asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intends to introduce a Supplementary Estimate during the present Session to authorise the expenditure of the £300,000 by which it is proposed to increase the expenditure of the year in respect of land valuation; and, if so, can he say when this Estimate will be introduced?

A Supplementary Estimate will not be required for this purpose during this part of the Session.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say how the Government propose to deal with the matter? How the money will be found?

Money can easily be provided for the purpose from the amount available from the Inland Revenue Vote.

Do I understand that it is already ascertained that the Inland Revenue Vote is over-estimated this year to the extent of £300,000?

No; the hon. Gentleman is not to understand anything of the sort. He is only to understand that there is sufficient money in the Inland Revenue Vote to carry us on until February, when there can be a Supplementary Estimate.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that no new Vote would be taken in "this part of the Session."

Yes; not for this particular purpose.

What does he mean by "this part of the Session"? Are we to understand that this Session will continue until next February?

There is no need for any Vote until the Supplementary Estimate is required.

Next Session?

Yes, next Session.

asked the Prime Minister whether Ireland is to be included in the valuation proposed in the Finance Bill; if so, will the valuation be carried out by an Irish staff of valuers; and if he can say what department in Ireland will be charged with the duty of conducting the valuation?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part, I may refer the hon. Member to the reply on this subject which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on the 16th instant to the hon. Member for North Armagh.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the increased Spirit Duty of 3s. 9d. on 24,600,000 gallons, the amount upon which the Government now estimate such duty will be paid, would amount to £4,612,500; and, if so, whether he can see his way to revise his estimate of £1,600,000 as the amount to be received from such increased tax?

It is true that an additional tax of 3s. 9d. a gallon on the quantity of spirits estimated to be cleared at the new rate of duty during the current financial year would amount to £4,612,500. But my right hon. Friend sees no reason to modify his estimate of the additional revenue to be obtained this year by increasing the duty toy 3s. 9d.

As the bulk of this spirit is manufactured in Scotland, is there any particular reason why that country should be mulcted to that extent?

It is perfectly true it may be manufactured to that extent in Scotland, but it is the consumer who pays the duty.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to have a valuation of all the land of the United Kingdom made every fifth year, or only of all undeveloped land; and, if the latter only, how will he know that he has included all undeveloped land?

The quinquennial valuation under the Bill will apply to undeveloped land only, and it is not anticipated that five years hence any appreciable portion of such land will fail to be included.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the amount of valuable building land owned by the Crown which is lying idle in Kensington High-street; and whether he will take steps to urge the Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues to proceed with the work of development without delay?

The Commissioners of Woods have, I am informed, made every effort to let this land for building purposes, and will be glad to treat with anyone desiring to utilise it for the erection of buildings of a suitable class.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a resolution from the Association of Surveyors of Taxes stating that they view with alarm the statement that the present staff will be sufficient for all the Budget proposals except those relating to the Land Taxes; and what steps he intends to take for providing a sufficient staff?

I have nothing to add to my reply of the 19th ultimo to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for East Down.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in cases of deaths of surveyors of taxes caused by overwork due to the failure of the Treasury to provide a sufficient staff, the Treasury is prepared to make provision for the dependants of those whose death is so caused; and whether his attention has been called to complaints on account of the refusal of the Treasury to make such provision, and particularly in the case of the deaths of Mr. Kerr and Mr. Stewart in 1907?

My right hon. Friend's attention has been called to the cases in question. No grant can be made to the widow and children of a Civil servant unless the husband's death was due to injury sustained in the discharge of his duty within the meaning of Section 1 of the Superannuation Act of 1887, and each case has to be considered separately with reference to the terms of this section.

Am I to understand that if a man dies at his post from overwork his family is to receive no compensation?

The overwork has to be proved.

If it is proved, will the Treasury give compensation?

I think there is no difficulty in a case of that sort.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that quantities of so-called Hamburg sherry and port, containing 30 per cent, of proof spirit, are being sold in this country since the increase in the Spirit Duties; that they only pay an Import Duty of 1s. 3d. per gallon, and whether lie will take steps to level up that duty to the rate upon which spirits are charged?

Hamburg sherry and port are not specifically distinguished in the trade accounts, but are included with all other wines imported from Germany. The available figures for the three months since the increase of the Spirit Duties, when compared with the corresponding months of last year, indicate a falling off rather than an increase in the importation of German wines generally. In regard to the last part of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the reply on this subject given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth on the 6th May last.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the so-called Hamburg sherry is largely mixed with whisky and sold as whisky, and that it is a profitable thing to do?

As far as my researches go neither of those facts is as stated by the hon. Gentleman.

Have the Treasury inquired into the allegation that this Hamburg sherry and port is now being distilled to extract the spirit, that being the cheapest way of obtaining spirits since the increase of the duty?

No; I have had no such information, but I will inquire and ascertain if it is true.

Is it the case that this Hamburg spirit is admitted at a tax of 1s. 3d. a gallon, whereas Scotch whisky is taxed higher?

This is Hamburg sherry and port. There has been a great decrease in the importation of German spirit in the course of the last five or six years.

asked what is the estimated net amount that the local authorities will receive from the land taxes this year and next year?

It is anticipated that the yield of the new land taxes in the current financial year will amount to £675,000, of which one-half will be handed over to the local authorities. My right hon. Friend estimates that the taxes will yield next year £1,000,000, of which the local authorities will receive the same proportion.

In view of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day, in answer to a deputation that the cost of valuation would swallow up the whole of the money he is likely to receive, how much is he likely to receive this year?

I am entirely ignorant of the answer which is ascribed to my right hon. Friend.

asked whether half of the proceeds of the Mineral Rights Duty will be distributed among all the local authorities, or whether it will be restricted to the mining districts from which it is collected?

The distribution of the duty in question will follow that of the other taxes imposed by Part I. of the Finance Bill—that is, the half of the proceeds will be distributed among all the local authorities.

asked whether the 500 officers proposed to be appointed for the purpose of making the land valuation are to be permanent officials working under the Treasury or whether they are to be outside surveyors and valuers called in and paid by fees; and. in either case, how. and by whom, the appointments will be made?

A certain number of the valuers to be appointed under the Finance Bill will be permanent officials working under the Board of Inland Re- venue, with whom the selection will rest. The remainder of the valuing staff will be only temporarily employed.

Will they be permanent valuers paid by fees, or will their whole time be taken up by the Treasury?

Most of them will be employed as whole-time officers, some temporarily and some permanently.

Will these gentlemen be drawn from the same class who at present provide the assessors for Scotland?

I should like notice about Scotland.

Will they be drawn from the present ranks of the ordinary surveyors or will they be the Somerset House type of clerks?

They will be persons who have some knowledge of valuation.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that about £250,000 has been spent in the preparation of Trafford Park for development, little of which sum would obtain exemption as roads or sewers under Clause 10 of the Finance Bill; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to prevent such estate incurring the Undeveloped Land Tax, in view of the terms of Clause 10 as now amended?

I may remind the hon. Member that under Clause 14, Subsection 4 (a) the Commissioners are to allow as deductions from the site value of any land any part of the value which is proved to be directly attributable to works executed for the purpose of improving the value of the land as building land or for any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture.

By Clause 10 last week that was limited to expenditure within 10 years. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the bulk of the Trafford Park expenditure was incurred before the 10 years?

No, I am not at all aware of the last statement. I am informed that the deductions which are mentioned in Clause 14 practically relieved the Trafford Park estate of all that it is entitled to be relieved of.

I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he is prepared to state what Amendments he will introduce in Clause 25 of the Finance Bill (Exemption of land held for public or charitable purposes) in order to meet the request of a deputation representative of secondary schools that was received by Sir Robert Chalmers on Friday last on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, unfortunately, was prevented from attending to receive the deputation?

I am sorry that I could not be present to receive the deputation on Friday last. The Amendments will be found on the Paper to-day.

May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is not the case that hon. Members interested were promised full notice of these Amendments before they were called upon to discuss them? I am informed by one of the Members specially interested that that is so. I would ask further whether it is not the case that the House sat until a quarter to nine o'clock this morning, that these Amendments were only handed in yesterday, that they were not circulated to Members, or were not available for Members, until some time about one o'clock to-day, and whether he thinks, under these circumstances, that the House has had due notice of the Amendments, which entirely transform the clause, introduce entirely new matter and exemptions into it, and wholly alter the exemptions originally appearing in the clause. I will ask the indulgence of the House to make one observation in the nature of an acknowledgment of the personal courtesy which was shown to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In putting a question of this kind I ought to say that the right hon. Gentleman did offer to show me the Amendments this morning. It was about half-past eight, and as I had sat practically continuously in this House from about three o'clock yesterday afternoon I thought I had something better to do than to set to work to consider these Amendments at once, and I declined the right hon. Gentleman's offer; I think it is due to him that I should make that statement.

The right hon. Gentleman tells me that I made a promise to give full notice of the Amendments. I accept that statement at once, though I cannot recollect giving any pledge of the kind. If I gave such a pledge, I have no desire to recede from it. It would have been a very reasonable pledge to ask, and I would probably have given it. I very much regret that the Amendments were not on the Paper until this morning; I did intimate to two Gentlemen interested in the matter—the hon. Member for Oxford University and the hon. Member for Cambridge University—the general character of the Amendments on which we proceed. I do not know whether they really think that there should be more time given for the consideration of the Amendments, but if they think so, I should not resist the suggestion.

May I say that although the Chancellor of the Exchequer never gave us a definite pledge, he invited the hon. Member for Cambridge University and myself to meet him some time ago. The matter had been before him for some time, and he indicated generally the character of the Amendments to be introduced. We have been wondering ever since when we should see the specific Amendments by which he proposes to give effect to the suggestions made to him.

I would remind the hon. Baronet that this matter can be better dealt with in Committee of the Finance Bill.

I am much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I accept his offer.

Having regard to the fact that I did not see the Amendments until two o'clock to-day, may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has placed an Amendment on the Paper which will exempt school property which is held under charitable endowments from the taxes—

Really, there will be plenty of time before we come go the clause to see the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman has put down.

moved in Section (1), after the word "appeal" ["person aggrieved may appeal"], to insert the words "to the High Court of Justice."

This is practically the Amendment which I propose to move, and which is on page 21 of the White Paper, that any person aggrieved by the decision of the Referee may appeal against the decision to the High Court, and so on.

I think the clause as now proposed to be passed is a very great improvement upon what it was. In the first place, we have got Referees appointed, not now by the Crown, but by the Reference Committee. In the second place, we have an appeal from the Referee to the Court. At the same time, I am not quite satisfied that it is wise to introduce this rather complicated procedure in place of the existing procedure under the Finance Act of 1894, giving simply an appeal to the county court in small cases and to the High Court in more important cases. My opinion on that point will be rather affected by the manner in which the details of the procedure are dealt with. What record will there be of the proceedings before the Referee? Is it intended to make the proceedings absolutely informal, or will the parties be at liberty to appear by their nominees or representatives to raise their points, and will there be a shorthand note of the evidence given before the Referee? In the next place, will the Referee be asked to give reasons for his decision, or to give a formal judgment, so that the appeal can be dealt with in the usual way, the grounds being stated on which his decision is based? I think it is a matter of great importance, if the Referee is really going to sit in the judicial capacity to hear evidence and advocates, and to have a record of what takes place before him, that he should give the reasons for his decision. It may be assumed that the Referees will be fit men, chosen for the purpose, because practically judicial decisions will be given by the tribunal. I understand also that there will be an appeal in every case from the Referee to the Court, not only on points of law, but on points of fact. If these two things are secured, of course we have got very much further than we were under the Bill. I think it is a very great improvement, but at the same time I should like to know, before this Amendment is parted with, why we do not have the simple system of appeal to the county court in small cases and to the High Court in larger cases?

With respect to the last point of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the appeal to the High Court of Justice is from the Referee. In such cases we thought it best to go to the High Court, and not to the county court, in order to get an opinion. With regard to appeals before the Referee, they will not be of the formal character which proceedings take in a court of justice. The Referee will be more a valuer than a judge, so far as hearing the evidence is concerned. If the decision of the Referee is not made in accordance with the rules to be laid down, it is fully intended that his decision shall be given in such a form as will make it perfectly easy for the appellate court to see the reasons on which the decision was based.

I admit at once, frankly, that the Bill, as proposed to be amended, is a very great improve- ment upon the way in which the provision, as to appeal, was originally framed. I think it would have been a great calamity if the original conception of the Bill had become operative, that subjects who were being taxed were to be left to the tender mercies of the Executive, and that they should have no remedy whatsoever in the courts of justice. However, there is a new procedure in regard to the question of value.

On points of law.

Fortunately, we have the courts to exercise jurisdiction in regard to matters of law, and we can hardly deprive them of that under the Constitution. I do not suppose anybody will say that the courts, as regards question of law, ought to have no jurisdiction, though that may be a new Liberal doctrine—I do not know. At the same time, I think that the system of appeal set up by the right hon. Gentleman is not in the least an improvement upon the system which already prevails in regard to the Death Duties. You have really got exactly the same kind of valuation under this Bill, only it is more complicated, though you have exactly, in effect, the same questions to solve as in relation to the Death Duties, Succession Duties, and Legacy Duties. I have never heard it suggested that the present system of valuation in the courts has in the least degree broken down, or that anybody has ever been discontented with it. Why this more cumbersome system should be set up by the right hon. Gentleman I cannot for the life of me understand. The present system is this: You have the right to go before the Court if you do not come to terms with the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. They have laid down certain rules as to how value is to be ascertained, and these are comparatively simple. In addition to that you have also the right—as well as I can recollect the sections—when the estate is below a certain amount of money, to take proceedings in the county court. That also, in my opinion, is a very important matter, and will be a very much more important matter in regard to the valuations which have to take place under the Bill we are now considering. What is the proposed improvement? Instead of that, which is a comparatively simple procedure, you are to appeal not in the first instance to the Court, but, having gone first before the Commissioners and furnished them with your evidence, and having had all the expense practically of an adjudication by the Commissioners, you have to go from the Commisioners to a gentleman who is to be styled a Referee. That is the second step. When you have done that, if you are not satisfied with the decision of the Referee, then there is a third procedure, namely, to go to the Court. Just look at the way in which the subject may be harassed in regard to a very small matter. It is to be remembered that the Commissioners will be dealing with very small cases under this Bill. They will not be all dukes and they will not be all black men. Some of them will be very small men, holding half or a quarter of an acre. And they, where they are not satisfied with the decision of the Commissioners, will have to go through all the process provided under the Bill. When the Commissioners have fixed a sum the case may go to the Referee, whose decision may be satisfactory to the appellant, but the Commissioners may take him to the Court, and they must take him to the High Court. Is not that absolutely absurd, and all the more so when the value in dispute may not be worth the cost? It really means in regard to the small cases which will arise under this Bill that it will be disastrous for the small holders to go through all this process. It should be remembered that the very fact that the courts are behind them has kept the Commissioners in very good order up to now. While I was Solicitor-General I do not remember that there was one single case on the question of value. The hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Leverton Harris) gave his own case in the House where he was called upon to pay on £50,000. He refused, and then the Commissioners, in some way or other, came to a little more reason, and put the figure at £15,000.

The facts are not accurately stated.

He stated that himself, and until I see something that leads me to doubt the veracity of my hon. Friend I prefer to believe him. I do not think he can be very inaccurate, as he had to go through it himself. Eventually a settlement was come to at £10,000. That was done without a court at all, but it was done because the Court was there. The old practice has worked well. It has gone on as regards the Death Duties ever since, so far as I know without a hitch, and in the case of the amounts being small, the subject has the power of going to the county courts. I myself, at all events, so far as I am concerned, will ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd-George) now, even at the eleventh hour, to let us go on with the procedure of which, so far as I know, nobody has ever complained. As to the selection of the Referees upon a panel by the particular tribunal, I have great confidence in the tribunal, but I do not think they will find it very easy to make the panel. Why on earth should you propose a particular tribunal of that kind when we have already set up, by the rules, the inferior court and the county court under the Succession Act, the Legacy Duty Act, and the Finance Act, and where you have methods of value, which for a number of years have been absolutely satisfactory? Why you should propose these Referees I fail entirely to see. I really do think that the Attorney-General will agree with me, because he has now had experience that the safeguards of the courts behind the Commissioners has worked so well, that we might expect it would work perfectly well in the future as regards this particular matter.

Therefore so far as my criticism goes, while I frankly admit we have gained a good deal by the concessions that have been made, and which we have been fighting for, not to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, I do not think we have in the least improved on the old system which has prevailed in relation to matters for so many years. There are one or two other matters I should like to press on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In this hearing before the Referee, surely when we are going to have him interposed at all, we ought to try and make the hearing before him a satisfactory hearing, and not to be driving parties to the further step of going back again to a third hearing to the Court. You make no provision whatsoever for that. As I read the Amendment, it does not mean to have any hearing before the Referee whatsoever.

Not a hearing in the ordinary sense of the term.

That is, in my view, entirely unsatisfactory. The subject who is discontented and who means to dispute the conclusion of the Commissioners he is not satisfied with seeing simply another official, because, after all, the Referee will be an official, sitting in his back parlour, just as the Commissioners did, and merely being called in and told. Perhaps the man is not at all able to argue the matter for himself, and many a man would probably rather give up the whole thing than try and argue it himself. The man will be called in with the Referee there, the Referee of course being a man of experience accustomed to deal with these things, and an advocate of the keenest kind, because they all become keen advocates in relation to their own business. The unfortunate man who has a quarter of an acre of ground which is going to be valued as building land, or on a lease falling in, or whatever it may be under these fantastic taxes, is called in, and look at the absurdity of it. He will be told that the Commissioners have taxed at so much, and he will be told that the Commissioners have given their reasons. The Referee will say, "I will tell you what they are, and just do you now tell what you have to say." The man has to proceed to say, I suppose, "First, I must uncover the land from buildings," or "I must put the buildings on the land," or "I must go back to the year," whatever the year may be, "and I must see what was the then condition, and I must see how much of the increment—"

That seems really out of order. I do not see how it comes under this question of whether the appeal ought to be to the High Court. It is going into the details of the Government proposal, which will be moved later.

I thought we were conducting this discussion as regards the system which is now being set up by the right hon. Gentleman.

On the point of order. May I respectfully suggest if "High Court" is put in here it will ultimately exclude the Referee later on. Therefore, with great respect, I would submit that the question whether it is desirable to have a Referee or not, which I understand is what my right hon. Friend is arguing, is clearly relevant.

If I may say so, being in charge of the Bill, it does not matter to me at all where the Debate is taken, so long as it is not taken two or three times over. I submit very respectfully, if the Debate is taken here at this stage on the whole issue on the alternative as suggested by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Salter), that it cannot be taken twice over.

I do not know what your ruling is about that.

In ordinary circumstances the detailed discussion on the Government proposal ought to take place when the Government Amendment comes on. But it is not unusual to discuss on one proposal an alternative proposal so being that the one discussion is to be taken as covering the general discussion of both. If that is so understood, I do not object; only there must not be more than one general discussion.

I quite appreciate your opinion. As far as I make it out the situation is this, there are clearly conveniences in taking a survey of the whole question, and I thoroughly understand the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Lloyd-George) view that if that survey is taken it is rather hard for him and the Committee that there should be a second Debate on the same lines. That is an argument in favour of making the Debate general, but there is this disadvantage. There may be questions on which we should like to express our opinion; but how are we to reconcile a general discussion with giving a particular decision on particular points in the general system which the Government mean to set up?

I was really arguing on the question of the High Court being put in here. Am I not in order in showing that various other alternatives would not be as good as the High Court?

As to alternative plans, it is more convenient that the discussion should be taken on a general Amendment of this kind, and I am not objecting. The right hon. Gentleman examined very closely the alternative plan of the Government, and I do not object to that; but what I submit is that, if the discussion is taken here, it should not be gone over again later on. I agree that the Opposition ought to have an opportunity of dissenting from the alternative in the Division Lobby, but to have two or three Debates on the same point would be unfair.

I do not object to the right hon. Gentleman discussing the point on the understanding that the discussion is not taken twice over.

Supposing we desired to express in a concrete way in the Division Lobby our views upon particular proposals, if those proposals had been discussed in their broad general relations on this Amendment, would you absolutely preclude any discussion at all? I quite agree that it should be kept within the narrowest limits, but to insist on absolute silence would be rather severe.

I would not go that length.

The difficulty is that when a matter of this kind comes up on an Amendment to a section we never have an opportunity, unless we do it in this way, of having a second reading discussion on the proposal at all. This is really in the nature of a new clause. I was pointing out that the subject is to have the privilege of going before the Referee "in consultation," whatever that may be. It is a curious phrase. If you are to have a Referee at all, and if the appeal is to be a real appeal from the Commissioners, the tribunal ought to act only after hearing all the parties concerned. I do not understand the tremendous objection which the Government always have to allowing parties to be heard in regard to their rights in their own property. We had to protest over and over again last year, both on the Small Holdings Bill and on the Licensing Bill, against the attempt to dispose of these matters in a hole-and-corner manner, when the parties are at the most extreme disadvantage, and when it is impossible for them to go through these complicated provisions. Everybody is not qualified to prepare and present his case before trained Commissioners. To say that a man, "in consultation" with the Referee, must go through the complicated sections of this Bill and see that every right is given and every deduction made, is really absurd.

Another question is, Where is the consultation to be held? Is it to be held locally or in London? Is the man with a quarter of an acre of land in Devonshire to be told that he must come up to Downing-street, or the Law Courts, or wherever it may be, to have this consultation with the Referee? As far as I can see, the man himself, or the trustee, or whoever may be concerned in the property, must come up personally. If you are going to interpose the Referee at all, at any rate you ought to try and do something that is fair towards the subject. It would be far better and fairer for a man far away in the country that you should have the inquiry as near as possible to the place which is being valued. There you have the county court. But the Government hate the courts, even the county court. Then at the hearing itself will the subject be able to put his own valuer forward to place his views before the Referee? Will he be allowed to put questions to the valuers on the other side who have induced the Commissioners to come to a certain decision? I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that to set up any such tribunal will not give the least satisfaction to anyone. As regards the Referee, it is really not worth doing. The only way to satisfy the parties, if they do not come to terms with the Commissioners—they generally do—is to allow them to have their own skilled valuer's view put before a proper independent tribunal, in order that there may be an adjudication between them and the Commissioners. The proposal of the Government appears all the more strange to one accustomed, as I was in earlier days, to be largely concerned in the fixing of rents in Ireland. There we had to do not with the capitalisation of rent for the purpose of taxation, but with merely fixing rents, two-thirds of which probably were under £10 a year. But look at the care which was taken. The person concerned was heard before the legal Commissioner; he could then appeal to another Commissioner of higher rank, with two eminent valuers; and from that tribunal, if he had a point of law, he, could go to the Court of Appeal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself will not deny that the provisions of this Bill are extremely complicated. I do not know of anything upon which opinions vary more and require more sifting than they do upon the question of valuation. No doubt the Attorney-General has to try, as I have had to do, to get land cheap for the Government—a thing which, I am bound to say, I always failed to do. One case, I remember, had to do with a piece of land near Staines, and the question was whether there was a building value. That is not an unlikely case to arise under this Bill. Some of the most eminent valuers in London, gentlemen who will probably be on the panel of Referees, said that the land was worth £75,000; on the other side, equally eminent men said it was worth only £9,000; and in the result the jury fixed the value at £39,000. I do not know how they did it. [An Hon. MEMBER: "Split the difference."] I expect that is what the Commissioners will do. Let the Committee consider what a difference such figures would make in the amount of taxation imposed upon the person concerned. The real taxing body would not be this House, but the valuer, according to the particular view he took of the property. Where opinions vary so widely as they do in regard to the value of land, every possible precaution ought to be taken. As one who has had considerable experience in these matters, both in Ireland and in this country, I say that you will never satisfy the subject, where interests of this kind are at stake, unless he is able, in the long run, to have a patient investigation of his case before an independent tribunal. It is an extremely difficult thing. I hope you will go on with the system which has prevailed, and with complete satisfaction. If you do keep the Referee at all I do press upon the right hon. Gentleman to give an option to the subject who is being taxed of having the matter fully put before the Referee in no hole-and-corner way at all, but with the fullest opportunity of having the case tested. I have only one other matter that I should like to mention. I do press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to take away the jurisdiction of the county court in the smaller cases. It is a very valuable thing to be able, particularly in regard to the valuation of land, whether it be land in towns or in the country, that a man should be able to have the case decided where his own valuers live; where he can bring up people—auctioneers and estates agents— and can prove his case in regard to the increment, on whatever it may be, from land in the neighbourhood. Everybody knows, I suppose, that there is nothing more fallacious than to try to test the value of land in one place with the value of land in the other. You will find even rents—and you cannot account for it—are subject to this law. You will go to one class of land, or into one county, and see land 25 per cent, more than a similar class of land in another county. It is almost impossible to get at the cause of this. Therefore to have these Commissioners and Referees, who will be appointed from the great valuers in London, dealing with places in Devonshire, Cornwall, North Cumberland, and other places, is really absurd. For my own part, I should have thought that really as a rule it would be better—I shall be even prepared to do so—to give increased jurisdiction to the county courts as being much more satisfactory than having people brought up to London.

In addition to that, there are two other reasons why I press the county court.

One is the cost. The cost of trying these cases in the superior courts would be in many of these small valuations prohibitive. It would swamp the value of the whole subject of valuation if you had to do it. Lastly, may I say this, that as regards the superior courts they have really as much to do as they can do, and if you are going to have these cases brought before them, and they should arise in any great number, I think you will find that your valuation will not be complete for many years. Everybody knows the arrears in the courts, and everybody knows the objection of the Lord Chancellor to appointing more judges. To sum up—my request to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not to have a Referee at all, but to stick to the old system. But if you do have a Referee let us try to have the matter as between the parties arranged so that a proper and satisfactory hearing may ensue. This will make the subject think, at all events, that his case has been thoroughly understood and thoroughly sifted. Thirdly, I say avoid as much as possible the cost of bringing a man up to the High Court, or to London at all. Make the inquiry as local as possible. This will be far more satisfactory in regard to questions relating to land. While I think the proposition is an improvement, I think it is really an unnecessary burden. If the right hon. Gentleman had simply indicated that there should be the same right of appeal as under the Finance Act and other Acts, I think we should have come to a better conclusion than we are likely to come to.

After listening very carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I am not really clear as to what it is he wants. I was under the impression that the real grievance was that the landowner was denied access to the courts. I thought that was the grievance. [Several HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Yes, but that is a grievance I have attempted to redress. Whether I have successfully done it or not may be a matter of opinion. Now, I understand from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that is not his grievance, but that it is a question of going to the courts and the cost.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would wish to misrepresent me.

No.

I did not say going to the courts. I said going to the High Court with small cases which could be tried locally in the county was an unnecessary cost.

I am referring to a very much more serious observation. I do not think it is impossible perhaps to meet the case of small owners. But I was referring to the observation made that there ought to be some arrangement to make the decision of the Referee final.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can really have listened. What I said was that I objected to the Referee altogether. I said that first. I said if you have a Referee you ought to have such a thorough investigation before the Referee as will make the litigant satisfied not to take the case further. I said that in the Bill the method was unsatisfactory; that after having his hearing before the Commissioners, and then the consultation with the Referee, the man will be driven to go further.

I confess that was not the interpretation I placed upon the words of the right hon. Gentleman. Now I understand what he means by final appeal. He means that it should be so satisfactory that there will be no desire to appeal to a higher court. Let us see what the position is. No one listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman would ever imagine what the real facts of the case are. First of all we put down a clause on the Paper. That only gives an appeal on questions of fact by a Referee appointed, under rules, by the Treasury. The first criticism was that there was no guarantee that the Referee would be impartial. The second criticism was that there was no free access to the courts. I claim that on both of those points I have met the objectors. There is absolute freedom of access to the courts, not merely on law, but on fact. It is not dependent upon the Referee. It is absolutely unconditional. Any man under conditions can go to the courts.