§
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:—
The expression "rate" moans a rate the proceeds of which are applicable to public local purposes, and which is leviable on the basis of an assessment in respect of the yearly value of property, and includes any sum which, though obtained in the first instance by a precept, certificate, or other instrument requiring payment from some authority or officer, is or can he ultimately raised out of a rate as before defined.
349
The expression "rateable value" in the case of the county rate, or any other rate, levied according to any annual value not being rateable value as stated in the valuation list, means that annual value.
The expression "valuation list" means a valuation list under the Union Assessment Committee Acts, 1802 and 1801 or, in the metropolis, under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1809.
The expression "spending authority" means any of the local authorities in England mentioned in the schedule to this Act.
The expression "occupier" includes owner where the owner is rated in place of the occupier.
The expression "Local Taxation Account' has the same meaning as in the Local Government Act, 1888.
The expression "prescribed" means prescribed by order of the Local Government Board.
The expression "agricultural land" means any land used as arable, meadow, or pasture ground only, cottage gardens exceeding one-quarter of an acre, market gardens, nursery grounds, orchards or allotments, but does not include woodlands or land occupied together with a house as a park, garden, other than as aforesaid, or pleasure-ground, or any land kept or preserved mainly or exclusively for sporting purposes.
The expression "year" means the local financial year, that is to say, the twelve months beginning on the first day of April, or where the spending authority do not make up their accounts to that day, on the nearest day thereto to which they do make up their accounts.
§ MR. CHAPLIN moved to insert the word "made during the continuance of this Act," after the words "The expression rate means a rate." He said that it was merely to make it clear that the rates referred to in the Bill were rates made after and not before the passing of the Bill.
§ MR. EDWARD MORTONI rise to make an appeal to the Leader of the House. [Cheers, and cries of "Oh!"]
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! I do not know whether the hon. Member is proposing to move the Adjournment of the Debate. If so, I may tell him that I shall not accept that Motion. [Cheers.] By a large majority the House has practically decided on the last Division to go on with the consideration of Clause 9. [Cheers.]
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ *MR. JOHNSON-FERGUSON moved to reinsert in the clause the word 350 "woodlands," which was originally in the Bill, but which the right hon. Gentleman agreed to strike out when the House was in Committee. He quoted from the Report of the Select Committee on Forestry, 1887, as to the importance of extending the area of the woodlands of the country, and contended that if the exclusion of woodlands from the advantages of the Bill were maintained, it would be a strong deterrent to their extension in the future. No man would willingly plant land which before planting was relieved of half the rates, if after planting it immediately became liable for the full rate. The only ground on which it was urged that woodlands ought to be excluded was that timber had not fallen in price. That statement was contrary to the experience, he ventured to say, of a great many Members. The fact was that the fall in the price of timber had been quite as great as that experienced in any form of agricultural produce. He commented on the anomalies of the exclusion of woodlands, pointing out that the nurseryman, who grew small trees for sale, and the man who planted fruit trees, were to receive the benefit of the relief, whereas, the man who planted oak, or any other form of timber, was to receive no benefit whatever.
§ MR. CHAPLINreminded the House that he agreed to the exclusion of woodlands in Committee in deference to a suggestion which appeared to be supported by the Opposition generally, and againt which no remonstrance was made by the Ministerial side of the House. That being so, he should consider himself guilty of a breach of faith if he parted from that position now, and, therefore, he accepted the clause in its present form.
§ *MR. LUTTRELLsaid it had been stated that the reason why he had moved the Amendment was that timber had not fallen in value. That was not the reason. The reason that the Amendment was moved in Committee was not because timber had fallen in value, but because the land on which it grew was not agricultural land, and because there were no occupiers of the land. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had remained firm upon the point, and had declined to allow "woodlands" to be reinserted in the Bill after it had been struck out in Committee, notwithstanding the great 351 pressure that had doubtless been brought to bear upon him from both sides of the House. He hoped that the hon. Members who had been anxious to get "woodlands" again included in the Bill would now withdraw the Amendment.
§ *MR. JOHNSON-FERGUSONasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
MR. McKENNA moved to omit the following words:—
but does not include woodlands, or land occupied together with a house as a park, garden, other than as aforesaid, or pleasure ground or any land kept or preserved mainly or exclusively for sporting purposes,
in order instead to insert the words—
except land of which the reasonable selling value is more than 33 times the annual rental value.
§ *MR. SPEAKERruled that the insertion part of the Amendment was out of order.
§ *SIR C. DILKEasked whether the omission part of the Amendment was in order.
§ *MR. SPEAKERYes; that part of the Amendment is in order.
§ MR. McKENNA moved the omission part of the Amendment. The words were, he said, absolutely superfluous. As the clause stood, it was as absurd as if one defined the word "mankind" as including men women and children, but as excluding horses and asses. [Laughter.]
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid he was always ready to consider, and, if he could, to accept any reasonable Amendment, but he did not think it was reasonable to ask him to accept an Amendment which was not on the Paper.
§ *SIR C. DILKEIt is on the Paper.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid he was prepared to deal with the Amendment which stood on the Paper, but if he accepted it as moved he might get into difficulty.
§ *SIR C. DILKEsaid the speech of the right hon. Gentleman showed what a pity it was that they should be considering the Bill at that hour (5.20 a. m.). 352 This definition was the most delicate matter in the Bill, and was the point on which it was most likely to break down, and the right hon. Gentleman said that if he accepted the Amendment he might get into difficulty. He thought the form of dealing with this matter which was proposed by his hon. Friend was the better form, and that the present words in the clause, without the exceptions, were a sufficient definition. It should be stated what land was included as agricultural land, but it was unnecessary to go so far as to weaken the definition by specifying that which was not agricultural land. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at Sections 211 and 230 of the Public Health Act, he would find that in each of those cases there was a list of things included, but no corresponding list of things excluded. If the Government wished to deal with the matter by exception, he feared they would have to spend a good deal of time in discussing what the exceptions were to be. It seemed to him it would be better to follow the precedent of the Public Health Act, and to define only what was agricultural land.
§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that he was interested in this matter because the exclusions enumerated in the clause were intended to limit the class of land of which the rates would be partially paid by money provided by the Treasury. According to the clause the expression "agricultural land "was to mean any land used as arable, meadow, or pasture ground only. But a park was pasture ground, and to a garden attached to a house the term "arable" might possibly be applied. It was cultivated land. He did not think the House would desire that parks, pleasure grounds, and gardens belonging to houses should be relieved from the payment of half the rates. If he was correct in that it was clear that some exceptions must be enumerated in the clause. The hon. Member who had moved this Amendment 353 recognised this, because he desired to except land of which the reasonable selling value was more than 33 times the annual rental value. He hoped that the House would agree to abide by the words in the Bill.
§ MR. STUARTrecognised that it was necessary to name some exceptions. It was, however, always dangerous to make an enumeration, because it might not be a complete enumeration. It would, therefore, be necessary to examine the list of exceptions very closely, but he could not support the Amendment of his hon. Friend because it would sweep away at once some exceptions which ought certainly to be enumerated.
§ MR. ASQUITHpointed out the great delicacy and importance of this subject. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if it was the intention of the framers of the Bill to exclude parks, although used as pasture, from the operation of the relief otherwise given by the Bill, it was necessary to say so in express terms. At the same time, it was the duty of the House to scrutinise with closeness the language in which the non-excluded categories were dealt with. In the earlier portion of the clause, for example, the expression "agricultural land" was held to include gardens, but subsequently, in the excluding portion of the clause, the word "garden" only was used. He suggested that the plural should be used in both cases. He did not say that the construction he put on the matter was a necessary one; it was sufficient for him to say that it was a possible one. He fully agreed with the hon. Member for Shoreditch that at that hour, after a long and exhaustive sitting, the House was not in the best intellectual frame of mind to deal with delicate points of this kind, and hon. Members ought to have an opportunity of considering them at a more suitable time.
§ MR. McKENNAasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
354§ MR. STUART moved to omit the words "or woodlands."
§ MR. CHAPLINassented.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ *MR. LUTTRELL moved to omit the words "together with a house," and to insert "or used," so that the expression "agricultural land" should not include "woodlands or land occupied as a park." The Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared that the object of the Government was to exclude pleasure parks belonging to houses, so that they should not be relieved from the rates. He and many of his hon. Friends would go further than that and say that parks, whether they had houses or not, should not be included in the Bill. They interpreted this Bill as one to relieve distressed occupiers of agricultural land, but they could not in any way whatever turn these parks into distressed agricultural land. There were parks and deer parks which were not in connection wth houses, and such land as that ought not to get half the rates paid from the Imperial Exchequer.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid it appeared to him that such a park as the hon. Member had described, which was kept solely for deer, would come within the present description of the Bill—"or pleasure ground, or any land kept or preserved mainly or exclusively for sporting purposed." The objection to omitting the words proposed by the hon. Member was that a park without a house would in all probability be let to some occupier, and would be purely agricultural land. Why, under these circumstances, the occupier of the park should be deprived of the advantages of the Bill he could not see. He thought it would be making an unfair distinction between him and other occupiers of agricultural land, and he did not think the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would exactly meet the object he had in view.
§ MR. McKENNAcontended that the Amendment was necessary if a park 355 which was used as a pleasure resort was to be excluded from the benefits of the Act. He trusted that the Amendment would be accepted.
A Division was challenged, but, on the Question being put from the Chair that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill,
§ *MR. SPEAKERdeclared that the "Ayes" had it, the Amendment being, therefore, negatived.
§ MR. McKENNAobserved that when the question was put he challenged a Division.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe challenge was too late.
§ MR. McKENNAI beg to say that, although you may not have heard me, I distinctly said "No" when the Question was put.
§ *MR. SPEAKERI did not hear the hon. Member until I had declared that the "Ayes" have it. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. STUART moved to omit the word "gardens" and to insert the word "garden," his object, he explained, being to exclude the word "gardens" and all that followed, from the governing phrase "occupied together with a house."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. CHAPLIN moved the insertion of words to provide that agricultural land "should not include land used for the purposes of sport or recreation or for a racecourse."
§ *SIR C. DILKEsaid it occurred to him that there might be cases which would not be properly covered by these words. Take the case of a rifle range. There were some rifle ranges which were practically agricultural land. That land was used for hay, and shooting was suspended for a fortnight in the year, during the hay harvest. That land ought to have exemption. There were other rifle ranges which were used mainly, and in some 356 cases exclusively, for rifle range purposes. He thought, therefore, more general words than those proposed should be adopted.
§ *MR. HARRISON moved to amend the proposed Amendment by omitting the word "for" and inserting "land used as" before "race-course."
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. BUXTONasked whether the President of the Local Government Board did not think that the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway were not better than those before the House. It seemed to him that the words proposed were too exclusive.
§ MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENasked whether the Amendment would exclude pasture land which was used once a year for a rustic steeplechase.
§ MR. CHAPLINThe words of the clause are "mainly or exclusively."
§ MR. McKENNAthought the words suggested by his hon. Friend were preferable to those the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had proposed. It was just as well to be precise in order to cover all possible cases.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. BUXTON,on behalf of Sir ROBERT REID, moved to insert after the words "for sporting purposes" the words "or any land which has an increased value over and above the ordinary value as agricultural land." The House would remember that at the end of the last all-night sitting the President of the Local Government Board practically admitted the principle for which the Opposition contended, namely:—that where land had a value above agricultural value it ought to be excluded from the operation of the Act. The right hon. Gentleman undertook to consider whether he could meet their views, but he had since said 357 he had been unable to devise any means of doing so. The difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman anticipated was that in some boroughs and Metropolitan areas there were certain lands which were purely agricultural land, and that it would be unfair to exclude such lands from the benefit of the Act. That difficulty would be entirely removed by the adoption of the Amendment, because the Amendment while allowing the benefit of the Act to all land that could be shown to be agricultural land, would exclude from its operation all land that was not purely agricultural land. The House would admit that land which was held solely with a view of securing high prices for building purposes, and was only let temporarily for agricultural purposes, could not be defined as agricultural land and ought not to receive the benefits of an Act which was solely intended to relieve distressed agriculture.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid he should have been glad had he been able to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite in this matter. But he could not say that the House was much advanced towards a settlement of the difficulty by the Amendment. It only showed the difficulty he experienced in devising an Amendment which would really meet the object in view. The proposal which they had before them was this—they were to exclude from any participation in the relief given under this Bill any land which had an increased value over and above its ordinary value as agricultural land. But what was the "ordinary value?" He thought that they would, if they attempted to solve that point, soon be involved in very considerable difficulties. The value of land depended on various considerations—the district in which it was situated, the quality of the land, the access to it, its nearness to markets. He defied anyone to say what under all the circumstances, was the ordinary value of land. That was a question they were unable to solve in Parliament, and now it was proposed to 358 remit it to the overseers. He did not think they ought to throw that duty upon them, and if they attempted it he believed it would land them in still greater difficulties.
§ MR. ASQUITHthought the right hon. Gentleman had slightly exaggerated the difficulties of the problem. ["Hear, hear!"] That problem was solved almost every day by the surveyor and the expert in the case of railway companies which acquired land along the route and in the neighbourhood of towns; and he did not see the difficulty in discrimination. He did not cast any imputation on the right hon. Gentleman, or suggest anything as to the intention of the Bill to give relief to agricultural depression, but, if they did not adopt that Amendment, they would be open to the misapprehension that they were going to give relief to the land that was not suffering. They had there the means of discrimination, which were perfectly easy of application. ["Hear, hear."]
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYcould not see that the Amendment carried out the views of the right hon. Gentleman. The relief went to the farmer and not to the landlord. ["No."] There is no reason why it should go to anyone else. ["Hear, hear!"] It might be that there was land very near towns which was extremely prosperous, but that had nothing to do with the Amendment. He saw no logic in the proposal, and he thought, therefore, if they were to deal with the problem put before them at all it must be in very different words from those which the hon. Gentleman had put before them. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ SIR W. HARCOURT,who was received with Opposition cheers, said that if it were true that it was impossible to discriminate between land which was distressed and laud which was not distressed in this Bill, a stronger and clearer condemnation of the Bill could not be found. But he contended that it was possible to make such a distinction, and they might depend upon it that all 359 the people brought into contact with it would make a distinction. [Cheers.] Did they think that the ratepayers in Liverpool would not distinguish between the land which was, within a few miles of that city, let at £5 an acre and the land in Essex? He thought the right hon. Gentleman had not apprehended the effect of this Amendment. There was not the slightest doubt that accommodation land was agricultural land in a specially favourable condition. The First Lord of the Treasury said that as long as the land was used for agriculture it could not be distinguished at all, but the land used for agriculture was accommodation land. This Amendment was intended to prevent that which they might depend upon it-would, when the Bill was put into operation, be one of the most conspicuous features of injustice in this Bill. The people in the towns or urban districts of the country would see near their dwellings land which was not distressed at all, and which was probably the most valuable property in the whole neighbourhood, being relieved at the expense of the taxpayers or the ratepayers in that particular parish. That was a notorious injustice. Wherever land was in that situation that there was a competition for it, then the diminution in the rate must and would go to the landlord. [Cheers.] That was another notorious feature of this case. If the dwellers in the houses of this country knew that such land, yielding an immense rent, was to be relieved to the tune of half the rates, which from the character of that land must go into the pockets of the landlords, then the Bill would be condemned, and justly condemned. [Cheers.]
§ MR. FLYNNsaid there ought to be no Member of the House more capable of appreciating the true inwardness of an Amendment like this than the Leader of the House, who had been Chief Secretary for Ireland, because the Amendment was on all fours with town parks in Ireland. To refuse this Amendment on 360 an English Bill, and to urge, as the Government would in a week or two, on an Irish Bill, with the most ingenious arguments, that town parks ought to be excluded, was surely the reductio ad absurdum of land legislation.
§ MR. BROADHURSTsaid that he knew of land that was worth from £4,000 to £5,000 which would get relief to the extent of half its rates, just the same as land only worth £100 per acre did. Anything more unjust than that could not be conceived. Such valuable land was often let as agricultural land in order to prevent buildings being erected upon it, which might obstruct the view of handsome houses overlooking it. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had expressed himself to be willing to exclude accommodation land from the operation of the Bill if he could arrive at a proper definition of the meaning of the term. He was always anxious to assist the Government when they got into a difficulty, and he was certain that the Opposition generally would be willing to assist the right hon. Gentleman in discriminating between land that was accommodation land and that which was not. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept their advice, the difficulty could be surmounted with the greatest case, and so prevent this great waste of public money. To relieve valuable land of half its rates would be like giving a money testimonial of £5 to Lord Rothschild. He hoped that something would be done to mitigate the absurdity of this Bill in this matter. It would be some satisfaction if their prolonged efforts to assist the Government if the Government would accept their advice in the direction of this Amendment.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSsupported the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House advanced an extraordinary argument. The right hon. Gentleman said, granted that an increased capital value might be given to the land, owing to its use in the future for building, as 361 long as that land was used for agricultural purposes, the occupier ought to have relief. Granted the agricultural occupier ought to have relief, but it should come out of the pocket of the owner who was going to convert the land into building land. Land which was available for building land escaped Income Tax, and further relief ought not to be given to those speculators who bought up land likely to become valuable for building purposes.
§ *SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid that every one knew that the holding back of land near a growing population, in order that the owner may obtain a larger price for it at a future time, was a great inconvenience to the locality. They ought not to assist this land jobbing or land speculation more than could be helped. Speculators who kept land out of the market would get the benefit of the remission of the rates. The rates being remitted, the value of the land would go up, and the owners would keep it still longer out of the market when it was wanted for the uses of a growing population. A sense of injustice would consequently be caused. He was convinced that the Measure would be more popular and useful if this Amendment were accepted.
§ MR. STUARTdeeply regretted the Government's refusal to accept this Amendment. From first to last they had shown themselves determined not to sanction any preferential treatment in favour of those agriculturists who were distressed as distinguished from those who were not. In the ranks of agriculturists themselves this Bill would inflict great injustice, for the proprietors of some of the best and most valuable properties in the world were going to be relieved equally with, nay, even to a greater extent, than the proprietor of the most miserable agricultural land. This Amendment had been brought up in a form which the Government undertook to consider three or four weeks ago; indeed, they accepted the principle of it. 362 It was now refused, and in his judgment the Government, by refusing Amendments on this point, were wrapping up in their Bill the seeds of its own destruction. [Cheers.]
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEcited the evidence given before the Agricultural Commission, and showed that in Oxfordshire £7 per acre was paid for land, while elsewhere there were derelict farms and land letting at 5s. an acre. By this Bill the land paying £7 per acre would receive thirty times as much relief as land in the distressed districts. The rates were paid by the landlord and not by the tenant on accommodation land in the neighbourhood of towns, and thus the landlord would receive practically 2s. an acre in relief from the Exchequer. Now, the question was whether it was possible to frame words which would cover the case of accommodation lands. He maintained that it was possible, and in proof of it he might mention that the Government had this Session introduced a Bill in which they actually gave a definition of accommodation land in Ireland. That definition in effect was "a tenancy in any holding ordinarily termed a town park which adjoined or was near any town and bears an increased value as accommodation land over and above the ordinary letting value of the land." [Cheers]. On the back of that Bill he found the names of the Attorney-General for Ireland and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Bill itself was introduced by the Chief Secretary.
§ MR. WINGFIELD-DIGBY (Dorset, N.)asked whether the hon. Member was in order in discussing matters in connection with an Irish Bill.
§ *MR. SPEAKERruled that the hon. Member so far was in order. [Opposition cheers.]
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the defining words in the Irish Bill were almost identical with the words in the Amendment. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] Supposing they were not—[laughter]—what answer did the Government make 363 to the Amendment? They said the definition could not be given by either the words of the Amendment or any other words, and the President of the Local Government Board went so far on a previous occasion as to assure the House that if a definition could be clearly made he would define it. Now, he had pointed out that a definition had been made of accommodation land in Ireland, and on what ground could it be stated, therefore, that such a definition could not be made in relation to accommodation land in England? [Cheers.] The other day they were told by the hon. Member for Tyrone that a definition was introduced into the. Act of 1881 and that the result was litigation. A fresh definition was introduced into the Act of the present year, because in the case of Ireland the words were introduced for the purpose of excluding the Irish tenant from relief——
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The hon. Member is at liberty to point out that the definition was introduced into the Irish Kill, but he cannot discuss the policy of the Irish Bill.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was pointing out that, with regard to the English Bill, it was done in order to grant relief to landlords, for, of course, with regard to accommodation lands, the money went direct into the pockets of the landlord. The hon. Member for Tyrone ought really to know that the thing was capable of definition, because in his own county they had 350 cases of accommodation land which had been defined by the Courts, and it was idle to say that what had been done by the Irish Courts could not be done by the English Courts. He thought they were entitled to ask the learned Solicitor General whether the words in the Irish Bill would not be applicable to the present case, and whether there was any difference between the two cases.
§ MR. DALZIELthought they ought to have some reply from the Government. He did not think the speech they had 364 just heard was one which could be answered in silence. They had got to a point where the Government must recognise that they were in a hopeless mess in regard to the Bill. No Member of the Government denied that there was an injustice being perpetrated under the Bill—that men who were not suffering from agricultural distress, who were drawing high rents from land, were getting money under the Bill. The Opposition had pointed out what would happen under this Bill, but the Government said, while they regretted, they could not help it, and that they wanted a definition. His hon. Friend had presented them with their own definition—[Opposition cheers]—contained in a Bill now on the Table, and which was going to be discussed next week. He wondered where the Chief Secretary for Ireland was. [An HON. MEMBER: "In bed." Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman ought to be sent for, because it was quite clear that there was no Member of the Government present who could understand accommodation land. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"] The Solicitor General had helped the Government out of many a difficult position, but would he be able to help them over this difficult stile? If this definition was right in Ireland, why should it be wrong in England? [Cheers, and cries of "Finlay."]
§ MR. DAVID THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil)observed that in Committee on the Bill he moved an Amendment similar to this, which was accepted in principle by the President of the Local Government Board, on whose pledge to do his utmost to carry it out he then withdrew it. [Cheers.] As the right hon. Gentleman had not put down any words to carry out his promise on the Report stage he spoke to him on the the subject, and the President of the Local Government Board informed him that he had done his very utmost in conjunction with the Law Officers of the Crown to frame an Amendment that would carry out the intention, but had 365 not been able to achieve that result. He asked the Solicitor General to explain how it was the definition which appeared in the Irish Land Bill was not applicable to this Land Rating Bill, and the Government could not carry out the pledge they had given.
§ MR. MORTONsaid, as they had failed to get any answer from the Solicitor General, he would turn to the Member for South Tyrone. When, on a similar occasion, words were quoted from the Act of 1881, the Member for South Tyrone pointed out that those very words as a definition of accommodation land had caused an enormous amount of litigation in Ireland. He challenged the Member for South Tyrone to say how it was the Government refused to apply to the case of accommodation land the words they applied to the Act dealing with Irish land.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERALdeclared that the definition in the Irish Act was utterly and absolutely different from that proposed. The Irish Land Bill contained a similar definition as applied to accommodation land. This definition was framed so as to apply to any farm land which was purely farm land, and not for accommodation purposes, as of particularly high value. The definition in the Irish Act dealt with accommodation land, and it had been held that land was not accommodation land within that definition merely because it was of specially high value for farming purposes. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who had supported the Amendment had not framed in their own minds any clear idea of what it meant. They sometimes seemed to think that it was intended to cover the case of agricultural land of specially high value, and at other times that it was intended to cover the case of agricultural land which would have a high value, as of building land when applied to that purpose. The real difficulty had been to frame a definition which, when applied in practice, would not occasion intolerable 366 friction. Any definition such as that contained in the Amendment would create a sort of state of civil war amongst the owners of pieces of land which could be supposed by any possibility to come within the range of that definition.
§ MR. COHEN (Islington, E.) moved that the Question be now put, but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent.
§ *MR. A. J. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside),said that from first to last the Government had professed their desire to meet the views of the Opposition in this matter; but they had declared themselves totally unable to find a definition. But they were able to do it in Ireland. Would they adopt the words of the Irish Bill? All that was asked was that the Government should fulfil their pledges.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid the object of the Irish Bill was to say that the Land Act should not apply to a town park bearing an increased value as accommodation land, except where such town park was let and used substantially as an ordinary farm. What it proposed to do was to engraft the exception upon the old rule in the Land Act. They were invited now to accept a Rule that had worked so badly that it was not encouraging to follow in that path.
§ *MR. MUNDELLAsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman was correct; the Irish Bill denied relief to a tenant occupying a tenancy of this description. He and his hon. Friends desired that landlords in England owning such properties should not be relieved from payment of rates. The neighbourhood of every town in England would afford an object lesson of the iniquitous character of this Measure. Surely there was some better answer to be given than had been given by the Solicitor General.
§ MR. DENIS KILBRIDE (Galway, N.)said nothing had surprised him more than the statement of the Solicitor General that he was unable to frame an 367 Amendment which would meet the case put forward by the Opposition, because the language of an Irish Bill, to which he called the attention of his hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon, met the very case. ["Hear, hear!"] The Bill was intended to relieve distressed agriculture, and they knew very well that land in the vicinity of a city or town was not generally used for bona fide agricultural purposes.
§ *MR. SPEAKERremarked that the hon. Gentleman was now reiterating arguments already frequently used. [Ministerial cheers.]
§ MR. KILBRIDEsaid he had not heard his arguments used before. [Cries of" Order."] He wished to remind the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who, he believed, was Under Secretary to the Local Government Board, that in his own constituency there was a hamlet of only 350 inhabitants, and that the land in the neighbourhood was looked upon as accommodation land, and bore an increased value owing to its proximity to that hamlet.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 80; Noes, 213.—(Division List, No. 301.)
§ MR. BRYN ROBERTS moved to insert, after the words "racecourse" the words "or any land used in connection with any business other than farming." He said that near to the towns there was a large amount of land used in connection with other businesses than the cultivation of the soil. Hotel proprietors and mustard manufacturers often made use of such land.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that the Government could not accept the Amendment, which would lead to many difficulties. Because a man happened to have some occupation besides that of agriculture, it was no reason why his agricultural land should not receive the benefits of the Bill.
§ Amendment negatived.
368§ MR. CHAPLIN moved as an Amendment to insert at the end of the definition of "agricultural land" the words, "The expression 'cottage' means a house occupied as a dwelling by a person of the labouring classes."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. LEWIS moved to leave out the words "or where the spending authority do not make up their accounts to that day on the nearest day thereto to which they do make up their accounts." He wished to know why more than one day should be referred to.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid that all the spending authorities did not make up their accounts on the same day—the smaller School Boards, for instance, made up their accounts to the 29th of December.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALpointed out that what the right hon. Gentleman had said was an explanation, and that the words were meant to meet such cases as those of certain School Boards to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred.
§ MR. LEWISasked leave to withdraw the Amendment—[Cries of "No!"]—in order to move the omission of the words "on the nearest day thereto."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that as it was evident some date must be fixed, he preferred the date originally inserted in the Bill, the 1st of April, because it was not an inappropriate day on which to begin this Bill. [Laughter.]
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided.:—Ayes, 203; Noes, 75.—(Division List, No. 302.)
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL, Tyrone, S.) moved an Amendment with the object of enabling a 369 prescribed day to be fixed for the cloning of the accounts of the spending authority.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH moved an Amendment to the Schedule to add Pariah Councils and Parish Meetings to the list of spending authorities.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLI rise to order, Sir. This Amendment would impose a fresh charge under the Bill, and is, therefore, I submit out of order on Report.
§ *MR. SPEAKERIf that is so the Amendment would be out of order, but I do not understand that it is so. [Cheers.] If the Amendment increased the area, and consequently the amount of money that would have to be spent it would be out of order, but, as I understand, it does not increase the area. It only means that the money should be handed over to some parish authorities instead of other authorites.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid that near the end of the proceedings in Committee he explained why the Parish Council had been omitted from the list of spending authorities. The result of insertng the Amendment in the Bill would be that there would be an enormous number of payments to Parish Councils, a great many of which would amount to only a few shillings. In the statement which he had made in Committee he had shown that the financial transactions of Parish Councils had been very small.
§ In answer to Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid that Parish Councils would receive no money; it was not a spending authority under the Bill.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid that Parish Councils would not receive any grant in respect of parish rates. The effect of the Amendment would be to add to a charge on the public revenue on behalf of the parish rates. He submitted that the Amendment was out of order.
§ *MR. SPEAKERIf that is so, it is out of order.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEshowed that by the first Section of the Act relief was 370 granted in respect of the rates levied by a Parish Council, and by the second Section grants were made from the local taxation account in respect of the deficiency which would arise under the Bill; but no additional money was to be imposed. The only question was as to who was going to receive the relief in respect of the parish rates. He submitted on the point of order that the money was provided for under the second Section.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid the hon. Member was right as to the first Section in regard to parish rates, but the second Section provided for a grant to the spending authorities mentioned in the Bill. There were several spending authorities, but Parish Councils were not mentioned among them, and the effect of the Amendment would be to introduce Parish Councils as fresh recipients of the grant, and, therefore, would involve an extra charge.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTsaid the Solicitor General had proved himself to be out of court, for the moment that he admitted that the parish rate was included in the first clause of the Bill, the point was decided against him. ["Hear, hear!" and Ministerial cries of "No!"]
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid that was not so. The first section of the Bill dealt with the assessment of agricultural land to the rate, and the second section dealt with a grant which was to be made in respect of the deficiency for reasons which had already been mentioned by the President of the Local Government Board. The Parish Councils had been kept out from the list of authorities, and would receive the grant in respect of that particular assessment on agricultural land.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTsaid the House was on the point as to whether the Amendment increased the amount of the grant or not. The whole question depended on the first and not on the second clause, for the number of spending authorities had nothing to do with the amount of the grant. The first clause determined how much of the rate was to be paid, and thus settled the question of amount, while the second clause dealt only with the spending authorities of that amount.
§ MR. STUARTrose to continue the Debate, whereupon
§ *MR. SPEAKERsaid If the hon. Member rises to speak to a point of order, I will hear him, but I have quite made up my mind,
§ MR. STUARTsaid he had risen to say that he thought the point of order was with the Solicitor General in that, in his opinion, this put on a new charge.
§ *MR. SPEAKERAfter hearing the argument, that is my view. The first clause provides what the occupier of agricultural land is to pay. He has to pay half. Then the deficiency is to be made up, which is done by the second section, and towards making up that deficiency the only grant appears to be a grant to certain specified authorities. Among those the parish council or parish meeting are not included, and therefore to include them would be to increase the charge. For that reason the Amendment was out of order.
§ MR. CHAPLIN moved the omission of the Isle of Wight Highway Commissioners from the list of spending authorities. He did so, he said, because he understood they had ceased to exist. [Loud laughter.]
§ Bill to be read the Third time upon Wednesday.