unfortunate Commissioners will have to throw their minds back to the present year in order to solve the problem. But they will also have to consider under Clause 14 the cost of divesting the land of all sorts of things. Clause 14 runs thus: "if the land were divested of any buildings and of any other structures on, in, or under the surface, which are appurtenant to or used in connection with any such buildings, and of all growing timber, fruit trees, fruit bushes and other things growing thereon."

They will have to consider what would have been the cost of divesting, not in the year 2,000, but in 1909. To do that they will have to consider labour conditions in 1909, the cost of labour, and the price of materials, because, of course, if materials are valuable the cost of divesting of structures will be smaller. Therefore the Commissioners will have to cast back to see what was the cost of all sorts of buildings and materials which could be used for road-making, etc. Some interesting points arise about timber. They will not consider the timber on the land in 2,000, but what was the value of the timber in the year 1909, and that will be a problem of some difficulty. Experts will have to be brought in to calculate at what rate trees have grown, and they will have to consult tables as to the price of timber in that year. Then they will have to look back and see what structures were on the land in 1909, and they will have to see, not what were on the whole unit of land, but on a particular corner. In order to do that rightly they must be able to have exact plans of what the Commissioners did when they fixed the original site value, and how much they deducted in respect of different structures and divesting the land of each of them, because when they come to a separate plot they will have to see whether in 1909 there was any structure upon it, and what would have been the cost of divesting it, apart from all the rest of the structures on the larger unit, and it seems to me that this problem, as time goes on, will be absolutely insoluble.

Then how is it possible for business to be done with this clause in the Bill? How can a man grant a lease when he does not know what the taxation will be? If a man has a block of property in land and grants a lease of part of it, all sorts of processes have to be gone through. First the rent is capitalised—the rent under the lease is capitalised—and from the capital of the rent the fee simple is inferred. There are still two processes to go through. The fee simple having been assumed, then the site value is got at by a series of deductions, and when the site value is got at it is to be compared with something which up to that point is entirely unknown, it is only when that process is gone through that the Commissioners will come down and say what they have computed as the site value of this piece of land and what they assume to be the fee simple they have compared with what they consider was the site value of that particular plot. Until that has been ascertained the owner of the land will not in the least be able to know what his profit will be, and, therefore, the effect will be to put a stop to business, because the comparison will be between something which is known or which may be inferred and something which is unknown until it is threshed out by the Commissioners. This clause will put a heavy check on perfectly legitimate and justifiable land business, which the Government certainly do not want to stop. Many other considerations arise, but perhaps my hon. Friend and I have asked enough for the moment.

The hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield (Mr. James Hops) has referred to some very remote contingencies, one of them being the second millennium, when Chinamen will have control of this country.

I did not infer that

I suppose that in anticipation of that time he is working up a complicated sort of Chinese puzzle which has no reference at all to the provisions of this Bill on a proposal whose meaning is quite apparent to the intelligence of every Member of the Committee. He wanted also to deal with aerial navigation in this country, and, so far as I could gather, his idea was that the garage will be the line of frontage of the original site. I think we had better deal with this clause with reference to the actual conditions of everyday life in this country now, and for that reason, and without any disrespect to him, I will leave his speech and deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mason). The hon. Member for Windsor realises that if this Amendment were carried and sub-section (3) were left out, we would leave out a sub-section which in substance, at any rate, it is important to have in the Bill. You have got to deal with the question of apportionment, and, therefore, I think the view of the hon. Member is that this is really, an Amendment to enable the Committee to discuss the general provisions of the clause, and that he does not go to the extent of persisting in the omission of the sub-section, which would be a very disastrous thing for land-owners.

The hon. Member has put four or five practical questions, which I hope to deal with in an equally practical spirit. His first question was: What would happen, first of all, as to increment value in the case of the sale of the hereditament or unit as a whole? Afterwards there is a sale of a part; and he wanted to know whether the sub-section dealt satisfactorily with the apportionment in a case of that kind. I think it does, because the apportionment refers to the original site value and not to the increment. I shall point out later on what the Government propose to do to amend the sub-section. Before I do so I will refer to the second point. The hon. Member dealt with the question of the owner of a heritage making up his mind to sacrifice a central plot amounting to an acre or two, either for gardens or recreation purposes, in order to improve the rest of the property. That would undoubtedly enhance the value of the rest of the property, and to that extent the taxable increment would also be enhanced. The hon. Member wanted to know what would happen in a case of that kind. I think it would be desirable to move an Amendment, and the Government mean later on to do so, to meet these two cases and other cases raised by Amendments, some of which are down in the name of the hon. Member himself and some in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford). I think the owner should have the right to apply, at any time, to the Commissioners to reapportion the hereditament. 'There are several Amendments dealing with that subject, and I think the Amendment of the Government will really cover the two or three Amendments of which the hon. Member for Windsor has given notice. Supposing a man has got an estate, and at the time the original site value is ascertained he has no intention of converting it into a building estate, but later on he makes up his mind to cut up the estate into building plots. He allocates a portion of the estate for gardens or recreation grounds or for something that will add to the amenities of the estate. It may be a garden city. I think he ought to be entitled to go to the Commissioners and demand a reapportionment. I propose to move to leave out the word "and" ["as the Commissioners think just, and"], and, commencing as a new sentence, to insert the words "On the application at any time of any person entitled to the fee simple of, or to an interest in, any land, the Commissioners shall apportion or reapportion the original site value of the land among such parts of the land as may be specified in the application in such proportions as they think just." I think that would be fair, and it would substantially cover the points put by the hon. Gentleman. In a case of that kind I have not the slightest doubt that what would really happen would be that the owner would go to the Commissioners, if he had made up his mind to break up his land into building plots, and demand a reapportionment, so that he might know exactly how the apportionment might be located. He would locate it in his own way, subject, of course, to a hearing before the Commissioners, and there would be an appeal on the apportionment. I was told of a case where a land-owner had laid down golf links. The rent at first was £100, and now it stands at £250. It would be obviously unfair to treat this as a deduction from the value of the building estate. On the contrary, the golf links are a valuable commercial concern as they stand, and in most cases that is really what would happen. They do not pay for the first few years, but eventually they generally pay and become a valuable concern, apart altogether from the value which they contribute to the building sites. With regard to the fourth point put by the hon. Gentleman as to an acre which cost £1,000 being split up into 10 plots, the hon. Member has an Amendment down dealing with that point later on. If he does not mind, I think I will leave what I have to say until we get to the Amendment which specifically raises the point.

I think it will be admitted that in some form or other a sub-section of this kind is absolutely essential to the Bill, and that, therefore, it will be impracticable to leave it out altogether unless we are prepared to put something better in its place. The Bill seems to proceed on the footing of only the simplest possible transactions taking place in land. I have made a calcu- lation in connection with a case which existed, and I find in relation to a piece of land, say 10 acres in extent, that, granted there are two deaths, four conveyances, and one lease, the astonishing result will be that upon the next transaction relating to a part of that land no less than 156 apportionments would require to be made. I do not wish to weary the Committee with the details, but I can give any Member privately a copy of the pedigree of the apportionment showing how it will come about. My simple case was a case of this kind. A man died and left his property, consisting of ten acres of land, to his four sons. One of the sons died shortly afterwards. Another of the sons entered into a lease. The three sons and the representative of the dead son joined in selling a quarter of the property. Two houses were built on a small portion of that quarter. And after two deaths four conveyances, and one lease, in order to ascertain the actual site Value, the original site value and the new apportionment, you would require to make no fewer than 156 apportionments of these different things. When one comes to consider the wording of the clause it almost looks as if those who had drawn it up were in a state of childlike simplicity with regard to the consequences of the whole Bill. It is obvious that if this Bill is to work, if these extraordinary calculations have to be made, there must be some power to the Commissioners to do it. I have listened very carefully to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend (Mr. Mason) and the Chancellor's proposed Amendment, and there is no doubt that the proposed Amendment of the Chancellor would meet one of the difficulties, and I think it would meet that in a very fair and reasonable way; and in fact, I had a further Amendment down exactly to the same effect myself. Because, if you give the owner of a piece of land, who is contemplating dealing with it himself, the right to go to the Commissioners in advance, and say, "I want this or that apportionment," then obviously, when he comes to deal with his land, he knows what he is doing and what he will have to pay as regards taxes on every particular piece that it is contemplated to sell. Certainly it would be a very great convenience, and I am personally obliged, if I may say so, to the Chancellor for the Amendment which he has foreshadowed, and which he is going to insert. But there are a number of other concessions necessary in this clause. One is that the converse is absolutely essential.

Suppose a man has got two or three pieces of land and was then to deal with this as a whole. Why should not he have put them together? The Chancellor has taken in this sub-section a case of a piece of land which is afterwards divided up. But it is not an uncommon thing, as I can assure the Chancellor, for a man who has acquired a piece of land here from one person, there from another person, and a third piece of land adjoining it from someone else, to treat that as a whole and deal with it together. It seems to me that the converse is almost equally important, and it might be, and could be, very easily provided for in this sub-section. I have one other suggestion to make. Not only the original site value requires an apportionment, but all the different payments of Increment Duty paid out sometimes would have to be apportioned, because most of those payments would not be in respect of the particular piece that was being sold. Some of them would be in respect of half the land, some of them might be in respect of a quarter interest in the whole land, others in respect of a quarter interest in a quarter of the land; and there ought to be the widest possible power for apportionment. I was going to suggest that the sub-section should read something like this: "Wherever it is necessary to ascertain the total site value, the original site value, or the amount to be credited, if any, as having been already made, then such apportionment shall be made as the Commissioners," and so forth; so that you would leave the whole question as to what apportionments are to be made to the Commissioners in any particular case. In fact I do not think it would be found to work if you simply cut down the, power of the Commissioners, as you do in this subsection, to apportioning the original site value. The Commissioners will find that there are heaps of other things to be apportioned in almost every case, and that the clause does not give them power to apportion the other values. The Commissioners should have power to make an apportionment, both of the site value, the original site value, and the total site value, and of the amount of Increment Duty already paid; and they ought to have power to do that on the application of any person interested in land and at any time. I think the concession which has already been made is a most valuable one, but if the clause is to work the power which I suggest should be given to the Commissioners.

Perhaps it would be better to postpone this section until we come to deal with the whole question of apportionment in the clauses which deal with apportionment, namely Clauses 16 to 19, because it seems to me to lead to confusion to deal with apportionment in different places. I am sure the Committee is very much indebted to the Chancellor for having indicated at this early stage of the discussion the Amendment with regard to apportionment which he proposes to put himself, and, at any rate, it will relieve the Committee of the necessity of considering the next Amendment on the Paper in my name, because, I think, the Amendment which the Chancellor has indicated entirely meets that point. He has recognised that there ought to be the possibility of the owner of the land coming before the sale has taken place and asking for an apportionment, in order that he may know how much he is to ask for the land and be in a position to deal with the question before he draws his particulars and conditions of sale. That. I think, is entirely met by the practical suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but what I want to point out is this: In this sub-section we are dealing with only one case of apportionment namely, that which takes place after the sale has taken place, and therefore, I confess I found great difficulty in seeing what was the proper place to put my Amendment down on the Paper, and I think, Sir, you felt an equal difficulty. But it does strike me that we should make the whole Bill a much better piece of draftsmanship and much more practical if we dealt with the whole question of apportionment before or after sale in one apportionment section, and, therefore, I would suggest for the consideration of the Government that it would be better to do so, and that it would be better as regards the point which the Chancellor has promised to meet—recognising, as he does, the difficulties that would arise when we get to more complicated transactions—to put it down later on and deal with the whole question of apportionment fully in one section.

I venture to think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have consulted the convenience of the Committee and conduced to the proper consideration of the clause if he had given more attention to the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope). It is quite true that my hon. Friend, in order to make his point clear, took an extreme case. The Chancellor said it is a very extreme case, but it is only 90 years, which is not so very extreme, but the case must arise constantly, not in 90 years only, but in 10 or 20 years. Take the commonest case of all—the reconstruction of an estate when a town lease falls in, and the owner rebuilds the whole estate and entirely changes its character. That is a thing we see going on in London constantly. You have the original site value taken in its present condition with the houses as they are, then the estate is rebuilt in an entirely different form. Even the position of the roads may be changed. What was garden may become houses, what are houses may become garden. Then it may be 20 years afterwards when the estate is being split up, as they always are being split up in these cases, the Commissioners may have to cast their minds back. I do not see any machinery for the purpose of recording all the existing condition of the estate. But there ought to be not only a valuation, but a most detailed survey of the actual condition of building estates all over the country. Otherwise I do not see how the thing is to be done. The Commissioners must go back to see what was on the estate in the year 1909, and what happened in order to obtain the clear site, that is to say, all the buildings and trees, if there are any growing, and everything of that kind; and apparently everything that is under the soil as well. So that you will have to have a survey not only of the surface, but of the underground portion as well. Then you have not only to do that, but there is a sub-clause—Clause 14, sub-section (4), sub-clause (a) —under which they have got to see what has been the value added to each portion of the site by the permanent works necessary for fitting the estate for building. Therefore if there was a road there and it passed one particular building in its present condition and the road had been altered so that it passed another building, you would have to go back and see what was the value added to that particular building at the time of the valuation and separate that up from the general value of the estate. That appears to me to be an operation which, to use the celebrated words, "It passes the wit of man to accomplish." But, at any rate, that is the operation as to which we should like to know if the Government have carefully considered, and also how exactly it is to be carried out. I am not a land valuer. I am not speaking of my own personal knowledge. These are the difficulties which have been put to me by a practical valuer of great experience. It is suggested there will be complications of an enormous character, and that one of the effects will necessarily be that every valuation will be of a much more detailed character than the Government contemplates. Owners for their own protection will not only require possibly a valuation and re-valuation, but they will require to have each particular plot valued—not the whole of the estate in one operation as is contemplated by the Bill, but each particular plot. That adds enormously to the expense under this Bill. I do not think the Government have yet realised— they have not given any indication that they realise—the gigantic expense which they are going to put on the owners of the land, and not only on the owners, but on everybody interested in reference to this valuation. It does appear to me to be becoming more and more evident that this is not a Bill for raising the revenue at all, but a Bill to establish the valuation of land. This is a constitutional departure of very great gravity, and one which I cannot think all the supporters of the Government have realised even yet.

I think the Noble Lord has somewhat exaggerated the difficulties in regard to apportionment. He has not quite considered apparently the way in which the machinery of the Bill contemplates meeting those difficulties. For instance, the first step in the valuation is the owner's return. The owner is empowered under Clause 16 to make his own apportionment. He is under obligation to give the value of each piece of land in separate occupation. He has also to make an apportionment of different parts of any piece of land which is under separate occupation. It would be to his interest to do that, and it would be to his own interest to make a very careful apportionment in his original return and to exercise great care and vigilance.

What about the expense?

We will deal with one question at a time. It is quite sufficient to confine ourselves always to the one point. If the owner takes a piece of land of 10 acres, of which some part is likely to come into building value, he apportions it in accordance with what his views are as to the parts which will come into building value, and he will put his valuation where it will be of most use to him, and where he thinks the value is going to accrue. That will very greatly lessen the difficulties in many of the cases which have been put this afternoon. He will put the value where he thinks it is going to accrue in order that he may get the benefit of the exemption. One case was given by the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford), in which he said there would be 156 apportionments. I do not see where he gets that number of apportionments.