on account, making it
L634,170. Credit balances had swollen by the sum of L175,589. The profit
on the year was L900,947, as against L234,064 last year. On the credit
side, properties stood at L4,405,917, and had increased by the new
properties acquired. The live stock stood at L34,000 less than last
year, due to a smaller stock of "Invernada" cattle. The stocks of
extract and felled timber had risen by L115,000, principally owing to a
larger stock of felled timber. Debit balances had risen to L156,000. In
the profit and loss account the trading profit was L1,281,299, as
compared with L614,879 last year, and, after deducting London charges,
debenture interest, depreciation, and legal reserve, there was left a
profit of L900,947.

14. _The Westminster Gazette_, July 15, 1916:

The accounts of the W. and C. T. Jones Steamship Company, Limited, of
Cardiff, for the year ended June 30, show that, with a fleet of thirteen
steamers, L524,855 profit has been earned, representing 187 per cent on
the capital of L280,000.

The previous year's earnings were L87,105.

A dividend of 15 per cent, making, with 10 per cent interim dividend, 25
per cent for the year, free of income tax, is declared.

15. _The New Statesman_, July 1, 1916:

The prolonged debate in the House of Commons on the Excess Profits Tax
ended on Monday in a vote which found Mr. McKenna's critics in a small
though substantial minority. The point actually at issue was not very
simple, and in spite of repeated explanations several of the most
persistent speakers never grasped it. The demand was that all
"controlled establishments" should be exempt from the excess profits tax
in consideration of the patriotic services they were rendering to their
country and of the "bargain" alleged to have been concluded with the
Ministry of Munitions whereby any profits they may make in excess of 20
per cent above their normal profits are in any event taken by the State.
This meant, of course, that a controlled firm which made a profit of
L50,000 in 1914, and of L60,000 (due to war contracts) in 1916, would
retain the whole of their excess profits without reduction. Mr. McKenna
argued that such firms, having the advantages of practically compulsory
labour and freedom from Trade Union restrictions, ought, at any rate,
not to be let off more lightly than uncontrolled firms. It is amazing
that such a proposition should have to be stated at all.

The point of view of the ordin