§ (1.) The owner of any land may in any year redeem the Land Tax charged on such land by payment to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue of a capital sum, equal to thirty times the sum assessed on such land by the assessment last made and signed, after deducting any increase of the assessment made by virtue of this section, and such sum may be paid either in a single payment, or by such annual instalments as may be agreed upon with the Commissioners, and interest at the rate of three per cent. per annum on so much of the capital sum as remains unpaid shall be payable with each instalment, and all the instalments remaining unpaid may be paid at any time.
§ (2.) If an assessment on account of the unredeemed quota of Land Tax charged against any land tax parish would but for this section be made at a rate less than one penny in the pound on the annual value of the land in the parish subject to Land Tax, such assessment shall be made at a rate of not less than one penny in the pound, except where such an assessment would produce a net sum exceeding the amount required for the redemption of the whole of the unredeemed quota, in which case the assessment shall be at such rate as will produce a not sum equal to that amount.
§ (3.) Any surplus Land Tax in any land tax parish received by reason of an increased assessment under the foregoing enactment, or otherwise received under the Land Tax Acts, shall be paid and applied in manner provided with respect to surplus Land Tax by section one hundred and fourteen of the Taxes management Act, 1880, except that such surplus, so far as it is not applied in payment to the assessors, shall be deemed to have redeemed so much of the unredeemed quota of the Land Tax in the parish as is equal to one-thirtieth part of such surplus.
§ MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton) moved to omit the word "thirty" (printed in italics) and to insert instead thereof the word "forty." The object of the Amendment was to increase the single payment by which the Land Tax might be redeemed from "thirty times" to "forty times" the sum assessed. By the Clause which had just been passed the Committee had given away a tenth part of the Land Tax, which was the property of the nation. It was now proposed to change that property from a share in the rent to a lump sum of money. The only investment open to the nation for that money was investment in the Funds for forty years. That was 2½ per cent., and as thirty years was a quarter less than forty years, the nation would be a loser by 25 per cent. on the remainder of the Land Tax, or another £250,000 a year, if this 1157 transaction were carried out. The only adequate reason for the change would be if the investment about to be made were better than the investment about to be given up. But that could not be said to be the case. The only thing that would make it a bad investment would be if Parliament were to consent in the future to make reductions in the Land Tax similar to that carried in the last clause. But he regarded the present investment a good one on this ground. A long time ago the State said it was a part proprietor in the land of the country, and it fixed the value of its proprietorship at the sum of 4s. in the pound in each parish. If circumstances had brought up the Land Tax in excess of 4s. in the pound the property might be considered a bad property for the State. But that had not happened. He did not deny that the assessment of the tax was unequal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned instances of serious rises in the assessment. In one case it was from 1s. 2d. to 2s. 6d. in the pound, but in no case had the tax become more than 4s. in the pound. Therefore the State had a good property in this tax, and there was no good ground for making a change in the character of the investment. The change would, as he had said, mean a loss of 25 per cent. in its property to the State, and that 25 per cent. would be given to persons who were in no sense deserving of it. The first Amendment in the Land Tax which had just been carried might be said to help agricultural distress. But this Amendment was an offer that was made all round. To whom would the 25 per cent. go? Chiefly to the inhabitants of the country districts. In the Metropolis more than 60 per cent. of the Land Tax had been redeemed, while in the country generally little more than 40 per cent. had been redeemed. This was a great injustice to the inhabitants of the large centres of population, because those who had not yet redeemed the Land Tax would now be able to do so on far more favourable terms. The line of policy initiated in this clause was most dangerous. The Government had promised an inquiry into the best means of alleviating local taxation generally; and there were many large and reasonable claims to meet. But by this proposal, as by the previous clause, and the Rating Bill, the Govern- 1158 ment were using up in advance the very resources on which they could have drawn to effect a readjustment of local taxation. This Land Tax question was closely mixed up with the question of local taxation; and when the Government came to deal with the latter, they would regret that they had thus squandered the national assets.
§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that he could not agree with the hon. Member. The tithe rent-charge was now redeemable at 25 years' purchase—five years less than the term he proposed. When the Land Tax was made permanent by Mr. Pitt in 1798 as a quid pro quo favourable terms for redemption were offered. During the next two years the rate of redemption was only 20 years' purchase, and £500,000 out of the £850,000 which had been redeemed up to this time was redeemed in those first two years. Since then the value of the funds had more than doubled, and the rate of redemption had therefore increased until now it was about 37 years' purchase. In 1853 Mr. Gladstone dealt with it, the rate then being 35¾ years' purchase, and the rate was reduced to 29½ years' purchase. Again the price of redemption had risen, and the Royal Commission had unanimously recommended that it was too high. If it should happen that the Funds went down again, the State would be a considerable gainer by the terms of redemption having been separated from the price of the funds.
§ DR. CLARKsaid that the Land Tax was redeemed in the first instance, on condition that an equal amount of Consols would be wiped out; so that the State lost nothing. Consols were then at 48; but in four years, in consequence of the redemption, the price rose to 70. In 1813 a reduction of three years' purchase was made in the redemption price; Mr. Gladstone further reduced it; and now it would be said that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had reduced the price again by ten years' purchase. Reading this clause with the others that followed, it appeared that the Government were creating a new class of investment. The owner could redeem the Land Tax at 30 years' purchase; then under the next clause he could make the purchase money a first charge on the land; and that mortgage could 1159 easily be sold for 35 or 40 years' purchase. Consols were now at 112, and they would soon be bearing only a nominal 2½ per cent., or actually less than 2 per cent. That was 50 years' purchase. There would, no doubt, be a great deal of redemption; and he should like to know the Chancellor of the Exchequer's estimate of the nation's loss by these transactions.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTsaid that the great evil of the Land Tax was its inequality, and as long as they had the Land Tax the only way of really getting equality was through redemption. There was great fallacy in supposing that the Land Tax in its origin was something specially and exclusively connected with the land. That was an ignorant idea; and he would give a most curious illustration of the point. He had in his hand the correspondence of Mr. Canning with a note by his private Secretary as to the official increment Mr. Canning enjoyed in 1827. As first Commissioner of the Treasury Mr. Canning had £4,022 a year, from which was deducted £653 12s. for Land Tax. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not know when salaries ceased to pay Land Tax, but he thought that the above illustration would bring home to his hon. Friends the utter fallacy of supposing that this tax has special reference to land in its origin or inception. It was also a mistake to suppose that the tax was unalterable in its incidence. Those who had studied the question of the Land Tax, its incidence and redemption, had been impressed by its inequality, which was so great that it must be got rid of. He reminded the Committee, when it was said this was a present to a particular class, that he made a larger present than was now proposed to the owners of land in the Budget of 1890. Why? Because he was of opinion that the manner in which the Income Tax was raised on the gross instead of the net was an unequal form of taxation. He understood that the object of the terms of redemption now being discussed was to encourage and facilitate redemption.
After the usual interval Mr. GRANT LAWSON (York, N.R., Thirsk), took the chair.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid the Land Tax was originally a tax upon land paid by 1160 the landlord as a relief from military service to the Crown. The point was that when this charge was abolished so far as personalty was concerned, it was a fact that certain local burdens on personalty had increased. But the charge upon land was continued, and this charge had been taken into account by Parliament at all times when dealing with the land question. He believed it was true that in certain districts there was a certain amount of injustice, and that was a case for consideration and inquiry. In his opinion, instead of reducing this tax to this enormous extent, the Government ought to wait until the Commission had reported on the question. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that that House ought to encourage people to redeem this tax, but the effects of the proposal of the Government would be, instead of encouraging people to redeem the tax immediately, to induce them to wait in the hope that it would be entirely abolished. In fact, he could only regard those who had not redeemed the tax up to now as very lucky men, because they were going to get relief to the extent of £100,000 a year.
§ DR. CLARKsaid that he had been astonished by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire in respect to this question.
THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. GRANT LAWSON)called the hon. Member to order. He was not speaking to the Amendment before the House, which was to substitute the term of 40 years for 30 years.
§ DR. CLARKsaid that of course he would bow to the ruling of the Chair, but he could not help saying that in that case the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth must have been out of order also. He wanted to know, in the first place, how much the country was going to lose by this proposal on the part of the Government. Between the years 1840 and 1850 the amount of Land Tax redeemed was comparatively small, but that amount had very largely increased after Mr. Gladstone had, in 1853, brought in a Bill reducing the number of years' purchase at which the tax could be redeemed from 36½ years to 29½ years. Now it was proposed to reduce the 1161 term of 29½ years to 10 years. What the Government were doing was to surrender an excellently secured tax in order that the owner might acquire the charge at 10 years' purchase, and then take it into the market and sell it at 37½ years' purchase.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)said that the tax pressed unequally in different parts of the kingdom, because it was very heavy in some counties and very light in others. The question before the Committee was at what rate the Land Tax ought to be allowed to be redeemed. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would enable the landowners to dip their hands still deeper into the national purse than they had hitherto done. As the matter would stand if the Government proposal were accepted, a man who paid £100 per annum for Land Tax would be able to redeem it for £3,000, which would bring in far less to the State than the £100 a year. Having regard to the enormous presents lately made to the landowners, it was too much to ask the House to give them something more. His hon. Friend had shown clearly how advantageous the redemption would be to landowners, and having regard to the low rate of interest at the present time, the landlords would not hesitate to take advantage of the law after the passing of this Bill, and they would derive enormous benefit from it.
§ MR. HENRY BROADHURST (Leicester)thought that those who opposed the Amendment had dwelt rather unjustly on the fact that his hon. Friend ignored the unequal incidence of this tax. His hon. Friend did not ignore it. He recognised it and protested against too easy terms being offered to the landlords. A great deal of the legislation of this Session up to the present time had been in relief of landlords, and this was another form of relief. The landlords were now offered redemption on what were considered by competent authorities altogether unequal and unjust terms. There was no doubt that there would shortly be a considerable rise in the price of land. Such a rise would undoubtedly follow the legislation of this Session, yet the landlords were to be allowed to redeem the Land Tax on ridiculously easy terms. It was extremely inconvenient that the speech of 1162 the Leader of the Opposition should have been made, and his followers should not be allowed to criticise it. The right hon. Gentleman's statement had altogether astounded them. They did not conceive that there was anything of the kind in existence until that night. It was a most tempting theme, and one would have liked to follow it right. He entirely endorsed the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and he hoped he would mark his objection to the clause by dividing against it.
§ MR. T. LOUGH (Islington, W.)said the question was whether a 3⅓ per cent. investment was a liberal one at the present time. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be disposed to admit that, considering the price of money, rather too favourable terms were offered. When they were considering the Light Railways Bill the other day, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that 3⅛ per cent. was a fair rate at which money might be lent by the Treasury. Why, then, should he give this favoured class an investment at 3⅓ per cent.? The thing that astonished him was the moderate suggestion of his hon. Friend. He really thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer might give a little more consideration to it. It was evident that the figure 30 times the sum was not just, considering the price of money. It was a great boon to get the tax extinguished, and therefore, surely 3⅓ per cent. might be charged for the money. Some figure ought to be fixed in the Bill that would cause no loss to the Treasury, and if 40 could not be accepted, why not 35 or 33? He would like to ask one question of the right hon. Gentleman. The clause said that the owner of the land might redeem. He would like to know whether there were not some owners of the Land Tax who were not owners of the land? Were those people to be allowed to redeem the tax on the same favourable terms?
§ MR. LOUGHasked why they should be treated worse than the landlords? The policy of the Government seemed to be that unless a man held the land, no measure of justice should be meted out to him. At any rate, he thought the transaction should be carried out without loss to the Treasury.
§ MR. J. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid)said that under the existing law the transaction incurred no loss to the Treasury, but under the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, this would be altered and a loss would be incurred. If there was to be redemption the State ought to be careful to obtain the market price, and even 40 years' purchase would be rather less than the present market price. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not argue that he proffered these favourable terms to meet cases of distress, because the same right of redemption would be enjoyed in cases where the burden was light as in cases where the burden was heavy. Was there any reason why the State should allow redemption to take place at less than the market price? What the Government was doing was to give a present to the existing owner of the land. The future owner would not benefit, for the present owner would raise the money necessary for redemption by mortgage on his property, and the future owner would have to pay the equivalent of the Land Tax in interest. The Government had introduced a Bill which would abolish Land Tax in burghs in Scotland. Was it likely that the landlords in these burghs were going to redeem? The Committee had not been given any reason why there should be any departure from the existing practice regulating redemption.
§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that it was admitted that this was a most unequal tax, and since the time of Pitt it had been the object of Parliament to facilitate the redemption of the tax. The existing terms did not secure its redemption; in fact, redemption at the present price of Consols had practically ceased. The Government therefore proposed to tempt landowners to redeem by offering them more favourable terms. If the proposal were rejected the process of redemption would be stopped altogether, and he could not conceive that that would be a benefit either to the State or to individuals.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEobserved that the argument that it was desirable to redeem the Land Tax because it was unequal could be used with even greater force in support of a proposal to abolish tithe. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was desirable to tempt those who 1164 paid Land Tax to redeem, but why was it desirable? It was true that hitherto it had been the policy of Parliament to induce landlords to redeem upon terms which were beneficial to the Treasury, but the terms now offered would cause loss to the Treasury. Was it for the benefit of the public that the tax should be redeemed? He doubted it. When Mr. Pitt introduced his plan the tax amounted to £2,000,000. By redemptions, year after year, half of that sum was now gone. It had been squandered. The only result of capitalising that money had been to induce extravagance on the part of the Treasury. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: "It has gone to pay off the National Debt."] ["Hear, hear!"] He knew that; it had been whittled away by the Treasury in payment of debts that ought never to have been encountered. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the Treasury had never had the money, which had gone through the hands of the National Debt Commissioners.] ["Hear, hear!"] It mattered little through whose hands the money had passed. His point was that it was a perfectly proper policy on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to redeem the Land Tax, but that hitherto the policy had been to redeem it upon terms which had been favourable to the Treasury, and that now they were having a departure from that policy. The terms which Pitt offered were so much 3 per cent. stock as would produce a dividend exceeding the amount of the Land Tax by one-tenth—a proposal whereby the Treasury gained £400,000. He could understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer entering into a scheme of redemption which would benefit the Treasury of this country to that extent. From the point of view of public policy, it would be an advantage. But what was the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He said let the Land Tax be redeemed at 30 times the amount assessed on such land. That meant that if they redeemed the whole of the Land Tax at that price it would be a loss to the Exchequer of £250,000 per annum. If they capitalised that, it was a loss of £10,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said this was the policy of Parliament; of past Chancellors of the Exchequer; but he would ask the Committee whether there was 1165 not a vast difference between a policy of redeeming the Land Tax upon terms which would benefit the Treasury to the extent of £400,000 a year, and upon terms which would involve an annual loss to the Treasury of £250,000 per annum.
§ MR. DILLONsaid he entirely adopted the view expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Haddington on a previous clause, when he said that this could not be properly considered a tax in the ordinary sense of the word. They could not deal with this matter as an ordinary tax varying from year to year according to the necessities of the Exchequer. Those who had bought estates in this country had bought them subject to the Land Tax. They had not bought the Land Tax, and they had no right to expect to have a remission or redemption of it. An hon. Member opposite, when challenged on the subject said he did maintain the proposition that the Land Tax which had been redeemed years ago was still a burden on the landowners of the country. The meaning of that statement was that if they made a reduction, according to the hon. Member's view, in the Land Tax, they ought in justice to recoup those on whose estates the Land Tax had been redeemed and wiped off long ago at an enormously high rate. Of course, the hon. Member was quite right. He did not admit that it was an unjust tax, although its incidence was unequal, any more than he should admit that a quit-rent was unjust because in one district of the country it was high, and in another district it was low. He challenged and took issue on the first proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was desirable, and that everybody ought to desire, to redeem this Land Tax. He did not think it was desirable to do anything of the sort, and therefore he held that it was not competent for the Government, if they meant to act honestly by the Exchequer, to offer tempting terms to induce men to redeem their Land Tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the money accruing from the redemption of the Land Tax passed into the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, and that it was used in the reduction of the debt. 1166 What they were entitled to demand was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should prove to them that under this new scheme of his, the redemption of £100 of Land Tax a year would strike off £100 of the National Debt. He claimed that the right hon. Gentleman should show to the Committee, before they were called upon to pass this clause, that there would not be a dead loss to the Exchequer by the operation of this new system. The proposal before the Committee now was this—not only were they under Clause 25, to give £9,000 a year as a present to the landowners of the country, but to follow that up by admitting them to terms which would inflict a further loss upon the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, at any rate, ought to allow such a number of years' purchase to be inserted in the clause as would prevent any loss.
§ MR. STUARTcomplained that no answer had been given to his point that the Treasury had got no security. At present they had a certain property, but the Government were going to substitute for that another property which was less, although they did not gain anything by it except that the present miserably small rate of redemption might go on. What was the good of their squandering their property like this to no purpose? It was entirely from the Treasury point of view that he had put the case. He contended that the Treasury were getting too bad a bargain, and it was upon that point, to which there had been no answer, that he should take a Division.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERremarked that it was no use his attempting to lay before the Committee again the reasons he had twice endeavoured to impress upon them, and to which he had nothing to add. He would, however, venture to say that the time was getting on, and their sitting was likely to be a prolonged one unless the Amendments were disposed of in a reasonable time. He hoped that the Committee would now come to a decision on the subject.
§ *MR. HARRISONsaid the Redemption Act and its provisions as to the investment of the proceeds to be derived from the redemption of the tax under the clause was not interfered with by 1167 this Bill. The object of the Redemption Act was declared to be intended—
materially to conduce to the strengthening and supporting the public credit and augmenting the national resources.This was to be effected under the Act by employing the money obtained on the redemption of the tax, in the purchase of 3 per cent. Consols or Reduced Bank Annuities since altered into Consols. Now, the purchase or redemption money of the £1,860,000 Land Tax, at the price of Consols at the date of the Act, would have purchased about £70,000,000 of Consols. The redemption, however, had not taken place, and Consols are now above par. But under the present Bill the purchase money must still be applied in the manner directed by the Redemption Act. Each £100 of tax must therefore be invested in Consols, which were now 116, and the premium must be paid for by the general Exchequer out of the funds contributed by general taxation, and the landowner who redeemed could thereby obtain, in addition to his rebate of relief of tax, the capital sum which the premium represented. In other words, the Government would take up the tax on the 3 per cent., or 30 years' tables, in order to lend it out at under £2 15s. This was clearly improvident. If the clause had gone on to provide that the purchase money need not necessarily be invested in the manner now directed by the Act, there would have been an answer, but otherwise there was no answer to the argument on which the Amendment was based, and he therefore supported it, particularly as he objected to this further dole or sum represented by the premium being given to the landowner, as well as his rebate in respect of the tax.
§ [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS AND MEANS returned to the Chair.]
§ DR. CLARKsaid that if this clause was passed with 30 years' purchase, anyone who was paying £100 a year of Land Tax might come to the Treasury and compel redemption. The Treasury were now getting £100 a year, but instead of continuing to receive that amount they would in future get £3,000 from the person who compelled redemp- 1168 tion. The Treasury would be obliged to go into the open market with that £3,000 and buy stock with it.
THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSI must remind the hon. Member that that case has been put over and over again.
§ DR. CLARKThe question has never been answered from this standpoint, because it has never been put.
THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSThe same argument has been used, and the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to repeat arguments which have been urged over and over again. He is not justified in occupying the time of the Committee by merely repeating arguments with which they are already familiar.
§ DR. CLARKhad not heard the question put from the standpoint he desired to present. He wished to make clear the process which necessarily took place. If they went to the market and bought they would buy at a loss of £23 10s. for every £100. Why should they throw £23 10s. away——
THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSUnder the Standing Order 24, I consider the hon. Member is repeating the arguments of other hon. Members, and I must ask him to resume his seat.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 191; Noes, 76. (Division List, No. 325.)
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS moved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "may," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall" in order to provide that the redemption money shall be paid in a single sum and not by instalments. He said the object he had in view was to prevent any further benefit being given at the public expense to those who already benefited so largely by this clause. They were to pay an extremely low rate of interest, the payment was to stand over sine die, they were to have other advantages, and he did not see why all these should be conceded when most favourable terms were offered.
§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid the hon. Member might have placed this Amendment on the Paper. [Cheers.] He did not see why the system at present in force should be 1169 changed. Payments could be made now either in single sums or instalments, and he did not see on what ground the system was to be altered.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the reason was that the terms were more liberal than any that had been offered before.
§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERNo; the terms offered in 1853 were more liberal than those now proposed.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid they were not more liberal, because the rate of interest was much higher then than now. All the difference was made by the fact that money was now 2 per cent. By the terms offered, the taxpayers were to lose between £300,000 and £400,000. And not only that, but the matter was taken out of the hands of Parliament, because the instalments were to be paid upon such terms as might be agreed upon between the Treasury and the landowner. It was thus left to the Treasury to come to terms with individual landowners. There was too much of such legislation by Departmental regulation. The way the clause was drafted was highly objectionable.
§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he wished to meet every reasonable objection that could be raised. Hon. Members seemed to be under an impression that the Treasury would be a great loser by the clause. That was not his opinion at all. He believed there would be very few cases wherein the Land Tax amounted to a considerable sum in which the 30 years' terms would be accepted. The cases in which they might be accepted were cases in which the Land Tax was a very small amount indeed—perhaps a fraction of a penny in the pound on the valuation, involving the payment of a few shillings. In such cases persons might be disposed to redeem on the 30 years' basis.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer had quite met the point the hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs had in view in moving the Amendment. The hon. Member objected to payment by instalments and to any credit being given. If the Land Tax payer could obtain advantageous terms by agreement with the Commissioners, why should credit be given to him?
§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid the Treasury were not bound to accept payment by instalments, for under the clause as it stood they could decline to do so. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid that if payment by instalments were permitted it might give the landowner power to hold over payment to any extent.
§ Question put, "That the word 'may' stand part of the clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 202: Noes, 75. (Division List, No. 326.)
§ MR. LOUGHsuggested that words should be inserted in the clause limiting the number of instalments, say to 10 or 15. As the clause stood the Treasury Commissioners had the power of fixing any number of instalments they pleased.
§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he would inquire what the practice was before Report and see whether it was advisable to insert some limitation.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS moved to omit the words, "and all the instalments remaining unpaid may be paid at any time." As the clause stood, it seemed to him that it would be possible for a person who proposed to redeem his Land Tax to allow his instalments to stand over sine die, and the arrangement would practically be of the character of a mortgage.
§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid the object of the words was to make provision for the payment of outstanding amounts.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWISpointed out that under the words payments might stand over for 20, 30, 50 or even 100 years.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,) Inverness Burghssaid the intention was that a person owing instalments might pay them at any time. The words did not mean that the payments might stand over for ever.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsuggested that words should be inserted to the effect that a certain time should not be exceeded.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERALthought such an Amendment was quite unnecessary.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked if it would be open to the Treasury to give an indulgence to a man who had not paid.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERALremarked that the words of the clause did not add to the power of the Treasury.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWISYes.
§ Division called; but Amendment negatived.
§ Question put, "That Clause 26 stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 209; Noes, 77.—(Division List, No. 327.)
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 6:—