on an amendment moved by Mr. L. Hardy, promised a Committee to consider the procedure to be adopted in selecting amendments; but this scheme was abandoned early in September, as amendments were put down to the motion for the Committee which would have unduly widened the scope of the discussion.

The debate on the Bill was resumed on August 9 at Clause 10, imposing the undeveloped land duty. Amendments discussed were (a) that of Mr. Remnant (U., Holborn, Finsbury) limiting the duty to land passing after the commencement of the Act-rejected by 137 to 79; (b) that of Mr. Fell (U., Great Yarmouth) postponing it till 1920. On this latter the Attorney-General intimated that the Government would undertake the valuation. This, though expected, had not been formally announced; and Mr. Balfour drew the inference that, as the work could not be completed by March, 1910, the Government did not intend the Bill to pass. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, while promising concessions, said that the land taxable, being strips of suburban property, could easily be valued in time; and eventually the amendment was rejected after closure by 189 to 93. (c) An amendment moved by Mr. Joynson Hicks (U., Manchester, N.W.) excluding land not unreasonably withheld from development was negatived after closure by 175 to 83. "Hard cases" were cited of land subject to the Bill becoming unsaleable, and Mr. Harold Cox (L., Preston) was prominent in opposing the Government. Two amendments were then selected by the Chair under the new rule. The first, (d) moved for Mr. Fell by Mr. Mitchell-Thomson (U., Lanark, N.W.) and halving the tax, was supported by Sir R. Perks (L., Louth, Lincs) in the interest of the many small owners in that county, but rejected after closure by 208 to 112. Incidentally, Mr. Haldane, in reply to Mr. Balfour, stated amid ironical Opposition cheers, that the 350,000l. expected from the tax on undeveloped land and that on ungotten minerals would be divided between them "about half and half." Mr. Balfour contended with spirit that the valuation would cost 10,000,000l., and the tax would produce slightly above 40,0001. (e) Sir R. Ropner (U., Stockton-on-Tees) moved to limit the duty to 5s. per acre; this was rejected by 175 to 96.

After a further selection of amendments, Mr. Ridsdale (L., Brighton) moved to omit the proviso that developed land which had become vacant should after one year be again treated as undeveloped-instancing the case of a worked-out brickfield. Eventually this was negatived, after a promise by Mr. LloydGeorge to consider a modification. Later the exemption (which he proposed) from the operation of the clause of land on which at least 100l. per acre had been spent for development, was passed after further amendment, amid Opposition complaints that his concession was being whittled down.

The House sat till 5,55 A.M., but there was a full attendance

of Opposition members in the afternoon (Aug. 10), when the whole clause was put. In the course of the debate the AttorneyGeneral pointed out that the tax fell on no trade or industry, market and nursery gardens being specially exempted; the valuation would not be costly, and the fears for suburban amenities were groundless. If a man had a villa on two acres, of which the site value was 1,000l. per acre, and had to pay 21. on one of his acres, the Opposition supposed that he was to be driven out by the demand for this 21., though he had already foregone the interest on his 1,000l.

Later, Mr. Balfour delivered an ingenious and closely reasoned attack on the clause. He contended that it selected a special class of persons for exceptional treatment, and this required special justification. The Report of the Royal Commission on Urban Land Values was inapplicable; and, if the AttorneyGeneral's argument as to the owner of a two-acre garden was valid, the tax would not bring land into the market. The arguments as to unearned increment would apply to all property, and the value of undeveloped land contained a large speculative element. By forcing land into the market-a very small onethe tax would bring down the value. He maintained against the Attorney-General that the tax did differentiate against agriculture; the exemption of land on which 100l. per acre had been spent was a good way of conciliating building companies and speculative builders, but wealthy owners would prefer to spend their money otherwise, as the tax was certain to be increased. The tax would only yield 70,000l. or 80,000, the price of the Holbein recently saved to the nation (p. 100), towards meeting a deficit of 16,000,000l. The Government's aim was to get not money, but votes, and they expected to get votes by taxing only a few persons. They were dealing the heaviest blow ever aimed at our great national traditions of finance.

Mr. Asquith, after expressing the general sympathy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer (absent at the funeral of his only sister), agreed that the undeveloped land tax required special justification; a special class of owners was selected because they had hitherto escaped contributing their fair share. The difticulties of valuation were imaginary, and the transfer of its cost to the State had been received with but small gratitude by the Opposition. The tax must be considered as part of a composite fiscal system, and its propriety must not be judged of by its probable yield in one year or in two. After a protest against the tax by Mr. Beck (L., Wisbech, Cambs) the clause was closured and passed by 223 to 119.

On Clause 11 (exemptions) an amendment moved by Mr. Chaplin exempting agricultural land near towns, was rejected after a long debate by 210 to 110, and another, moved by Sir F. Channing (L.) providing that the duty should not be charged where the site value was below 1007. an acre, was negatived by

190 to 116. Another amendment by a Liberal, Mr. Chiozza Money, graduating the tax, was also negatived.

The expected changes in the duties affecting land and minerals were announced by the Prime Minister on August 11, on a financial resolution authorising the payment from public moneys of the expenditure incurred in valuation. The country, he said, would be divided into 200 valuation districts, with one head valuer and two or more assistants in each. For supervision and co-ordination there would also be travelling inspectors, and the work would be completed in three or four years. The estimated initial cost for the first and second years was 300,000l. ; the salaries and expenses of the valuers at about 300,000l. a year, half of which would be temporary; the cost of the work of the referees would not be large; the total cost would be 2,000,000l. The land taxes for the rest of the current financial year would yield 325,000l. Instead of the tax on ungotten minerals there would be a duty of 5 per cent. annually on mineral rents, including royalties, dead rents, and wayleaves, and imposed only in respect of minerals actually being worked. This would yield in the current year 350,0001. The presence of expert valuers would greatly increase the yield of the death duties. The valuation once completed, the annual cost would be probably 150,000l., possibly 300,000l. to 400,000l. The yield during the current year would be small, but it would increase annually, while the cost of valuation would decline.

Mr. Austen Chamberlain vigorously denounced the Ministerial change of front. Here was a new Budget statement in the middle of August; why had not the Government given way before? The tax on ungotten minerals had been defended as bringing them into the market; now a tax on mining royalties was substituted, so that the owner would only be taxed when he worked them. This was a tax on raw material, coal and iron; the Government would tax native granite, and buy untaxed granite from Norway.

Among subsequent speakers, Lord Robert Cecil quoted an old couplet" When I was young and had no sense I bought a shilling for eighteenpence "; Mr. Long said that the Prime Minister's speech disposed of the "cowardly platform charges," that the landed class had opposed the land taxes for purely selfish reasons. Liberal members generally welcomed the changes; and Mr. Balfour, in a scathing speech, said that it was now clear that the aim of the Government was not to raise revenue but to carry out some social scheme favoured by a few Ministers and the extreme Radicals and Socialists. Parliament had for weeks been discussing proposals which would add 438,000l. to the Budget deficit. This was the latest triumph of Free Trade finance. But they were really dealing with a scheme of social revolution, which, whether excellent or not, must be very expensive, and should not be incorporated in a Bill ostensibly providing means to meet a deficit.

Mr. Asquith remarked on the indignation of the Opposition against a change designed to remove a grievance. To vote against the resolution would be to oppose throwing the cost of valuation on the taxpayers. Mr. Balfour, in deducting the part to be given to local authorities, had confused the collection of the tax with its destination. The taxes would become more and more productive, assisting future Governments in meeting inevitably increasing expenditure. The Bill was purely fiscal The resolution was carried by 217 to 96.

in aim.

Returning to the Bill, amendments to Clause 11 were agreed to safeguarding agricultural land, but other proposed exemptions were rejected, among them that of London squares' gardens with limited access. A slight extension was granted, however, on lands to which the public had reasonable access; the oneacre limit of exemption of villa gardens was extended to fivesome Labour members complaining that this was too much— and the clause was disposed of, the House sitting till 6.10 A.M. on Friday, August 13. On that afternoon-the intervening clauses having been superseded by the change in the mineral rights duty-Clause 14, defining total value and site value, was passed by 112 to 38 after lengthy debates and the rejection of several amendments. Mr. Balfour described it as inherently absurd; the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that similar proposals, met by similar objections, had been adopted in New Zealand, which could now offer us a Dreadnought.

Meanwhile the Budget contest was kept up vigorously by the rival Leagues. Speaking at Leeds on August 10 Sir Edward Grey commented on the division of Unionist opinion on the Budget, declared that the money was wanted for security abroad and at home, and that the security of capital lay in sound finance and in the good sense and contentment of the people. This country would be the best place for property after the Budget as before. The Opposition had helped to make the Budget popular by overdoing their protests against the so-called land taxes, which were really taxes, not on land, but on the value acquired by some land through the growth of the community around it. He advocated taxes on the unearned increment, and, referring to the Gorringe case, said that some one would have taken the unearned increment in any case; they need not trouble about the business transaction; there was an unearned increment, and it was a proper subject for taxation. Railway rates would have been lower and railway wages higher had not the companies had to pay so high a price for their land through the unearned increment which they were creating. Hard cases were inevitable; but the high prices paid for land for schools (p. 181) and the rating of undeveloped land on its agricultural value were hard cases for the State. The Opposition really were attacking not the taxation of undeveloped land, but the valuation, which erred, if at all, on the side of leniency; they feared that a fair valuation would show how suitable some of these increased

values were for taxation. A more exact parallel with Lord Lansdowne's "robber gull" (p. 187) was the ground landlord. After condemning the form of protest which threatened "no more Christmas beef or subscriptions," he said that Mr. Balfour and Lord Lansdowne were keeping two doors open. They were debating whether they should pass the Budget or not. We knew their wishes, not the extent of their nerve. But the appeal to the country would be on this Budget as a Free Trade Budget and against the alternative of Tariff Reform.

Speaking at Bletchley on Friday, August 13, Mr. Asquith declared that the Liberal finance of the past three years had been deliberately and carefully contrived to meet the exigencies of old-age pensions and the naval situation. The existing deficit could be met only by borrowing, which was political cowardice; or by suspending the Sinking Fund and adding 2d. or 3d. to the income tax, which "would not be heroic, or even honest, finance"; or by increased taxation. Three principles governed the Budget; continuance of paying off debt, regard to future liabilities, and distribution of the burden amongst all classes. No class escaped the new taxation, and none was hit too hard. That was the "penal Budget," and its reception had been a splendid demonstration of the patriotism and spirit of the great bulk of the people. No workmen's meeting or organisation had protested, nor had the middle classes. The battle over the licence duties would be sharp, short and decisive. The whole attack was against the so-called taxes on land, which, with that on mining royalties, would not yield over 600,0007. These he described almost in the words of Sir Edward Grey (p. 191). After a reference to the Gorringe case (p. 181), he added that every man was entitled to exercise all the rights the law gave him, but the State was entitled to levy a toll. The tax on undeveloped land was governed by the same principle as that on increment. He ridiculed Mr. Balfour's attack (p. 190), for new taxes could not be levied without machinery; and Mr. Austen Chamberlain's was absurd, coming from a Tariff Reformer. He admitted that this year these taxes would not produce much; but the machine would soon work automatically, and the values taxed would constantly increase. In short, the money could only be found by the proposals of the Finance Bill or by taxes on food.

On the same day the Government scored in another direction in consequence of the publication (Aug. 13) of the report of the naval inquiry into Lord Charles Beresford's allegations, conducted by a sub-committee of the Imperial Defence Committee. In his letter addressed to the Prime Minister on April 2 and now first published, Lord Charles Beresford had objected to the new distribution of the Fleet (p. 49) as violating the principles of homogeneity and single supreme control, and as hampering or precluding the combined training both of units with their respective divisions, and of fleets. He had referred to the