Clause 22.—(Appeals to Referees.)

§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George)

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.

§ Mr. GEORGE CAVE

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 1386 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?

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Samuel Evans)

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.

§ Sir EDWARD CARSON

I admit at once, frankly, that the Bill, as proposed to be amended, is a very great improve- 1387 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.

§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

On points of law.

§ Sir EDWARD CARSON

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 1388 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.

§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

The facts are not accurately stated.

§ Sir E. CARSON

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 1389 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.

§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

Not a hearing in the ordinary sense of the term.

§ Sir E. CARSON

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 1390 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—"

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell)

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.

§ Sir E. CARSON

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

§ Lord ROBERT CECIL

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.

§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

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.

§ Sir E. CARSON

I do not know what your ruling is about that.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

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.

§ Mr. BALFOUR

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?

§ Sir E. CARSON

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?

§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

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.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell)

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

§ Mr. BALFOUR

Supposing we desired to express in a concrete way in the Division Lobby our views upon particular proposals, 1392 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.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I would not go that length.

§ Sir E. CARSON

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 1393 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 1394 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.

1395 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.

§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

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.

§ Sir E. CARSON

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

§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

No.

§ Sir E. CARSON

I did not say going to the courts. I said going to the High 1396 Court with small cases which could be tried locally in the county was an unnecessary cost.

§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

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.

§ Sir E. CARSON

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.

§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

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.

§ Sir E. CARSON

First to the Referee!

§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

He must go first to the Referee. What have we done in regard to the Referee? The right hon. and learned Gentleman admits that we have taken every precaution to see that the Referee is impartial. What more could we have done? Upon these two points we have absolutely accepted the criticisms of the Opposition and of hon. 1397 and learned Gentlemen on this side of the House who took exactly the same view. I may say they are perfectly satisfied. The right hon. and learned Gentleman criticised rather the method of procedure. Here I join issue with him. It is purely a question whether or not the Referee is a valuer, or whether he is to be a kind of judge sitting in a court listening to evidence, having expert witnesses before him—whether, in fact, he is a man to be chosen by the courts for the purpose of getting at the value. I venture to say that any business man would infinitely rather have a Referee as long as he was satisfied that he was an impartial one. He would rather that he was a valuer who understood the business, and would go and see the land for himself, than that he should be a man of whom it was notified that he would sit in November, say, at such and such a court, to hear all appeals. What would happen in the latter case? Exactly the very thing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman denounces in such eloquent terms—purely the hearing of arguments by lawyers, the calling of expert witnesses on both sides, and a decision dependent largely on the skill with which the case was pleaded. One witness would possibly say that the land was worth £9,000, and another that it was worth £50,000, and the Court would split the difference. That is not a real valuation. What is wanted—here I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman—is someone who can go to the spot and see the thing for himself and decide apart from lawyers and expert witnesses. I am quite certain that the business community would infinitely prefer that method of valuing the land. In the cases referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfaction is not given to anybody. The Treasury have at their command the best services for the purpose. The small landowners in the other case would have no chance, for it would be merely wrangling between lawyers in the courts.

§ Sir E. CARSON

Would he have any chance wrangling against the Commissioners?

§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

He has got an impartial Referee, who goes to see for himself. He does not depend upon what anyone tells him or on any points of law. He does not get his mind perverted by that sort of contention. He is an impartial man, who is not responsible to the Commissioners nor the landowner, for he 1398 is chosen by the Lord Chief Justice of England and is a member of the Surveyors' Institute. Therefore you may depend upon it he is a thoroughly impartial man. I believe in a man going to see for himself, and so deciding upon the case. He will have the opportunity of seeing the parties and of entering into consultation, and the consultation will be upon the spot. The valuer will go down there and will be brought into contact with the parties, and they can go along with him while he sees the place. Let us assume, then, that they are not satisfied with his decision—I think the vast majority of cases they would be satisfied, because the Referee is a person who will command the confidence of the courts—but supposing they are not satisfied they can then upon every question, without any restriction, go to the High Courts, and that is the real guarantee. There is perfect right of access to the courts upon every point. If a case comes before the courts where the parties are not satisfied, the courts can settle it or appoint a fresh Referee, or take any other course that they may wish. I agree that there will not be an appeal in many cases. There may be appeals when they want to settle very complicated matters. The Referees sometimes may have some doubt on matters of interpretation, and there probably will be appeals in cases where people are not satisfied with the decision of the Referee. They may have doubts about his judgment in the interpretation of the Act. That, of course, will occur, and the court will then decide the question of doctrine to which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition referred. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Edward Carson) wants is not valuation, but litigation.

§ Sir EDWARD CARSON

No, I want fair valuation.

§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

No, what the right hon. Gentleman wants is litigation. He wants that every man should not only have the right to litigate, but should be compelled to litigate.

§ Sir EDWARD CARSON

No, I do not want anything of the kind. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman is so persistent in statements of that kind. I specially asked that persons should have the option. I said that over and over again. What I asked for was the person should have the option, and I gave an instance. I took the case of a farmer from Devonshire, who may be entirely unac- 1399 quainted with London and the High Courts, and I asked why should he be compelled to have his case tried there. Why should he not have the option to come in?

§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

The right hon. Gentleman is now proceeding to argue and not to elucidate his point. The right hon. Gentleman still goes upon the assumption that it is going to be a hearing. I call a hearing litigation, and I say there is an essential difference between litigation and valuation. We want an impartial valuation, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman says "No, I want litigation." Litigation means parties appearing before a tribunal, calling witnesses, having lawyers, and arguing the case, and I infinitely prefer the other procedure. If they are not satisfied they can have their litigation eventually. Now one word about the county courts.

§ Lord ROBERT CECIL

That is the separate issue.

§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

Yes, it is a separate issue, but perhaps I may indicate generally that in our view there ought to be access to the county courts in small cases. I do think that the limits of the Finance Act, which is £10,000, is much too high. I think £5,000 is too high. I think it should be a very much smaller sum. Usually the sum in county courts in cases of equity is £500, but hon. Gentlemen do not want to discuss now, and I will not pursue it further at the moment, except to say that there will be no resistance on the part of the Government to any Amendment of that character. I should like to say a word upon something which I challenged the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the course of his speech. I have now the full facts in my possession. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made the statement he has made to-day once before. I did not want to enter into a controversy with him, but he is rather forcing me to do it now. I have got the official facts and documents from the Death Duty Department, and I find that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely wrong. The Commissioners never valued in the case which he quoted at £50,000 The highest value was £12,800, and that was after they had received the valuation fixed by the hon. Member for Stepney or his advisers, which was £5,725. Instead of bringing the figure down from £50,000 to £10,000, as was stated by the right hon. 1400 and learned Gentleman, they brought it down from £12,800 to £10,500, which is a very different story from the story told by the right hon. Gentleman. The facts put by the right hon. Gentleman were these. He referred to a case in which the Commissioners fixed the value at £50,000, which, he said, they afterwards reduced to £15,000, and which was eventually compromised at £10,000. Now there was no £50,000, and there was no £15,000. The facts are that the hon. Member or his advisers fixed the figure at £5,735; the Commissioners put it at £12,800, and finally there was a compromise at £10,000. That is a very different story from that told by the right hon. Gentleman, and it is based upon the official documents and the official figures.

§ Sir EDWARD CARSON

There is no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should display any heat in the matter. The statement was made by the hon. Member for Stepney in the House, and I do not think that the figures of the right hon. Gentleman are conclusive in the matter at all, and I will tell him why. As I understood the statement made by the hon. Member for Stepney, the first valuation made by the Commissioners was £15,000. The right hon. Gentleman says that that was £12,500, but the first; suggestion, according to the hon. Member for Stepney, was a suggestion of £50,000. Then, upon the hon. Member for Stepney complaining that that was an excessive valuation, I understood the valuation was fixed at £15,000, and it was eventually compromised at £10,000.

§ Mr. J. W. HILLS

I quite concur in the idea that this clause, as amended, is a very great improvement on what it was. The door to the courts is now open. My quarrel with the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that he has not swept away a certain amount of lumber which still bars the way. It is quite clear that there must be an appeal to somebody. We have now got an appeal on questions of facts as well as on law, and in these circumstances I do-not see the use of Referees at all. The appeal to the Referee is an entirely superfluous appeal. May I contrast the procedure under this Bill with that of the Act of 1904. Under that Act you go in the first instance to the Commissioners, and you discuss the matters with them, and, indeed, in nearly all cases-you settle there. If you cannot settle there you go to the courts on the question 1401 of value. I never myself have known an appeal on value. In all cases, or very nearly all, the value is settled out of court. Surely the same thing might happen here, and if you appoint Referees you only invite appeals upon value to them, and I do not think that they would be of any service to anybody. I do not see how these Referees will assist matters. All they can assist on are questions of value and not of law. I suppose they are there to strengthen the opinion of the Commissioners on value, but if that opinion does want strengthening, I should suggest you should give the Commissioners power to call in assessors on questions of value and let the panel of Referees be the body from which you choose your assessors. If you want a better opinion, and if you want expert advice upon value from Commissioners, I think some scheme of that sort would work. I am perfectly certain if you give an appeal on value alone you will encourage these appeals, which I do not think will have any real use at all. The Act of 1894 has worked extremely well. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, no."] Well, I have considerable experience of that Act, and, as far as I know, the Act has worked fairly well indeed. It seems to me we are far more likely to get a fair valuation with the Commissioners, who know that the only tribunal that can upset them is the courts, rather than if they knew there was another court between them and the High Courts. The Commissioners will be far more careful in their decisions when they know that they are capable of being reviewed in the higher courts. I should like to make the Commissioners as strong as possible, and I believe you will do that by doing away with the intermediate stages of appeal and only having an appeal direct to the courts. I am quite sure the revenue will suffer, and I am certain that what we are proposing is a far more convenient procedure to the parties concerned.

§ Sir HENRY CRAIK

I quite agree that the concession the right hon. Gentleman has made is a very substantial one in this respect, but it must be remembered that this is a very important constitutional point. I wish to point out some of the difficulties in regard to the new solution. According to your ruling, Mr. Caldwell, I understand you desire us to speak only upon the broad issues between the Amendments now put down by the Chancellor of 1402 the Exchequer and the views which lead us strongly to dissent from the Bill as originally introduced. The point of difference between us was that we thought there ought to be an opportunity to have an appeal to a court of law. That we consider, on constitutional grounds, to be essential as a part of the liberties of the subject. On the other hand, this Bill as originally introduced was hampered very seriously with the right of appeal, which, instead of allowing it to be made to the law courts, gave an appeal only to Referees, who were to be virtually the officers of the Treasury or the Inland Revenue Commissioners. Those are the broad points of difference between us. I agree that in this respect the right hon. Gentleman has come a certain way to meet our difficulty by transferring the appointment of these Commissioners from the Treasury to the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Institute of Surveyors. That, of course, is a very important change. I am not, however, quite sure that in practice this proposal really means all that has been claimed for it. I am afraid the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls will not concern themselves very closely or very attentively in the matter of selecting professional people who will not be paid high salaries, and consequently will not be men of fully established position. I am afraid they will be inclined to listen to the suggestions made to them by the Inland Revenue or the Treasury, and that is one of the difficulties which I feel in regard to this question. I admit that this concession materially changes the position of the Referee. The second change which the right hon. Gentleman has made is that instead of resort to the court of law being doubtful, and subject to the approval of the Referee, it will now be open to anyone in every case to make his own appeal subject to certain conditions. I understand from the Attorney-General that those conditions will prescribe the procedure, and direct their manner and place, and will not in any case tend to prevent anyone resorting to the law courts. I now come to a very serious blot in the provisions now made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Who is going to make these rules? I understand they will be made by the Reference Committee, which bulks very largely in the new proposals. I am afraid this will work out to be of very little practical effect. The Reference Committee will have to make the 1403 rules, but they will be subject to the approval of the Treasury. Surely that condition makes this Committee and the selections made by the Lord Chief Justice and Master of the Rolls and the President of the Institute of Surveyors subject to the control of the officials of the Treasury or the Inland Revenue Commissioners as to the rules they make? Who can tell whether those rules may or may not be so shaped to their own views by the Treasury officials and the Inland Revenue or inclined as virtually to largely curb and restrict the power of the Reference Committee, which is the buffer we are told to look to as the guardian of the litigant? I fully agree that it is most undesirable that there should be frequent litigation involving heavy costs. In nine cases out of ten I have not the least doubt that the provisional valuation about which we have heard so much will, after being adjusted between the taxpayer and the Commissioners, be accepted, and there will be no further reference. If there is a reference, then I submit that a Referee is not a good or satisfactory substitute for a court of law. In cases where the Commissioners and the taxpayers were unable to come to a common agreement, I would much rather have had the Referee not as the first court of appeal but used as Referees are generally used in the capacity of assessor in the court appointed by the Judges in the High Court to give them a report on the professional aspect of the question, and to help by evidence, if necessary, as an ordinary assessor in court docs to give professional information that will be useful in judging the question on broad legal principles. I would much rather have had the Referee in that capacity and more or less as an officer, for then the position would be much more constitutional. I think this provision will work very unsatisfactorily and produce a good deal of friction, delay, and vexation. I agree that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now allowed is an improvement on the Bill as it was first introduced, but it has not got rid sufficiently of the objection which I have stated.

§ Sir ROBERT PERKS

I understand that a party who may object will have the right of bringing his case before the Referee, who is to be appointed from a panel of practical experts. What I want to know is whether a person who is in some difficulty to know whether his provisional 1404 valuation is such as he can safely accept is at liberty to go to the Referee with his legal advisers and experts, or whether the scheme is that the Referee and the owner of the property and the Commissioners are to meet in friendly consultation together without the opportunity of calling witnesses and conducting such an inquiry before an arbitrator as is the case under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts? Under those Acts a claimant has the right to choose whether he will have a jury or an arbitrator. What I want to know is whether the owner of the property can only go to the Referee if he has failed to come to some friendly agreement with the Commissioners, and whether, when he gets before the Referee what is his actual position? I would also like to know what is the meaning of the phrase "that the Referee shall determine any matter referred to him in consultation with the Commissioners and the appellant." Would it be open to the Referee, according to his instructions, to say, if a lawyer appears, "I can have nothing to do with you gentlemen at all, because I have to settle this matter in consultation with the Commissioners and the appellant." Is that the construction to be placed on this clause, or has the owner to submit his case locally to the Referee, who may attend in a country town or village to inquire into the value of the property? I submit that it would be far more practical and economical—and more in accordance with ordinary business habits, and certainly would save a great deal of trouble in the working of the machinery of this Bill, which, I think, is going to impose far heavier costs upon the owner than is supposed—to know what is the construction to be put upon this clause, which appears for the first time in a Bill of this this description. The Referee has to determine these matters in consultation with these two parties, and I want to know if that means that the consultation will be with them and with nobody else.

§ Lord ROBERT CECIL

I quite admit that this change is a great improvement upon the original proposal in the Bill, but I wish to state briefly my objections to the original proposal. It has been said that the Referee might be or would be a mere official of the Government, and it was also stated that there would not be free access to the Court. In regard to the first objection to the original proposal of the Government, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met us by providing for the 1405 appointment of an impartial Referee. I confess I have more doubt as to whether they have given free access to the court. The question is asked, and I think with a great deal of force, "Why have the Referee at all, if you are going to have an appeal to the courts ultimately?" The system of an appeal straight to the courts without any intervention of a Referee has worked very well under the Finance Act of 1894. I quite admit that decisions under this Act will be much more difficult and complicated than decisions under the Act of 1894. Under the Finance Act of 1894 the only parties were the actual taxpayer and the Crown, and the only issue was whether the Crown could get the value of the property put higher than it really deserved. The advantage of the owner of the property was to get it put down to its proper value. The issue here will be much more complicated. It will often be quite as much to the interest of the taxpayer to have the property put high as it will be to have it put low, and you will want to get the value of the property put neither too high nor too low. There will constantly be two taxpayers, one actual and the other prospective. It will be the interest of one that the property should be put as high as possible, and it will be to the interest of the other that it should be put as low as possible. That is the case where you have an existing leasehold with more than 50 years to run. The tenant then will only have to consider the Undeveloped Land Duty, and he will want the property put as low as possible. The reversioner, who is mainly interested in the Increment Value Duty, will want it put as high as possible. The kind of controversies, therefore, which you will have under this Act will be far more complicated and far more difficult to deal with in a rough and ready manner than the controversies under the Finance Bill of 1894. That does not make it less, but more necessary to be very careful about the machinery of your appeal under this Bill.

The question is really whether the intervention of a Referee is a protection to the taxpayer or the reverse, and I cannot help thinking it is very much the reverse. The objection to the Referee is one, be it observed, which does not really apply to the rich taxpayer at all. He will always ultimately be able to go to the courts and gee the thing put right, as far as it can be put right, by elaborate machinery. He will, moreover, I suppose, be allowed to be represented before the Referee by his 1406 agent, who will be quite a skilled person, but the poor man, the landowner with a small interest, will have no skilled agent to represent him. He will come before the Referee and will have to face the Commissioners, who are very highly skilled and trained advocates in a particular branch of discussion alone. The Commissioners will know every trick and turn of land valuation. It is their duty to know it, and they will come before the Referee with immense skill and knowledge to face a poor man—it may, indeed, be a woman or a very young or old person—practically without skill or knowledge. I do not think a decision on those terms is likely to be a fair one. The man goes into the discussion with the dice loaded against him and in favour of the Crown. When he gets to the High Court—supposing he is rich enough or someone lets him have the money to go there—he will have tremendous difficulty in inducing the-Court, on a question of fact, to set aside the decision of the Referee. He will be very hardly used, particularly if he is not able to employ the highest possible skill in order to combat the decision of the Referee. I cannot help thinking that, under those circumstances, it will be far fairer to strike out the Referee altogether, and let the appeal go to a man of trained impartiality in the first instance. We shall discuss the question of the appeal being to the county court later on. I do not believe in all this talk about the tremendous expense of employing experts. It is true, in the case of big estates, where large amounts are in issue, and will always be true, that great expense is incurred, because people who have a great deal to lose will necessarily spend a great deal of money to protect themselves; but the poor man will, I believe, be able to employ someone to state his case before a fair and impartial tribunal. This Referee is merely a device to give an advantage to the Crown in the discussion of these matters. I cannot see that there is any object except that. The proposal appears to me to be utterly indefensible, and I hope the Government will abandon this part of their scheme.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson)

Both sides of the House are really striving for the same end, and I shall endeavour to address the Committee on the footing that the plan we have adopted is in the interests of the taxpayer. It can be of no interest to the Government to obtain an unfair valuation, 1407 which will, of course, be subject to an appeal. It is really in the interest of the Government, and it is their desire, to get a just valuation in the first instance. Hon. Members have pointed out what they regard as a considerable injustice. They say that, however much the Commissioners may be defended in regard to their character and position, there are many things which might give the most scrupulous a bias which it is desirable to correct. That was put before us when the matter was first before the House, and we therefore thought it was desirable the taxpayer should not, if he liked, be compelled to go on what might be a biassed valuation straight to the Court, where the biassed valuation would have very considerable authority and weight, for the Court would be disposed to say that, after all, the taxpayer is a biassed person and the Commissioners are unbiassed officials. When the two came together before the Court, it might say that after all the Commissioners have great experience, and their bias is less urgent and less effective. I think, and I believe hon. Members will agree with me, that the chances are that the Commissioners' valuation, when before the High Court, which does not see the land, would perhaps have an effect which would tend detrimentally to a perfectly honest taxpayer who is appealing.

§ Lord ROBERT CECIL

Not so much as the Referee's.

§ Sir W. ROBSON

Let us see where the Referee comes in. If you cut the Referee out and allow what I will say, simply for the sake of hypothesis, an official biassed valuation on the part of the Commissioners to go before the High Court, the High Court is in a position of some difficulty. The judge cannot go down to value the land, and he will, I think, have a natural tendency to lean to the Commissioners' valuation. It is therefore essential to the taxpayer's interest to get, if he can, an unbiassed valuation first of all, and it also seems desirable to the Government in order to meet the fair justice of the case. There will still be some taint of officialism about it when you have done your best. What we have done is to constitute this panel of Referees who are undoubtedly fair. Nobody can say these distinguished individuals have any prejudice in favour of the Executive; in fact some of the references made by these gentlemen to the Executive show they have no bias; but with generosity and 1408 impartiality the Executive, notwithstanding the references made to them, have selected these gentlemen as being the panel who are to say how these Referees are to be appointed and selected. We have done our best to secure, an impartial valuation. The Referee will say, "Now I am selected by these judicial persons, who themselves are chosen by reason of their impartiality, to check the decisions of the Commissioners," and one may assume, if any bias arises at all, it will not be in favour of the Executive. I think we may say we have adopted the best manner open to us of getting an impartial, unbiassed valuation. That is all-important to the taxpayer. He then has a full right of appeal, and he can, if he likes, go to the High Court. I have not the slightest doubt the opinion of the Referee will have great weight and authority in the High Court. One cannot suppose otherwise, and indeed I think it ought. I agree the weight and authority given to the valuation of the Commissioners might tend a little unfairly to the taxpayer, but I am not so disinclined to see some such weight attached to the decisions of the Referees. Still the judge can inquire as to the means by which the valuation is arrived at, and he can exercise his discretion to the best of his ability. There have been suggestions made that the Referee should be turned into a mere assessor, and that is a consideration which may well give us a little thought. We desire, and we believe, that an impartial valuation—an absolutely unbiassed valuation—will put an end to an immense number of disputes between the Crown and the subject. A valuation by an unbiassed valuer will clear out of the way an enormous number of cases. The subject may not be very well satisfied with the valuation, but he will be satisfied with the decision of the Referee if he sees he is independent and hears what his valuer has to say—

§ Sir ROBERT PERKS

What I would like to know is whether the Referee, when he sits with the Commissioner on the one side and the owner on the other, will receive evidence from witnesses on behalf of the owner.

§ Sir W. ROBSON

I am leading up to that point. Of course, the Referee, as an arbitrator, would be a person under judicial limitations. He could only hear the parties in each other's presence. He would not be at liberty to go behind their backs and collect information from out- 1409 side. But that would not be the case with him as the valuer. He is not under judicial limitations; he is at liberty to form his own opinion, exactly as a man of business would form his. He is at liberty to get information as and where he can. He would not be precluded the right to see the valuers of the parties concerned, as is ordinarily done in a valuation where the valuers of both sides meet. I cannot doubt that the Referee would, if he thought it necessary, see the valuers; but if you make him a mere assessor the effect will be that he will never be able to determine litigation. He will not be in a position to make a final award. He will only report to the Court, and this will compel those dissatisfied with the determination of the Commissioners to go to the High Court. I think by far the great majority of appeals to the Referee will be determined by the Referee himself. It is extraordinary how in practice the duties of the High Court are limited in these matters. One might reasonably suppose that as a result of the valuation about to be initiated the High Court will be compelled to close their doors to all other business. But that will not be the case in fact. Parliament very often in discussing these matters fails to properly appreciate the business instincts of the people. It fails to realise that they like to come to an agreement if they can. I believe myself that an impartial, unbiassed Referee will be able to dispose of an enormous number of disputes. But if you make him a mere assessor, and compel him to report to the Court, the result will be productive of a great deal of more or less expensive litigation. The actual proceedings in the High Court will, I think, be limited by the success of the Referee. That really touches the main point raised here, because the objection of hon. Members opposite is principally to the Referee. I think the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) in his argument on this point was scarcely as consistent as usual. He said he thought that the Referee would be of no benefit to the poor taxpayer. But it is the poor taxpayer who will benefit by him, and if you strike him out the taxpayer will be driven to the High Court, which is the very thing we desire to avoid. I am quite certain, if hon. Members will look at the machinery, they will see that it is fairly—I will not say perfectly or adequately—but it fairly meets the points raised. Of course there is the question of the county court left over for subsequent decision. In passing I may observe, in regard to that, 1410 that the main difficulty will be to bring cases within the limitation of county court procedure. I think the far more satisfactory conclusion—the one which will work best—will be a Referee appointed by an independent body, with knowledge that his special function will be to see that the values which are arrived at are fair.

§ Mr. BALFOUR

I think I am perhaps the only layman who, up to the present, has taken part in this very difficult discussion, and I must confess that I intervene with the utmost diffidence, and with a strong sense of the incapacity under which, in this respect, I labour. We are all agreed, as far as I understand, that the process of valuation must begin with the valuer and that it may end in a court of law. There appears to me to be no doubt about that. The only doubt is whether the court of law should be the High Court alone or whether it should be supplemented by the county court to meet the case of poor owners and small amounts. The real controversy is whether there should be an intermediate step, and, if so, is that proposed by the Government the most suitable? May I say I do not think the explanations given of the duties of the Referee by speakers on the Government side at all correspond with the statements in the Bill as to the manner in which those duties' are to be carried out. I will not go to the length of saying that there is any inconsistency between the statements of the Government and the clauses of the Bill, but this I must point out, that the Government appear to assume as a matter of course that a great many things will happen which they have not said should happen under the actual wording of their Bill. That is the real reason for the dispute which arose between my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier in the evening. My right hon. Friend near me assumed that the hearing before the Referee might be in London, and need not take the form of a valuation on the spot of the property in dispute. There is no word in this Clause to suggest that these Referees are to be valuers in the sense that they will go down and look at the plot of land, see the buildings upon it, and form their estimate of the value of the land without the buildings and the value of the buildings without the land. I venture, therefore, to press the Government, in the first place, to make the clause in this respect carry out their own suggestion. If it is to be a distinct part of the function of the Referee to make 1411 valuation on the spot, let it be made quite plain in the clause. If we are to have the Referees at all, that is the proper way to treat them. They should go down to the property, and not merely sit in London. I am not arguing this point, however; I am only asking the Government to make their own intentions clear on the face of the clause. The second observation which has already been made in this Debate, and to which no answer has yet been given, is that under the clause you do not give the subject a fair chance. You ask him to argue before one of these Referees, with Commissioners thoroughly competent to deal with the complex problems of valuation, and unless the subject himself is a man of education, with dexterity of speech, and possessing considerable practical knowledge of the question of land valuation, I do not think that the reference can prove satisfactory, unless you make it clear on the face of the clause that the aggrieved subject may ask somebody to help him or her in this interview which is to take place between the Referee, the original valuer, and the subject. I do not say there should be power to call in an expert; but by all means let the subject be able to call in an advisor at his or her own option. I assume it would be the case that in large estates the agent would be allowed to attend, but, under the words of the clause, there seems to be no power for anybody to attend, and, therefore, I think the Government should modify the clause in that direction. Assuming that they would be prepared to make it clear, in the first place, that the Referee may make the valuation on the spot, and, in the second, that the aggrieved person may call in to help him or her any person he or she may think well-acquainted with the case and qualified to put it before the Referee, then there still remains the question whether we should interpolate the Referee between the valuer at the beginning and the Court of Appeal or county court at the end. On that I confess I do not feel qualified to take a strong view, though I should have thought that the objections expressed by my Noble Friend are very strong. I am not, however, qualified to take a strong view, because I am not a lawyer, and have no experience of litigation, though I know that the appearance of a subject before a court will be costly, but there may be some exaggeration as to the expense which will be necessary in calling experts and such like assistants to give evidence. 1412 I do not deny that there may be some exaggeration; but then, on the other side, I think I should not be wrong in saying that you cannot have any litigation without some cost. As I have already said, everybody who has taken part in this Debate, so far, except myself, has been a lawyer, and they are far more qualified to speak on that point than a layman. As I understand the matter, there will be absolutely no expense at all before the Referee. There will not be a single halfpenny charge. Of course, if after the Amendment which I suggest an aggrieved subject chooses to call in an expert to help him, that is his own affair, and let him pay for it, but there is no expense involved, I take it. My attention has been called to the fact that the Referee may, if he thinks fit, order any expense incurred by the appellant to be paid by the Commissioners, and any expense incurred by the Commissioners to be paid by the appellant; but I confess that I do not see what these expenses are or can be. He has not got to pay the railway fare of the Referee who comes down to value.

§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

The expenses of the Referee.

§ Mr. BALFOUR

Has he got to pay them?

§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

There is power.

§ Mr. BALFOUR

That would seem to me to be rather a serious matter, but I am not qualified to speak on that, or to speak on it with any assurance that I am stating the case accurately, but I certainly have a leaning to anything which could settle these matters out of court, if it can be done, and I am not sure that I like this absolutely crude position of either taking the original valuation or going up to the High Court. It does not commend itself, at any rate, to the lay mind, and if the Government really could make this kind of reference cheap and satisfactory, my own leaning would be towards some plan such as they have suggested. However, I admit that I am very little qualified to speak on this subject, and I might almost apologise for speaking on a matter on which lawyers are much more competent to speak, but that is the impression which is left on my mind by the Debate, and I rather look to seeing the clause improved in the direction I have indicated than seeing it profoundly modified by leaving what is a sharp antithesis between accepting the valuation or going into a Court, which 1413 seems to be the only alternative under the general scheme outlined by the Government.

§ Mr. S. O. BUCKMASTER

I examine this clause with some jealousy, because, above all things, I have been anxious with regard to this question to secure two matters. First, that there should be free access to the Courts; and secondly, that, as far as possible, expense should be avoided to the subject. As the Bill was originally drawn, there were, I venture to think, two serious defects. The first was this: that no person who was taking the valuation, either on behalf of the Crown or on behalf of the subject, had behind him the least fear of having his judgment interfered with by a court of competent jurisdiction. In other words, he had not got behind his back the rod of the law, and I was very anxious that that should be secured. Subject to one or two matters, upon which I desire to say one or two words, this clause does now secure that whoever makes a valuation for the purpose of determining any question in dispute under this Bill does it with the knowledge that, under certain circumstances, his judgment will be called into question before a court. That is one of the most important matters of all. The other is that the subject should be able to have free recourse to the courts of law, if he requires it, in his own case. Now that also seems to be secured, and the only point that remains is the question as to whether or not there should be interposed between the original valuation of the Commissioners the further judgment of the Referee, and upon the whole, speaking absolutely for myself, I am satisfied that the interposition of the Referee's judgment will do much to mitigate the risk and the hazard that the subject would be under if he were bound in cases of difference to take his case direct from the Commissioners to the Courts. What is it the Referee is going to be called in to decide? Of course, there may be questions of law arising under the Act, but on those there is a clear right of appeal, and the position of the Referee would not affect them one way or another. The other points to be decided will be pure questions of fact. There will be the question whether value is put too high or too low on the one side and objected to by the other.

The Referee is to be appointed by a body whom we must assume to be intelligent, and who will most undoubtedly take steps to secure that the Referee who is 1414 appointed is a person who has some special knowledge of the circumstances of the particular case which he has to decide. They will see that he has local knowledge, or, in other words, special knowledge of the particular locality. If you appoint a capable, independent man of such a character as that, it seems to me certain that he must decide, and decide satisfactorily, some 80 per cent, or 90 per cent, of the cases that are brought before him, because after all most people are reasonable, and all that a reasonable person will want will be the exercise of an impartial, capable and independent judgment upon the difficulty into which he has got with the Commissioners. That, it seems to me, the Referee will secure, but now comes what is, to my mind, the most important matter. How is the Referee going to determine? I am sure the Attorney-General will not mind my saying that when we come to deal with this question, I felt that his speech left me much in the same position as that of the man who was engaged in fighting with an adversary and found his adversary suddenly removed in a mist. I could not understand, and I do not understand now, and I want to understand, what is in point of fact the proceeding which is to take place before the Referee?

The first thing that I think is clear is this, that there ought to be power for everybody to be represented before the Referee. I am not satisfied that the Bill provides that power, and it is manifest it must do so, and for this simple reason. You might have a man who is deaf and dumb, or an infant, or a lunatic. There ere hundreds of people under a disability and who are perfectly incapable of stating their own case before the Referee, and it is essential that somebody should be able to put before the Referee, on their behalf, their view of the matter. The point I want to know, and I think the hon. Baronet who spoke on these benches wishes to know is, is that in the Bill or out of it? If the Bill passes as it is drawn, will the Referee be able to say to anybody who comes before him: "You are not the appellant and I have no power to hear you"? A few words from the Attorney-General, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would put that matter at rest, and I have no doubt, that the considerations which I have thrown out, must satisfy them, that there must be power to let a man have his case represented for him. I do not want to have an elaborate trial, I do not want to multiply expenditure, and, above all things, I want to avoid the cumbrous, 1415 costly and, I think, scandalous proceedings which I think have taken place under "The Lands Clauses Act." If we secure all that, you have got your independent tribunal, you have got an opportunity of stating the case before the tribunal, and surely that is a great protection to the subject, because it is quite clear that it could be done at little cost, and at, indeed, trifling expense, while the recommendation which is now under the consideration of the Committee, as an alternative, would compel the man to a proceeding which must be costly. He would have to come to the Courts and have the expensive paraphernalia of witnesses on either side. It is an expensive manner of determining, what is in the end, a simple question of fact.

I am quite satisfied with the Referee, subject to the limits I have mentioned, and the appeal from the Referee appears to me to be an appeal in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, if I may say so respectfully, generously met the objections which were taken before as to the absence of the appeal. To my mind, it is full and sufficient in all respects, but there remains just this consideration. There are two matters from which the Referee himself is excluded. They are to be found in Clause 11, and, I think, in Clause 14 of the Bill. In Clause 11, in Sections (2) and (3), you find that the Commissioners' judgment on questions that are there referred to them is final, and is not to be the subject of appeal. As to the Court of Appeal, there again, I think, there was no real reason why you should not accept the Commissioners that you have appointed, because, after all, they have to decide whether property is a park or a garden, or an open space, which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, is open to the public as a right, or whether, in the case of parks and open spaces, reasonable access is granted to the public. Those are matters which nobody can doubt the competence of the Commissioners to decide, and I do not see why anyone should distrust their judgment on that point, but there is another point which is of very great consequence. They are to decide whether an open space is an open space which has been left open under the scheme originally proposed, or subsequently imposed, for the preservation of open spaces. The thing I am most anxious to secure there is this—

§ The CHAIRMAN

I do not quite see how that arises. The hon. and learned 1416 Gentleman is discussing a part of the Bill which is already settled and decided. He must suggest something bearing upon the Amendment before the Committee or upon this clause. The matter cannot be raised again and again.

§ Mr. BUCKMASTER

I understood that we were discussing the whole question of the appeal.

§ The CHAIRMAN

As I understand, it is the appeal excepting so far as it is settled in previous parts of the Bill.

§ Mr. BUCKMASTER

When this matter was before the Committee on an earlier occasion, I understood that all questions as to the appeal were to be left over to be raised now, and I think many of us avoided further discussion then because we understood that the fullest possible opportunity of raising at a later stage all questions relating to appeals from the decision of the Commissioners would be left open. All I wanted to say upon it was this. I want to secure, and I think we all want to secure, that there shall be no pressure put upon people who have vacant land in the shape of squares or small pieces of unbuilt-on land near our big towns to turn them into building plots. I should be perfectly willing to accept the final decision of the Commissioners as to whether or no these plots should be built upon provided that the Act defined, in more liberal language than at present is employed, the nature of the open spaces and the nature of the access which is to render them free and immune from the tax. The general scheme of these appeal clauses meets with my unreserved approval. I think they have fully carried out the pledge that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on the earlier occasion, and I am perfectly satisfied with the whole machinery, but in the two points I have mentioned further explanation is required. I know the Attorney-General intended to give it to us, but he failed to give me an explanation which I was capable of understanding, and I shall be very grateful if he or the Chancellor of the Exchequer would now explain whether the scheme of the Bill is that the right to appear before the Referee is personal or whether it can be delegated.

§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I do not quite see the point here. If they are required to do it they must have power to do it.

§ Mr. LAMBTON

May I ask the Attorney-General on a point of law whether the words are necessary or not? Under Clause 14 it is stated "the Commissioners shall allow as deductions from site value." I maintain that that is a matter which is required, and not a matter which is within their power.

§ Sir W. ROBSON

They cannot be required excepting in some case where they have power. The words "have power" are wider.

§ Mr. CAVE

These words will make it perfectly clear. A man might say there is an appeal against him in a case where the Commissioners have power to do a certain thing, and it might be suggested that that does not apply to cases where they must do that thing. The only object is to cover both cases, and I do not see that any harm will be done by accepting the Amendment.

§