asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention had been drawn to the resolution passed by the recent meeting of the Catholic Headmasters' Association asking the Intermediate Board to order an independent re-examination of the papers in Irish in the senior and middle grades; whether his attention had also been called to the statement of the education committee of the Christian Brothers with respect to the awarding of the exhibitions, and the results arising out of the marking of the papers in Irish; and whether, with a view to having the whole question promptly settled, he would recommend to the Intermediate Board that the honours papers in German as well as Irish be re-examined by a competent authority?

My attention has been called to the resolution and statement in question as published in the newspapers. It is not for me to make any recommendation to the Commissioners of Intermediate Education on the subject, but I have referred the hon. Member's suggestion to the Board in order that it may be laid before them at their next meeting.

Is it not a fact that the next meeting of the Intermediate Commissioners will not be held until 25th October, and in view of the very great interest in the subject would it not be possible to have a special meeting to deal with the matter?

As the hon. Member knows, I have no control over the Board of Intermediate Education; but his observations will undoubtedly be reported, and, having regard to the importance of the question, the Board will no doubt do their best to come to a decision at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention had been called to the case of Charles Davies, stoker, who lost his life through being crushed between the buffers of two locomotives at Spring Vale Furnaces, Wolverhampton; whether he was aware that John Jones, the driver of the other engine to the one upon which Davies was employed, stated that he shouted three times to the other driver, that he himself took no notice of whistles because so many were blowing, and that no danger flag was in use; whether he would take steps to secure the removal of the ashpans from the engines, as this witness contended that such a method would prevent such accidents in the future; whether he could state if there was some method, approved and periodically inspected by the factory inspectors, for the prevention of such accidents; and what action, if any, did he intend taking in the matter?

I have received a report of this accident from the District Inspector of Factories, which includes a report of the inquest. It seems to have been due, in the first place, to the failure of the deceased and of the driver of the engine at which he was working to notice the warning signal of the approaching engine; and, in the second place, to the failure of the driver of the moving engine to observe that his signal had not been understood. The regulations for the use of locomotives on factory premises require that the driver in charge of a locomative shall give an efficient sound signal as a warning on approaching any point of danger to persons employed. The sound signal was given in this case, but was not effectual, because so many whistles of similar sound were being blown at the works, and I will instruct the District Inspector to communicate with the firm with a view to seeing whether more efficacious means can be adopted. The regulations do not require the removal of engine ashpans, which I understand are in common use in railway engines, but the question shall be considered.

asked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he had received a resolution from the county council of Orkney urging that the compulsory payment out of local rates for animals slaughtered under order recently issued would impose a serious burden on the county; and, in view of the fact that the order had been issued in the general interests of the country, would he endeavour to provide some contribution to mitigate the burden imposed by order upon local rates generally?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The operation of the Order has been postponed till 1st April next, and in the meantime the suggestion of my hon. Friend will receive careful consideration.

asked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he was aware that not one of the approved applicants for land in Westerham, Dunton Green, Edenbridge, Pembury, and Tonbridge had yet been provided with land under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts; and whether he would consider the advisability of notifying the Kent County Council of the Board's intention to proceed under Section 3 of the Act?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The county council are prepared and are doing their best to obtain sufficient land to satisfy the demand, and this being the case the Board would not be justified at the present time in adopting the course suggested. I may add that land has been offered to several of the applicants, but it has been declined by them.

asked the hon. Member for South Somerset if his attention had been directed to the resolution passed by the Beddington Parish Council on 7th September, ordering the reduction of individual allotment holdings in that parish to one-fourth of an acre, and giving the present tenants notice to vacate all land in excess of that amount; whether the Board's inspector had assured the present occupants that they would not be disturbed till other land was found them; and would he take steps to secure that no ejection took place before such other land was provided?

We have not received a copy of the resolution, but we are informed by the chairman of the parish council that at present it is only proposed to reduce by 30 rods the area of a single allotment, the holder of which holds at present 107 rods. This cannot, however, be done until Michaelmas, 1910. In the meantime we will cause further inquiry to be made, and do what is practicable to secure the provision of the land required to satisfy the existing demand. The inspector did not give any such assurance as is suggested in the question.

asked the hon. Member for South Somerset if he could state what steps the Kent County Council had taken to provide land under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act for the members of the Welling Small Holdings Association, whose applications had been duly approved; and, if it were found that the county council was not proceeding with the matter, would the Board exercise its powers by having a scheme prepared and negotiations entered into for the acquisition of land?

No land has been at present obtained in the Welling district, and the county council state that they do not know of any land to which a Compulsory Order could suitably be applied, having regard to the restrictions imposed by Section 41 of the Small Holdings Act and also to the high rents which would have to be asked to recoup the council the heavy expenses and outgoings of any suitable land in the district which could be so acquired. We are sending an inspector to make full inquiry into the matter, and on receipt of his report I will communicate again with my hon. Friend.

asked the hon. Member for South Somerset whether he would state what was the nature of the representations made by the Government of the United States of America as to the marking of imported hops, as indicated in the Bill introduced by the Government this year?

No such representations were received from the United States Government.

asked the hon. Member for South Somerset whether the Governments of Belgium, Austria, and Germany made representations to the Foreign Office against a detailed system of marking hops, as outlined in the Bill introduced by the Government this year?

The answer is in the affirmative.

asked the hon. Member for South Somerset whether he could give an estimate of the total yield of British hops this year; how much it would fall short of the quantity required for an average year's brewing; how much the deficiency would cost if purchased from foreign countries at the present average price; if he would state how many additional acres under cultivation in this country would render imports unnecessary; whether he could state the approximate cost of planting and bringing to maturity an acre of hops; and whether he could give an estimate of the total expenditure involved in cultivating the additional acreage necessary to produce sufficient to meet the demands of home brewers?

We are not yet able to give an estimate of the British yield of hops this year. The average annual imports during the last five years have amounted to rather more than 227,000 cwt., which would represent the produce, at the average yield per acre in England during that period, of nearly 25,000 acres. The cost of production of hops varies considerably, but the Select Committee on the Hop Industry thought that £40 might be taken as the average annual cost of raising and placing on the market the produce of an acre of hops.

asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether, in view of the fact that the operation of the Land Purchase Acts was raising difficulties in regard to the administration of the Fishery Laws, he proposed to take any steps to secure the rights of purchasing tenants in the rivers adjoining their holdings?

This matter is now under consideration, but I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether his attention had been drawn to the action of Mr. Tighe in connection with the Salmon Fisheries on the River Nore; and whether he would see that the Fisheries Acts are strictly observed?

No complaint has been recently received by the Department in this matter. If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars I will have inquiry made.

Is not the complaint in this case that one end of the net is fast to the shore, and thus it becomes a fixed engine, which is against the Act of Parliament? Will further inquiries be made, and, if it is found that this gentleman is fishing with a fixed engine, which is illegal, will the law be enforced?

That is what I mean by making inquiry.

asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether his attention had been called to allegations of Episcopalian ascendancy in the appointments in the veterinary branch of his Department; whether he was aware that, although Catholics preponderated in the appointments given by competitive examination, they numbered only about one-fourth in the appointments conferred by nomination, and that the average salary of Episcopalian officials was £248, whilst that of Catholic officials was only £106; and what steps he proposed to take to secure the abolition of religious tests for such appointments, and to ensure that candidates should not be penalised because they belonged to the same religious denomination as the majority of their countrymen?

I have seen a printed statement containing allegations of the kind referred to. The Department, I am informed, has no means of telling the religious persuasion of any of the fourteen officers in question as no record whatever is kept of this nor are any inquiries made. But in regard to the charges made against the veterinary branch, it must be remembered, first, that on the formation of the Department the staff previously in charge of the work under the Privy Council was transferred to and incorporated with the Department. This accounts for almost the whole of the principal officers. And, secondly, that the main portion of the clerical staff of the Department, apart from the temporary clerks, is assigned by the Civil Service Commissioners, and the Department has nothing to do with these appointments. I regret that it should be possible for such charges to be made, and I can only say with confidence that no such bias has actuated me in making any appointment for which I have been responsible.

Has the right hon. Gentleman the slightest reason to doubt the accuracy of the figures contained in the question?

I have no means of informing myself on the point raised. I do not know the whole of the individual members of the veterinary staff. On a matter so delicate as this I must ask Irish Members to believe that, at all events, so far as I am concerned, and as long as I am in the Department, religious bias has not and will not influence me in any way.

I quite accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance. But from his long political experience has he not come to the conclusion that the maintenance of Episcopalian ascendancy is the be-all and end-all of Irish Unionism?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had received any official information showing that the Sultan of Morocco had put the Pretender to death by torture; and whether, if he had not received such information, he would inquire of the British representative at Fez whether this had happened?

The last information is that there is no confirmation of the report. As soon as the European representatives at Fez have any information, they will no doubt report it.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he would make inquiries as to whether it would be possible to give the inhabitants of the Skerries Islands, Shetland, a weekly steamer service during the winter months?

I am having inquiry made in the matter.

asked the Postmaster-General if he could make any statement in regard to his negotiations with the Marconi Company and with Lloyd's in reference to the acquisition by the Post Office of the radio-telegraphic shore stations?

I am glad to say that arrangements have been completed with the Marconi Company for the transfer to the Post Office of all their coast stations for communication with ships, including all plant, machinery, buildings, land and leases, etc., and for the surrender of the rights which they enjoy under their agreement with the Post Office of August, 1904, for licences or facilities in respect of coast stations intended for such communication. In addition the Post Office secures the right of using, free of royalty, the existing Marconi patents, and any future patents or improvements, for a term of fourteen years, for the following purposes; communication for all purpose? between stations in the United Kingdom and ships, and between stations on the mainland of Great Britain and Ireland, on the one hand, and outlying islands, on the other hand, or between any two outlying islands; and (except for the transmission of public telegrams) between any two stations on the mainland; and on board Post Office cable ships. The inclusive consideration to be paid to the company is £15,000. The arrangement is in no sense an exclusive one. All the stations will, under the International Radio-telegraphic Convention, be open for communication equally to all ships, whatever system of wireless telegraphy they may carry; and the Post Office will be free to use or to experiment with any system of wireless telegraphy at its discretion. All inland communication of messages by wireless telegraphy will be entirely under the control of the Post Office. The company will retain the licence for their long-distance stations at Poldhu and Clifden, which are primarily intended for shore to shore communication with America. Arrangements have also been made with Lloyd's for the transfer to the Post Office of their wireless stations for communication with ships, and for the surrender of all claims to licences for such communication. In return Lloyd's will receive the plant value of their stations, and will have transmitted to them (with due regard to the secrecy of private telegrams) information received at the Post Office stations in regard to the position and movements of ships, and other maritime intelligence. Lloyd's and the Marconi Company have mutually arranged to cancel an agreement between themselves which was made in 1901, and which has proved a source of dispute, and, therefore, an obstacle to the development of wireless telegraphy. I am satisfied that it is to the public interest, both from a commercial and a strategical point of view, that the coast stations used for communication with ships should be in the hands of the Government, and should be worked as part and parcel of the general telegraphic system of the country. I think it important also that no private monopoly in wireless telegraphy should be allowed to glow up. I trust that the new arrangements will result in an even more rapid extension of the use of this important invention than has taken place in the past. I may add that the negotiations and arrangements have been conducted with the knowledge of, and in consultation with the Admiralty, who consider it important that the coast wireless stations should be in the hands of the Post Office.

May I ask, in view of the great importance of the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has just given, that he will have it printed in the Papers?

Yes, Sir; I will do that. At the same time, in view of the importance of the matter, I am sending a statement to the Press, and it will doubtless appear in to-morrow morning's papers. But I will have it circulated.

May I ask the Postmaster-General whether, if under these new arrangements, the Government staff has to be increased, the claims of those men who have been discharged for want of work by both Lloyd's and Marconi's will be taken up by the Government with a view to giving these men employment in work at which they are experts?

Most certainly. That is a matter that has not escaped my attention. We will be able to take into employment every one of these men employed by Marconi or Lloyd's, subject, of course, to good character.

In the event of the outbreak of war will the Government have any power to take possession of the long-distance stations which are not included in the present agreement?

I think that is so. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of that question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish particulars concerning the duties to be performed by, and the qualifications required of, the persons whom he deems suitable to fill the various positions under the new system of Labour Exchanges; and if he will postpone the consideration of all applications until some date, to be fixed at his earliest convenience, which will give a reasonable opportunity for suitable persons to apply after he has stated his requirements?

In view of the fact that over 5,000 applications have been received for Labour Exchange posts, and of the desirability of opening the principal Exchanges at as early a date as possible, I do not consider that it is advisable to postpone the consideration of applications. It is not possible to make a hard and fast definition of the qualifications required for Labour Exchange managers, but the general nature of their duties must be widely known.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the admission by the London and North-Western Railway Company that a subsidence has taken place on their line near Oldbury owing to mining operations, and that in consequence trains have to continuously travel at a slow speed over the site of the workings, he will cause an inspection to be made on behalf of the Board of Trade in order that the travelling public may have the satisfaction of an independent report on a matter affecting their safety?

The Board of Trade have no power to order such an inspection to be made, and I should deprecate taking any step which might seem in any way to relieve the railway company of the responsibility which rests on them to ensure the safe working of the line. I have no reason to doubt that the company are doing all that is necessary in the matter.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the suicide at sea, on 9th February, 1909, of an Asiatic trimmer named Fang Cho, whilst serving on the steamer "Changsha," of London; whether the seaman was medically examined before joining; how long he had served on the vessel; whether he had any previous sea service; whether he was on duty at the time; what was the temperature of the engine-room and stokehold; how much coal the engine-room hands were required to work each 24 hours; whether the engineer's log-book has been produced to the Board of Trade surveyors; and whether any previous cases of death from suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance have occurred on this vessel?

The Asiatic trimmer referred to joined the "Changsha" on the 21st November, 1908. He was on duty when he disappeared. The temperature of the engine-room was 107 degrees, and of the stokehold 100 degrees. No other case of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance, has occurred in this vessel during the last three years. As the "Changsha" has been trading abroad since the man's disappearance the Board of Trade surveyors have not had an opportunity of visiting her, and I am unable at present to give the other particulars asked for by the hon. Member.

Have the Board of Trade ever considered the advisability of prosecuting the owners of these vessels where the temperature of these rooms is noted for being so high?

I do not think we have power to prosecute. What power we have we exercise in endeavouring to get recommendations carried out. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put his question down.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the death at sea from phthisis, on the 25th April, 1909, of an Asiatic seaman, named Baboojan Cadir Box, whilst serving on the steamer "Fultala," of Glasgow; whether the seaman was medically examined before joining; how long he had served on the vessel; whether he had any previous sea service; whether steps were taken to isolate him from the rest of the crew; and whether any previous cases of death from this disease have occurred on this vessel?

The seaman in question was being conveyed from Mauritius to Calcutta as a "distressed British seaman," and had gone on board suffering from phthisis in its last stage. He was attended by the ship's doctor. No other death from phthisis has occurred on this ship during the last three years. As the "Fultala" is regularly employed in Eastern waters and her crews are engaged and discharged in India, the other particulars asked for by the hon. Member are not available.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, if he is aware that the approximate price of coal in the United Kingdom is given in the General Report and Statistics for 1907 (Mines and Quarries, Part III.) at 9s. 4.41d.; and can he or his Department testify to the complete accuracy of the price given in the Report?

I beg leave to answer this question on behalf of my right hon. Friend. The approximate average price at the mines of coal in the United Kingdom for the year 1907, as given in the General Report and Statistics, is 9s., not 9s. 4.41d. The latter is the price for Ireland. As will be seen from the heading to the column in the Report, the prices given are only approximate. The figures are based on information supplied voluntarily by owners to the inspectors of mines, and their absolute accuracy cannot be guaranteed, though there is good reason to think they are substantially correct.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House as to whether the Board of Trade by Act of Parliament or otherwise has any authority to compel an owner, agent, or manager of a mine, or someone in charge of a mine to state upon oath if the various classes of coal raised, and the prices received by them—

I think hon. Members ought to give notice of some of these questions.

asked the hon. Member for the Crewe Division, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether he can state the number of licensed houses owned or leased by them outside the area of the county of London?

The number of public-houses on the estates vested in or managed by the Commissioners (outside the area of the county of London) is 192.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the two floating docks for which tenders are now being asked are those for which a sum on account was provided in the Navy Estimates, 1909–10; and, if so, whether it is intended to also ask for tenders for two further floating docks, so that at least two such docks suitable for vessels of the "Dreadnought" type may be placed on the north-east coast with the least possible delay?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and the two floating docks for which tenders are being asked will be suitable for vessels of the "Dreadnought" type. It is not intended to ask for tenders for two further floating docks.

Will one at least of these floating docks be placed on the North-East Coast?

I do not think I can possibly add to the statement on this point which has been made by the First Lord of the Admiralty in reply to questions and in Debate in this House.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the contracts for the supply of granite at Rosyth are under reconsideration; and whether Any decision has been arrived at as to whom the work is to be given to?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether new tenders have been issued in connection with the granite required for the Rosyth naval base; whether, and in what respects, the terms of the new tender differ from those originally issued; and if he can state under what circumstances it has been found necessary to withdraw the contract from Norwegian quarry owners in order, if possible, that British firms may secure the contract?

In inviting tenders for the execution of the work at Rosyth, alternative tenders were asked for in connection with that part of the work for which granite would be required. The granite must come up to the standard of our requirements, and at the price offered foreign granite was selected. Subject to this, the Admiralty have nothing to do with the arrangements for procuring the granite, which are entirely in the hands of the main contractor.

Is this granite dressed abroad or in the United Kingdom?

I cannot tax my memory on that. The hon. Member might give me notice of it.

Will the hon. Gentleman abate the amount of the two tenders?

Foreign granite up to our requirements was offered at £104,000, and British granite at £134,000.

Were tests made of the samples of Norwegian granite submitted by the contractors, and were they found to be efficient in quality?

There was an official report on the matter, I think, to the First Lord, and certainly the granite that we ultimately agreed upon was up to our requirements.

Was the granite ultimately agreed upon Norwegian granite?

It was foreign granite, certainly.

"'Morning Post' granite."

Is my hon. Friend aware that the contract is about to be issued, if not already issued, and will he give British contractors an opportunity of revising their tenders?

I am aware of that, but subject to the granite being up to the Admiralty requirements and to the price already determined upon, I suppose the contractor will have to communicate with us in the matter, and it is scarcely likely that we should put any difficulty in their way.

Has the Admiralty any evidence of the durability of Norwegian granite?

The granite we accepted was up to our requirements.

It has not been in use so long?

It certainly lasted since the days of the last Government.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the working of land banks, credit societies, and agricultural co-operative associations, and their relation to the development of small ownership, in foreign countries and in our Colonies?

I am disposed to think that this is a subject which has passed beyond the stage of inquiry, as the advantages of the institutions in question are generally understood and appreciated. My Noble Friend, the President of the Board of Agriculture, and his Department, is taking active steps in concert with certain voluntary organisations for the encouragement of co-operative associations.

asked the Prime Minister if he can state when a Vote will be submitted to the House in connection with the Report of the Treasury Committee on the Organisation of Oriental Studies; whether an initial, as well as an annual, grant is proposed; and whether the House will be given any opportunity of discussing this subject?

No Vote will be submitted to the House in this connection during the present Session. The details are still under consideration, and in the meantime I must refer my hon. Friend to what was said by my Noble Friend Lord Morley in another place, to which I have nothing at present to add.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether an investigation is being made by the Army Council into the fatal shooting accident to the Rev. Mr. Hodgson in the Territorial camp at Guisborough; if so, when was the inquiry commenced; and can he state the probable time of its completion, and whether the report will be published in full when ready?

I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for the Andover Division of Hampshire in reply to a similar question.

Is it the intention of the Department never to make any report?

These reports, as I mentioned yesterday, are not for publication. Of course, the War Office are taking steps to prevent any such similar occurrence.

Has any communication-been made to the relatives of the gentleman who was shot? As I understand, they know nothing at all about what the War Office did or intends to do.

The deep regret of all concerned was at once expressed to the relatives of the gentleman who was shot.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in Australia an objection exists to the terms Colonies and Colonial as applied to the Commonwealth or its component parts; and whether he will take steps to secure that in future in official documents and in oral references in Parliament on behalf of His Majesty's Government the employment of such terms as indicated will be avoided?

Yes, Sir; there is no doubt that such an objection exists, but certainly in the Colonial Office and, so far as I am aware, in all formal communications with or references to Australia, the practice is well settled of making use of the correct expressions Commonwealth or States as the case may be.

May I ask for an answer to the second part of the question in reference to official documents and oral references in Parliament? I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider that important.

Well, Sir, as to the substantive there is a synonym, but if the ton. Member will furnish me with an adjective to substitute for Colonial I will be glad.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners intend to divide all the untenanted land upon the Baggot estate, Ballygar, county Galway, amongst the tenants who are in possession of uneconomic holdings; and will the tenants get possession of the game?

The Estates Commissioners have already allotted over 3,000 acres of untenanted land and bog amongst the tenants on this estate. Arrangements have not yet been completed for the allotment of the residue of the lands.

How much of the land still remains to be allotted?

I am afraid I cannot answer that question. Some of the land still remains to be allotted.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, about a year ago, the Estates Commissioners noted 41 applications from evicted tenants in the county Wicklow as suitable to be provided with holdings; and can he say how many of these 41 applicants have since been provided with holdings?

The Estates Commissioners inform me that 19 county Wicklow evicted tenants have been reinstated or provided with new holdings by them, and six by landlords, and that 21 others have been noted for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land in respect of which purchase proceedings are pending before the Commissioners.

also asked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners have purchased, or are negotiating for the purchase of, the Saunders Grove estate, at Baltinglass, county Wicklow; and, if so, whether the Estates Commissioners propose to sell to John Lee the farm on the Saunders estate from which he was evicted two years ago?

The Estates Commissioners had a preliminary inspection made of part of this estate with the consent of the late owner, but the present owner is not willing to sell, and no proceedings are now pending for the sale of the estate. The Commissioners received an application from John Lee for reinstatement in a holding from which, according to his statement, he was evicted in June, 1907. The holding is now in the occupation of Thomas Lee. The application does not come within the provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act, and the Commissioners have decided to take no action in the matter.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what method was adopted in the recent appointment of 39 assistant engineers to the Indian Public Works Department; were the vacancies advertised; was there a competitive examination, and, if so, where was it held; and what is the salary of an assistant engineer?

I regret that in answering the hon. Member on this subject on 21st September I fell into an inaccuracy. The total number of appointments made this year was 30, not 39 as I then stated. The vacancies in question were widely advertised, and the applicants numbered over 230. There was no competitive examination; the selection was made by means of a committee, which included two eminent representatives of the engineering profession. The salary of an assistant engineer begins at £304 a year, and rises eventually to £528 a year. I shall be glad to supply the hon. Member, if he so desires, with a copy of the regulations giving full particulars of the method of appointment, qualifications, conditions of service, etc. The annual recruitment held in London is for the purpose of supplying what is essentially the European branch of the service; the essentially Indian branch, known as the Provincial Service, is recruited in India to the extent of fourteen appointments annually. These are made mainly from the Indian Engineering Colleges, supplemented by promotion from the Subordinate Establishment. Moreover, even in the case of the appointments made in England, the Secretary of State has directed that 10 per cent. of the total number of vacancies shall be filled each year by the appointment of Indians, should there be a sufficient number of qualified Indian applicants, and the full number of Indians were appointed under this rule this year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the practice extensively carried on in Germany and America whereby wardrobe and lavatory accommodation is provided for workmen at the place of their employment; and whether, in view of the benefit in public health and cleanliness to be derived from such a practice, he will consider the advisability of securing the extension of the practice in this country?

My attention has been called to this matter, and, in connection with mines, it has received the consideration of the Royal Commission on Mines. The hon. Member will find their recommendations on the subject in Part XVIII. of their recently issued Report. In the case of a number of trades where the conditions of work make the provision of lavatory and cloak-room accommodation especially important for the health of the workpeople, the employer is now required under the Factory Acts to provide it; and in many other cases such accommodation is supplied voluntarily by employers. The Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for 1908 notes, I am glad to say, a growing tendency to provide improved facilities for washing in many districts, and the question is receiving the constant attention of my Department.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his Department has had under consideration the recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee with respect to the positions of the postal superintending officers; and whether, in view of the delay in the determination of the future of these officers, he will do what he can to hasten a settlement?

The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. The recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee, so far as they relate to the officers in question, have already been carried into effect.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the actuarial calculation upon which the scheme under the Superannuation Act is based?

The actuaries, on whose report the provisions of the Superannuation Act, 1909, are based, were asked to advise whether the new scheme of superannuation recommended by the Courtney Commission in 1903 could be introduced for all future Civil servants without increasing the non-effective charge on public funds, and what modifications, if any, should be made in that scheme in order to satisfy this condition and to enable the scheme to be applied, with substantial justice, to existing Civil servants. The actuaries reported that somewhat more favourable terms than those contemplated by the Courtney Commission could be given, and they submitted alternative schemes for this purpose, one of which schemes was made the basis of the new Act. The Treasury is not, however, in possession of the calculations on which the report was based.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, whether it is the practice, when a pension committee grants an old age pension and an appeal is lodged by the pension officer, that payment of the pension is suspended; and, if so, by what authority, and under what power, and by whom is the payment of the pension so suspended?

Under Section 7 (1) (c) of the old Age Pensions Act, the effect of an appeal being made is to render inoperative the decision appealed against and to transfer the duty of determining the claim or question to the central pension authority. There is thus in such circumstances no operative allowance of the claim until it has been allowed by the central pension authority, and under Section 5 (2) of the Act the pension does not commence to accrue until the first Friday following such allowance.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the other part of my question, and state whether this is done by the pension officer, the Treasury, or either, or both?

As I have already stated, there being no pension it cannot be suspended. A pension is inoperative until the claim has been allowed by the central pension authority.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he will state the amount of duty imposed on English hops sent to the various countries which export hops to this country?

The duties imposed on the importation of hops into the principal countries from which we receive hops are as follows:—The United States, 10 cents per lb., or £3 13s. 8d. per cwt.; Germany, 20 marks per 100 kilograms, or 10s. per cwt.; Canada, 4 cents per lb., or 18s. 5d. per cwt. No duty is imposed on hops imported into Belgium.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give the names of the countries that send hops to Great Britain and the quantities received from each country; whether the pockets are marked with the name of the grower and the parish of origin; and will he state generally the system of marking enforced by this country on imported hops?

In 1908 279,926 cwt. of hops were imported into the United Kingdom, of which 190,987 cwt. were consigned from the United States, 69,002 cwt. from Germany, 9,989 cwt. from Belgium, 6,025 cwt. from Canada and 3,923 cwt. from other countries. There are no regulations requiring the marking of imported hops either with the name of the grower or the parish of origin or in any other way. Imported hops are, however, subject to the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Acts with regard to false marking.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he would present to Parliament a Return of the annual expenditure and of the various sources of income of each of the secondary schools that are under the Charitable Trusts Act?

The Board are now taking steps to standardise and collect accounts of schools and institutions providing education other than elementary, and are about to issue forms of accounts to the various schools for this purpose. By this means it is hoped to secure a uniform basis and a uniform period. When a sufficient time has elapsed to enable the returns for a uniform year to be made up and examined, I hope it will be possible to publish some statistics on the subject. Any return based on the information at present in the Board's possession would be extremely incomplete and misleading.

Will these returns be sent to the schools referred to in the question?

I cannot say that they will be sent to the whole of the schools under the Charitable Trusts Act. They will be sent to those schools which receive grants from the Board of Education.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to get the information for which I ask?

Yes, I am taking steps, as far as I am able, to get the information.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he will present to Parliament the accounts of Eton and Winchester Schools?

The powers of the Board of Education to require the delivery of accounts by the trustees of educational charities arise under Sections 10 and 61 of the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, and Sections 44 and 45 of the Charitable Trusts Amendment Act, 1855. Eton and Winchester are, by Section 49 of the Charitable Trusts Amendment Act, 1855, outside the jurisdiction of the Board under the Charitable Trusts Acts, and are also under Section 8 (1) of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, exempt from the jurisdiction of the Board under the Endowed Schools Acts as being schools mentioned in Section 3 of the Public Schools Act, 1868.

asked the President of the Board of Education what has been the annual increase in the administrative cost of his Department during each of the financial years 1906–7, 1907–8, 1908–9, and 1909–10; and what number of persons have been added to the staff in each of these years?

The answer must necessarily be rather long and complicated, and if the hon. Member will allow me I will circulate it with the Votes this evening.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can state the number of non-provided schools of the Church of England, Roman Catholic, and other denominations in England and Wales which have been closed during 1907, 1908, and the first six months of 1909, because structural defects have not been remedied, and the number of schools which are threatened with the same treatment?

I will circulate with the Votes a table giving the number of schools of the various denominations which have been closed during the period referred to in the question, but it is not possible to say in how many cases the closure was due to requirements as to structural alterations not having been complied with. Nor am I able to say how many schools are threatened with closure for the same reason. In the majority of cases the Board's requirements are duly carried out.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the last Report of the Committee of the Board of Trade on the question of automatic couplings for railway trucks is dated the 1st June, 1908, whereas the statement by the French Minister of Public Works concerning the Boirault coupler was made in May, 1909, and the trials by the Swiss Federal Department of Posts and Railways took place in September, 1909, he will give instructions for a special Report to be made on the latter type of coupler and present such Report to the House?

I will take steps to obtain information in regard to the statement by the Minister of Public Works and the trials referred to by my hon. Friend. On receipt of this information I will consider whether it would be useful to call for a special Report on the type of coupler referred to.

Can the hon. Gentleman hold out any hope to the House that this life-saving apparatus will shortly be enforced on the British railways?

No, Sir; I am not prepared to make any statement.

May I ask the Home Secretary if he has any information as to the state of health of the women Suffragettes in prison, and whether they are still being fed by force?

I am glad to say that the steady improvement in the health of all the Suffragettes continues. I am not absolutely able to answer the question as to whether they are still fed by force. "Force," however, is hardly the right word, because, although, as I understand, three of them are being fed by the medical officers, they are, in a sense, fed without any resistance on the part of the prisoners. I may say that in no case has the stomach pump been used.

I addressed a question to the Under-Secretary a few days ago, and he was unable then to give me any reply. May I repeat it, and ask the Home Secretary whether it is not a fact that the women are handcuffed during the time food is administered?

No, Sir, there is no truth whatever in that statement.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he so ostensibly puts forward the medical aspect of the case, and whether the medical officers in the prison have acted under his instructions and by his directions?

I put forward the medical officers because it is a medical question, and, as the hon. Member knows, or might know, heavy responsibility rests upon the medical officers.

Is it usual for medical officers to act on the instructions of the right hon. Gentleman or on their own initiative in such cases?

What authority has the hon. Member for saying I have given instructions to the medical officers? I may tell him it is the duty of the medical officers to attend to the health of prisoners in their charge, and that is precisely what the medical officers have been doing in Birmingham Prison.

After the most careful reading and examination of this Clause, I am quite unable to see any meaning in it. It may be that I have been so long engaged in these Debates that I have lost the power of understanding; but the latter half of the Clause appears to me absolutely meaningless. The first part might exempt a corporate body, such as a club, which actually holds land on a long lease and uses it for the purposes of games and recreation; but as to what the latter half means, or to what it might apply, or with what object the words are added, is to me an absolute blank. I cannot understand it; and I should be very glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be kind enough to explain what it means.

I am in a difficulty in answering, because I cannot quite understand where the difficulty arises. The Clause is the result of considerable discussion, in which I was fortunate to take part, between the representatives of the Treasury, those who were engaged in the Finance Bill, and very important representatives of practically all games and sports in England and Scotland. The point, of course, especially put forward, and which this Clause was designed to meet, and which, I think, the representatives of games and recreations in this country have already agreed it has met, is the contention that it is undesirable that land in the neighbourhood of great towns where games and recreations are provided for the poorer districts—such as that of the London Playing Fields Society—should be built upon. It is the only place where physical exercise is possible for the poorer boys and men who come out from London; and, if the Corporation Tax was levied upon them every 15 years, they would have no funds available with which to pay unless they sold a piece of land, which is exactly what is not wanted in the interests of the community as a whole. The Clause wholly exempts them from the Corporation Tax. Let me take a case which will appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman—the centre of English cricket—the ground at Lord's. The case of the Marylebone Cricket Club seems to be unanswerable. They say: "We get no dividend, and, if there is any surplus money, we give it to help cricket in poorer districts. The ground will probably increase in value, and you will take from us at the end of 15 years a considerable sum which we cannot pay unless we sell, which you do not want us to do." Under those circumstances, the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees that, until that land is sold, they might be excused the Corporation Tax. They are put in the same position as the charitable and friendly societies we have excluded before.

Why only bodies corporate?

It does not seem to us that an individual who has a private golf course of his own should come under the exemption. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that there is a real distinction which should be made. The last words of the Clause are similar to the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to move on the Report stage in connection with the Undeveloped Land Tax. On Clause 11 it was arranged that, if the land was so used under some agreement with the owner which could not be determined for a period of at least five years, or under circumstances which rendered it probable that the land would continue to be so used, then the Undeveloped Land Duty should be excused. We propose to extend that to the Corporation Tax without prejudice to the occasion when the land may be sold. The Undeveloped Land Tax would be such institutions as the London Playing Fields Society, say, be a very considerable tax, because it is good building land they buy. It is, however, necessary that they should remain in that position to provide for clubs. It is quite impossible for London clubs to carry on such games as football in winter further out. The fixing of the term of the lease at five years is in order to ensure that it shall be a bonâ fide transaction, otherwise, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman will recognise, it might be possible for any one to declare that his ground was used for the purposes of sport, and thus escape the Undeveloped Land Duty. It was submitted to us, however, that in the case of the poorer clubs they might be unable to take a lease for five years, as they might not be able to guarantee the rent. Under such circumstances, we give the Commissioners power, where it is reasonably pobable that the land will continue to be used for these purposes, to grant exemption. This, I think, is the only method we could adopt in order to preserve these sporting rights for the poorer members of the community.

I quite understood all that. What I do not understand is how the second part of the Clause and the first part hang together. The first part clearly exempts from the periodic tax land held by a corporate body, but it does not apply to the private individual. The second part applies to the owner who holds the land bonâ fide for the purpose of games and recreation. But then no one except the corporate body pays periodic duty. What we understood the intention of the Clause to be was this: that where any body, whether a private individual or a corporation, has made any agreement to allow land to be used for the purpose of games or recreation, they should not, while the land is so used, be charged the Increment Value Duty until and unless they sell it. No doubt this does cover the case of a corporation, such as that referred to by the hon. Member, which holds lands specially for the purpose of games and recreation. But those cases are comparatively scarce. As regards the case of the private owner who allows his land to be used under an agreement, I think the words in the latter part of the Clause are perfectly satisfactory. In such case the land is to be exempt from this duty until it is sold. But we also understood it was not to be charged—in the event of the death of the owner—the Death Duties. This Clause certainly does not enact that.

I take it what the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to do is to safeguard football and cricket clubs or other clubs connected with games and recreation from having to pay this Undeveloped Land Duty or the Corporation Duty in respect of lands which they hold. Our intention is that such clubs shall be exempted, but I do not see why all private owners should be exempted, as it might make it worth an owner's while to enter into some agreement with a club until the time came round when his estate can be developed. The intention undoubtedly was to exempt those who were actually engaged in furnishing fields for sports and recreation during such time as the land is occupied and used for such purposes, but it was never intended to exempt these lands from the Death Duties.

A man can only allow the land to be held for these purposes until his death. He cannot control the use after his death. If he has allowed the land to be so used free of charge during his lifetime, surely in such cases the exemption should apply. We certainly understood that that concession would be granted. There are innumerable cases where an owner has not only allowed use of the land free of charge but has incurred considerable expense in preparing the ground for the use of the people. He, at any rate, makes no profit out of it. But the land does and must increase in value. I quite agree he should pay the duty in full if he sells it. The periodic duty paid by corporations corresponds in his case to the Death Duty, and I ask why should a corporate body be treated more liberally in a case like this than the private individual who allows his land thus to be used? I can see no possible distinction between the two cases. The result of this proposal of the Government will be that either the clubs will be deprived of the ground or they will have to pay the Increment Value Duty.

This is the first time that argument has been put forward. My hon. Friend was good enough to receive a deputation on this matter, and no speaker put forward such a claim. The hon. and gallant Member is the first to put forward this claim on behalf of the landowner. No one else ever thought of it. We are quite prepared to exempt the private owner from the Increment Value Duty so long as he allows his land to be used for games and recreation. Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not mean to suggest he should be altogether exempt from the Death Duties?

I never suggested that.

If you exempt him from one part of the Death Duties why not from the rest? This is the first time such a suggestion has been put forward. We have gone as far as we were asked.

What would be done if the land were left in trust for a club; if it were left to somebody subject to the provision that the club should have the use of it?

In a trust of that kind the club would have to pay.

What would be the position of the governors of Harrow School, or any other similar unincorporate body, in regard to their land? They might be forced in consequence of the Undeveloped Land Duty to sell it. I know that this case does not stand on all-fours with that put forward by the hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Pretyman), but I should like to know how it will fare with bodies unincorporate which have bought land solely for the purposes of games and recreation?

If the hon. Member will look at Clause 25 he will find that Harrow School will not pay any duty at all as long as the land is actually in use for the purposes of games and recreation.

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I am very grateful to him, and I am quite sure that he is anxious to dissipate my doubts, but they still exist. I referred to land outside the fields actually used for the purpose of cricket or football.

I do not see how that arises now. This land must be used bonâ fide for the purpose of games.

Do we understand that the Government have made up their mind that, assuming there were two pieces of land, one belonging to a limited company, and the other to a private individual, each allowed to be used by boys for the purpose of playing games, and the private individual died, and his successor went on in the same way, there would be this Increment Value Duty to pay, whereas the land which happened to be in the same category belonging to the limited company, which never dies, would entirely escape so long as the company continued to own and use it in that way? If we are right in understanding that that is the intention of the Government as expressed by this Clause, I suppose we can only comment upon it, we are bound to submit.

With great respect, Sir, I venture to ask whether or not the words used here are not "games and recreation," and whether those words are necessarily confined to such violent and concentrated efforts as are represented by cricket or football, and may not extend to country walks for which the lands I was referring to are purchased and maintained by the school?

This land about which the hon. Member is inquiring, is kept for the purpose of the Harrow boys walking round it?

With respect, Sir, I submit it is to a great extent. If I may go on for a moment in regard to motives I would say there are always mixed motives, and the motives of the governors of Harrow School, may, like those of other individuals, be of that character. Of course there may be the wish to keep off the builder, which I submit to the Committee is a perfectly legitimate and laudable object. I cannot see why the builder who erects red brick houses for the few is a greater benefactor than the farmer who raises food for the many.

Now the hon. Member is showing what he really means, and he is not in order.

This is not a common case, but I know one in the north-west of London where the land has been let, but at a very low rent, because the club could not afford more for the purposes of sport. Suppose the owner dies and the property passes to trustees, if Increment Value Duty is to be paid I suppose the trustees would be in honour bound, as trustees, to get some return. Undoubtedly the land would fetch a higher rent, and they may have to exact it, or they may probably sacrifice a part of it, and the consequence will be that the land will pass away from the club and would be lost for the purposes of sport. I can imagine a case in which the point would be met if the right hon. Gentleman confined the Increment Value Duty to sales, but if there is that duty at death the result will not be so much to relieve the landlord as it will be to drive these clubs out of possession of ground very much against the interests of sport. Just one other question arises under this Clause. Under Clause 11, which deals with Undeveloped Land Duty, the Commissioners were not, I understood, to have anything like the same powers as they, are given under this Clause, but that there was to be an appeal to some form of referee; and I would ask whether it is right to give the Commissioners these powers without the same appeal that you have agreed to give in the case of parks and access to parks under Clause 11? If an appeal is good in one case it certainly should be good in the other.

We cannot let the individual off Death Duties in a case of this kind. After all, the case of the corporation and of the private individual is not on all fours. In the first place, a corporation does not pay Death Duty in the ordinary sense of the term, whereas the individual does. There is a nominal Death Duty against corporations, but it is only nominal. Moreover, the private individual might make arrangements of this kind to escape the duty altogether until he dies, but I cannot conceive that any corporation working for a profit would do so. Therefore in regard to corporations there is not the same danger of evasion which it is necessary to safeguard in cases of this kind with regard to individuals. All that is wanted is, as far as we possibly can, to encourage the owners giving the land for the purpose of games without charge, but, at the same time, not to open the door which might result in the loss of a considerable amount of revenue from which the taxpayer will escape. I must guard the safety of the revenue in that direction, and I am sure if the Clause were extended as proposed by the hon. Member we should be endangering a considerable portion of the revenue.

May I ask about the appeal and that under Clause 11?

I cannot remember the arrangement referred to. I do not think it is a case for judges to decide. If the hon. Member will look at the Clause he will see that it is a case which the Commissioners could be much better left to decide.

Clause 11 deals with access to parks, and I understood there was a distinct promise that there was to be an appeal, though the exact appeal was not determined; some suggested the Local Government Board and others special referees.

I was not present when that particular matter was discussed. I believe there was considerable debate.

Am I right in supposing, Sir, that upon this Clause, which we are discussing before any Amendment is moved, it is competent to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer or to appeal to him to alter it in form so as to cover any particular case which would not now come within its purview?

It depends upon whether I consider the point which is raised comes within the four corners of the Clause or not.

Am I in order in asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in regard to this Clause, he will consider whether the words cannot be so amended that they may expressly cover not only ground which is actually used for games, but whether they could be made to cover the larger and more extensive case of land used actually for recreation, though not in the actual sense of games? The reason I put this to you is that I gather I was ruled out because the lands to which I referred were used for recreation and not for games.

That was not the point I ruled the hon. Member out for.

May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would consider the short case I put to him?

The hon. Member wants to exempt land which is not used for football or cricket, but on which boys may have a sort of paper-chase. That would cover the whole of the land in the neighbourhood of London.

May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer precisely what he has in view in moving this Clause?

Under the Bill as drafted it is conceivable that in the case of a suite of chambers in a building you would have to go through the whole process of valuing the site value and finding the proportion of the site value referable to that particular flat. In order to avoid that it is proposed that there should be no Increment Duty whenever you let, say, a separate suite of chambers, and it is only either on the death of the owner that the tax is collected or, if a corporation owns the whole of the flats, there will be a Corporation Tax.

You may have very costly flats owned absolutely as freeholds, and they may have all the peculiarities of augmentation of value through the efforts of the community, and they may be far more valuable than houses situated not very far from them. As I understand the wording of the Clause, a person who happens to own house property in the form of flats will escape all these duties.

No.

He will escape Increment Duty.

No.

I thought, reading the Clause, that if the owner of a flat lets it he does not pay Increment Duty, but if he lets a house of precisely the same magnitude and cost he would pay duty. I want to know whether that is the effect of the Clause, and, if it is, what argument the Government have in its favour?

The effect of the Clause is to make an exemption of leasehold and not of freehold. I speak with some diffidence on the point, but there can be no freehold in these separate tenements in England. I am speaking for a subordinate part of the United Kingdom. In England the only freeholds in these tenements that I think exist at all are in Lincoln's Inn. You cannot, according to our law, make freeholds in flats. What the Clause does is to put the burden of the duty upon the owner of the fee simple of the whole block. The duty is collected at his death or, if the ownership be in the hands of a corporation, then, of course, Corporation Duty is paid, but if the land is let on lease then the granting of the lease or the transfer of the lease is not made an occasion upon which the duty is paid. It cuts leases out of the interests in land on the transfer or creation of which the Increment Value Duty is collected. It confines the collection of the duty to the owner of the freehold or fee simple of the whole block, because it would be an extremely inconvenient and a very difficult process indeed to try and ascertain the site value of a leasehold interest in flats or tenements.

Then I understand that the justification of this exemption has nothing to do with the equities of the case or the magnitude of the property in question. The exemption is simply based upon a certain difficulty of assessment which may really exist, and as long as the Government admits that they have no justification for their Clause except the practical difficulties, of course, I leave it there. But let us understand exactly where we are. Where one man has a long lease of a house and another of a flat, both grown in value, and they sell their leases, one pays Increment Duty and the other does not. That is an anomaly which it is extremely difficult to justify, and as long as the Government admit that it is an anomaly and that they cannot defend it except on the practical ground of the difficulty of equitable valuation, I do not propose to argue the matter any more. I only want to have it cleared up.

So do I, but I cannot leave it quite where the right hon. Gentleman has left it. It is true that we narrow the number of occasions on which you collect duty, but the amount which you collect is exactly the same in the long run. As far as flat property is concerned, you collect it first of all on the death of the owner of all the block, or, if it is a corporation, then you charge it every 15 years.

If the lease of a flat is more than 50 years the tenant becomes the owner. How is that treated?

How can he be the owner of the block? There may be a person who is the owner of the block who has 50 years to run. Then he pays. Flat property does not escape. That is all I wanted to point out.

But it does. The right hon. Gentleman admits that it escapes in Scotland.

No, I do not.

There is no owner of a block in Scotland, and the owners of the flats escape; and in most cases I am uncommonly glad they should escape. The right hon. Gentleman says in England ultimately the Exchequer gets the money, but he does not get it from the man who has a long lease of the flat, while he does get it from the man who has a long lease of a house. I will repeat again, even after the Chancellor of the Exchequer's explanation, indeed, in consequence of that explanation, that there is a totally different incidence of this tax on flats from the incidence of the tax on houses. A man who leases a house and sells the lease for an augmented sum pays Increment Duty. A man who leases a flat which increases in value and sells the lease does not pay duty. Someone else pays it. That is the obvious and plain distinction for which there is apparently no justification whatever given by the Government—certainly not by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I should like to know how the valuation is to be made. I take it that on transfer or on passing at death the owner of a block has to pay Increment Duty. What is the valuation on which he pays? Is it the amount for which he lets the whole block added together, or are the different separate values of each flat in that block taken into consideration? It is quite possible that the separate value of a flat might be more than it was let for by the original owner of the block. The leasehold might have been sold for a higher sum than was originally paid for it by the man who first took it. Which of these sums is to be the valuation on which he pays Increment Duty?

He does not pay on the flat at all, but on the increase of the value of the site. It is an increment value on the site, and not on the bricks and mortar.

Clause 2, paragraph (b), says the site value is ascertained by the amount of the transfer: "Where the occasion is the grant of any lease of the land or the transfer on sale of any interest in the land, the value of the fee simple of the land calculated on the basis of the value of the consideration for the grant of the lease." What is the grant of the lease? Which lease does it refer to—the whole block or the buildings which comprise it?

If the Noble Lord has read the Clause I have put down he would realise that on the occasion of the lease of a flat there is no charge made, and that is the point of the whole Clause. If there is a sale of the whole block, surely it is known what the increase of the site value is which is in the consideration. It is on the occasion of sale or death only that you charge it.

I am alluding to the case of death. You have to find out what is the value of the building at that time in order to get at the Increment Value Duty which is due. Do you take the rents which are paid in the aggregate to the owner of the block, or do you take into account the sub-leases of the various flats which may have been let?

I really do not know what the Noble Lord means. On the death of the owner the whole block would be valued. The value so ascertained would show whether there was any increment of site value, and the duty would be charged upon that.

How does he get at the value of the site? That is what I mean. When there is a transfer on sale, or a lease, that is what he has to go upon.

I beg the Noble Lord's pardon. When property passes at death there may be no lease at all, and the value of the property at death is ascertained in the same way, whether it is a flat or any other form of property.

This deals only with site value, and you may have a block of buildings consisting of flats, each flat belonging to a separate proprietor. When one of the flats is sold, how do you ascertain the site value, that flat being only one of a number in the same block of buildings? Take the case of a flat on the top of a four-storey tenement, and suppose you sell that, what duty has to be paid? The Chancellor of the Exchequer must realise that there is a great deal of property held in Scotland in that position, and I confess I was absolutely unable to understand, from what was said by the Attorney-General, how you would ascertain the site value in a case of that kind, and I am still less able to understand from the explanation given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.