CLAUSE 11.—(Exemptions from Undeveloped Land Duty, and Allowances.)

HC Deb 11 August 1909 vol 9 cc453-624

(1) Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged in respect of any land where the site value of the land does not exceed fifty pounds per acre.

(2) In the case of agricultural land exceeding that value, Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged so far as the site value of the land is due to the value of the land for agricultural purposes.

(3) Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on the site value of any parks, gardens, or open spaces which in the opinion of the Commissioners are open to the public as of right, or on the site value of any parks, gardens, or open spaces reasonable access to which is granted to the public, where in the opinion of the Commissioners that access is of benefit to the public as contributing to the amenity of the locality, or on the site value of any land which is used for the purpose of games or other recreation where the Commissioners are satisfied that the use of the land is for the benefit of the public or of the inhabitants of the locality, and that the land is so used under some agreement with the owner which, as originally made, could not be determined for a period of at least five years.

The opinion of the Commissioners as to matters arising under this sub-section shall be final and not subject to any appeal.

(4) Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on any land not exceeding an acre in extent valued together with a dwelling-house for the purpose of Inhabited House Duty, and where land consists of or comprises gardens or pleasure grounds exceeding one acre but not exceeding two acres in extent, an allowance shall be given in respect of any Undeveloped Land Duty payable on the land of an amount of duty bearing the same proportion to the whole amount of duty payable as one acre bears to the whole extent of the gardens or pleasure grounds.

(5) Where agricultural land is at the time of the passing of this Act held under a tenancy originally created by a lease or agreement made or entered into before the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, the term of which exceeded one year but did not exceed twenty-one years, Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on the land during the continuance of the tenancy under that lease or agreement.

The CHAIRMAN

The point raised in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) was settled last night.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

I propose to call attention to a point which I was stopped raising yesterday, and I wish to point out that the leaving out of the word "agricultural" does exactly concern that point. The point is this: In the case of land which has a building value over the limit of £50 an acre, and yet has a value for agriculture greater still, whether that would be liable to the tax or not depends upon the construction of this sentence, and it would come into the question whether that land was agricultural land or not.

The CHAIRMAN

I think this Amendment, so far as I understand its real meaning, came on with the Debate which was taken last night on the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Chiozza Money), and I think the point which the hon. Member now desires to raise must be raised by some Amendment which will come on later.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

May I ask why the word "agricultural" is introduced in this place at all? What is the meaning of it?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson)

The meaning is this: If we had not the word "agricultural" there the deduction might be claimed in respect of land which was not agricultural land at all. Nevertheless, a claim for deduction might be made as in the case of agricultural land, and we do not desire that that land should have the benefit of the agricultural exemption.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

May I venture to suggest that there is a distinction between this Amendment and that of the hon. Member for North Paddington. The Amendment of the hon. Member for North Paddington was to take away the first value of £50 from the site value, and this Amendment is for the purpose of allowing for a deduction from the Site Tax 'of the agricultural value, whatever the agricultural value may be. There is a good deal of land of which the value is over £50 which is bonâ fide let at the present moment for agricultural purposes, and therefore this Amendment is for the purpose of raising the point that agricultural value, so far as it exists and is bonâ fide, should be a deduction from the site value for the purpose of the Development Tax. I submit on that point the hon. Member is entitled to move.

Mr. E. G. PRETYMAN

I really think this proposal does raise quite a distinct point. We understood that agricultural land applied to all land used for agriculture in regard to this particular exemption and if it is not built on, but having had raised a new definition, that land which may be used agriculturally, for some purpose or other, is still not agricultural land, I do submit that this is entirely a different case. The point is, what land should be exempted? The point we discussed before was whether agricultural land should be exempted, but this Amendment raises the point of what land should or should not be regarded as agricultural, and that is the point which the Attorney-General is called upon to answer.

Sir W. ROBSON

I submit not. I have not raised the question of what land is or is not agricultural; I have only said this is limited to agricultural land.

Mr. PRETYMAN

That is exactly the point, as to what is agricultural land.

The CHAIRMAN

I think on that ground I cannot refuse the Amendment. I was not perfectly certain about the matter myself, but I think on that point the Amendment may be allowed.

Mr. JAMES HOPE moved to amend section (2) by leaving out the word "agricultural" ["In the case of agricultural land exceeding that value."]

My point in regard to this Amendment is to bring out the case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), and that is that there are certain descriptions of land of which it may be said that they are agricultural, and at the same time it may be said they are not agricultural, as having a value, with development, other than agricultural. The agricultural value may in some cases be greater than the building value. Take the strip of land round Worthing, laid out in market gardens. There, there is an extraordinary development on market gardens owing to the conditions of climate and soil, and I have no doubt that the value of that land for agricultural purposes is greater than its value for any other purpose. It is near the town, and has a value for building purposes and a site value exceeding £50 an acre. There must be other places where the same thing applies in a lesser degree, and the point is this: If there is land which has an agricultural site value of £100, and it has a building value of £80, will it be altogether exempt, or will it have to pay on the £80 and only the odd £20 be exempted? That is the point I wish to raise, and in order to raise it and clear up the matter I accordingly move.

Sir W. ROBSON

The point raised by the hon. Member is one which arises upon an Amendment which is shortly to be moved by another hon. Member. I think it arises on that Amendment, and not on this Amendment at all. The meaning of the word "agricultural," as I have explained, is quite clear, and the effect of the section will be, if it is not kept in, that land which is in no sense agricultural and which is not particularly deserving of any exemption, but which is a mere rubbish or waste heap, might nevertheless be entitled to claim to be in the possession of an agricultural tenant, and there would be, although there was not any value in that land for agricultural purposes, a claim for an exemption. That is an extension of the agricultural exemption which we do not think should be given. We have to draw the line somewhere, and we think the agricultural exemption should be strictly limited to agricultural land. With regard to the case put by the hon. Member as to what the effect may be on certain very valuable agricultural land—land which may be so valuable that it may be dealt with in relation to site value, but may, nevertheless, become of less value for that purpose than for the purpose of building, I think I shall have to deal with it in a later Amendment. I recognise that the point will arise, and I will deal with it.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

As far as I am concerned I am quite content to postpone the point to which the learned Attorney-General has referred, to the later Amendment, where I have no doubt it could be more conveniently considered, arid what I wish to address myself to is the earlier question of whether the words "agricultural land," as here included, are necessary. It is curious that the Government have declined to put in an exemption for agricultural land in those words on many occasions, and though they use the term themselves, they refuse to accept it from us, because they said it would be perfectly simple and easy for anyone to make his urban site agricultural land within the meaning of the law if they accepted our Amendment, but here the Attorney-General lays it down, that if he puts the term "agricultural land" into this section he will exclude any urban land, even if it is used for agricultural purposes.

Sir W. ROBSON

That is not so.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

It is very desirable that we should understand one another. I will take the extreme illustration put by the Attorney-General, and I think I can make good my point. As I understood him he said: You may have a vacant town plot between houses used only as a rubbish heap, and if you do not put in the word "agricultural," even such a plot as that would get exemption. I think I do not misinterpret him now. Then he thinks that by putting in the term "agricultural" you will keep that land within the full force of the tax, and prevent it getting any benefit from this section (2). What was his argument to my hon. Friend earlier? It was that if you exempted agricultural land such plots as this would be sown with mustard and cress, and would become agricultural land at once. Therefore it is true that the word is quite useless even from his own point of view. Will he look at the definition clause, and he will see there that "The expression 'agriculture' includes the use of land as meadow or pasture land or woodland, or for market gardens, nursery grounds, or allotments, and the expression 'agricultural land' shall be construed accordingly." You have not, there, the extraordinary case of the rubbish heap, on which you have to sow mustard and cress, or vegetable marrow, or any other homely herb, but if you have a vacant plot of land, with a few sheep or cattle grazing on it, then it is agricultural at once. Therefore, if you put in the word "agricultural" here, you do not in the least degree produce the effect which the learned Attorney-General supposes, and the owner of this land who is, according to the Attorney-General's hypothesis, holding it up improperly and covering it with rubbish, has only to make some cultivation of the simplest kind involving any expense and giving some little return, and he at once gets the benefit of the section. I say that under this definition all this land to which the learned Attorney-General alluded can be made agricultural land at once and with ease, and that a great deal of that which is not agricultural land at all can be so treated, while a great deal of land which is bonâ fide and properly used for agriculture will be excluded. Under all these circumstances, I venture to press upon the Committee that the word "agricultural" is either mischievous or quite useless, and it had better be omitted.

Mr. PRETYMAN

If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at sections (1) and (2) he will see that the word "agricultural" is quite unnecessary, for it will introduce unnecessary complications. Where the word "agricultural" is wanted is only at the end of the clause, and even in the event which the Attorney-General suggested the only result would be—the only deduction which would follow—would be an agricultural valuation, which in such a case as he refers to would be infinitesimal. This is, after all, a matter of drafting, and under the section as it now stands you are creating complications in the mind of the landlord, you are going to erect an unnecessary duty, and you are going to gain nothing by it, while you will bring this clause into harmony with the previous provisions by simply dealing with land of over £50 an acre, the aggregate value of which in the cases mentioned by the Attorney-General would be exceedingly small. This is not a question of exemption but of machinery and drafting—a question of simplicity—and on that ground, and not on any party ground, or to exempt anyone, I appeal to the Government, in the name of common-sense, to take out this word, because it is unnecessary.

7.0 P.M.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane)

I cannot agree with the view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the object of the two sections. The first section, the one we have dealt with, says you are not to charge the duty in the case of any land where the site value does not exceed £50 an acre. Obviously that may not cover the case of all agricultural land. I know agricultural land, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it well, where the site value for agricultural purposes is far greater than £50 an acre, and which, in a virgin state, will be let for £5 an acre to grow potatoes. There is land near London which is used for growing watercress, and, I believe, so special is its quality, that it sometimes fetches £20 to £25 an acre. That is agricultural land, and that is the case we want to meet.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I quite see that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the only object of section (2) is to exempt land which has an agricultural value higher than £50 an acre, and in that case the word would be perfectly justified, and I should agree wth him. But that is not the object of the clause, and the next Amendment on the Paper, which the Government, I understand, are going substantially to accept, is going to alter the wording of section (2) and to give it the effect which has been claimed for it only two days ago from that bench by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the effect which the Committee has all along understood it is intended to have, namely, that from any land which is subject to Undeveloped Land Duty the agricultural part of the value shall be deducted. We have been told that over and over again, and I understand the Government are about to accept an Amendment to make that clear, and it is on that assumption that I have been arguing. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not intend to allow all agricultural value to be deducted before Undeveloped Land Duty is charged, my argument in this case falls to the ground entirely, and I have nothing more to say on this, but we shall have a great deal to say when the next Amendment comes on.

Mr. HALDANE

But that would apply to agricultural land, and when we come to the Amendment of the Noble Lord (Lord It. Cecil) I shall probably find myself to a large extent in agreement with his view and with the view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The scheme of the clause is perfectly clear. What we are dealing with is, first, the general exemption of land which does not exceed £50 an acre. This further concession is to save agricultural land, and I am certainly not aware of any concession or promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which goes beyond that. I agree there is a good deal to be said for the Amendment of the Noble Lord.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

The point I put when I raised a point of order was with regard to land which is used bonâ fide for agricultural purposes, but which at the same time has what I called yesterday an amenity value up to £100 or £200 an acre. I own a little bit myself, and am personally interested. It is bonâ fide let for agricultural purposes at 15s. an acre, and the agricultural site value would be perhaps £20 an acre. There is an amenity value up to £100 an acre. If the Undeveloped Land Tax is to be based upon the £1,000, I suggest that it is only fair that in so far as that land is utilised for the good of the community for bonâ fide agricultural purposes, the agricultural site value should be deducted from the amenity site value, and the Undeveloped Land Tax should be paid on the balance. That is the point I want to raise by the Amendment, and it is on that ground that I. support the Amendment, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in that very clear, concrete case, the Undeveloped Land Duty will have to be paid upon the gross value of £100 per acre, or upon the net value of £100, less the agricultural value of £20?

Mr. HALDANE

If the land is let to a farmer it is presumably agricultural land, and he gets the benefit of the deduction. What the deduction will be will become clear when we get to the next Amendment. The hon. Member forgets the deduction.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I am right as to the definition of agricultural land, and in saying that all the town plots that the Attorney-General wishes to rake in will be converted into agricultural land by growing cabbages and mustard and cress?

Mr. HALDANE

Yes, but let the right hon. Gentleman take the case before a referee and see what he says.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

That is exactly what I want to get at. The right hon. Gentleman now suggests that

we shall take the definition clause before a referee. He is wiser and more prudent than the Government, and will not allow what Parliament has sanctioned.

Mr. HALDANE

He will see whether the land is really what it seems to be, and not a little urban land dressed up with mustard and cress.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

We are dealing with a serious question. We ask why the word "agricultural" is needed here at all. On the very hypothesis of the section deduction is only allowable in the case of land used for agricultural purposes, therefore you get what you want. Why should you put in the word "agricultural"?

The CHAIRMAN

That question has been asked and answered by the Attorney-General.

Question put, "That the word 'agricultural' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 92.

Division No. 418.]	AYES.	[7.10 p.m.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Crooks, William	Henry, Charles S.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Cullinan, J.	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Alden, Percy	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Higham, John Sharp
Armitage, R.	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Hobart, Sir Robert
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.
Atherley-Jones, L.	Duckworth, Sir James	Holland, Sir William Henry
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Holt, Richard Durning
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Hudson, Walter
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Hyde, Clarendon G.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Elibank, Master of	Illingworth, Percy H.
Barker, Sir John	Erskine, David C.	Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Barnard, E. B.	Evans, Sir S. T.	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Barnes, G. N.	Everett, R. Lacey	Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Falconer, J.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Beale, W. P.	Ferens, T. R.	Jowett, F. W.
Beck, A. Cecil	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Kekewich, Sir George
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. George)	Findlay, Alexander	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Berridge, T. H. D.	Fuller, John Michael F.	Laidlaw, Robert
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Lambert, George
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Gill, A. H.	Lamont, Norman
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)
Bowerman, C. W.	Glover, Thomas	Levy, Sir Maurice
Brace, William	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Lewis, John Herbert
Branch, James	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Lupton, Arnold
Bright, J. A.	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Griffith, Ellis J.	Lyell, Charles Henry
Brooke, Stopford	Gulland, John W.	Lynch, H. B.
Bryce, J. Annan	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Hall, Frederick	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Hancock, J. G.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	Macpherson, J. T.
Byles, William Pollard	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	M'Callum, John M.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)	M'Micking, Major G.
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Markham, Arthur Basil
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Harwood, George	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Clough, William	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Massle, J.
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Masterman, C. F. G.
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Haworth, Arthur A.	Monzies, Sir Walter
Compton-Rickett, Sir J.	Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.	Micklem, Nathaniel
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Hedges, A. Paget	Mond, A.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Helme, Norval Watson	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Cowan, W. H.	Hemmerde, Edward George	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Cox, Harold	Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Rose, Sir Charles Day	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Murphy, John (Kerry, East)	Rowlands, J.	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Myer, Horatio	Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Napier, T. B.	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Tiliett, Louis John
Norman, Sir Henry	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	Verney, F. W.
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Vivian, Henry
O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Walters, John Tudor
Partington, Oswald	Scoft, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Paulton, James Mellor	Sears, J. E.	Waterlow, D. S.
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Shackleton, David James	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Sherwell, Arthur James	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Shipman, Dr. John G.	White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)
Pirie, Duncan V.	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Whitehead, Rowland
Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Simon, John Allsebrook	Wilkie, Alexander
Rainy, A. Rolland	Sloan, Thomas Henry	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Raphael, Herbert H.	Snowden, P.	Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)	Soares, Ernest J.	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)	Stanger, H. Y.	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N)
Richardson, A.	Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Ridsdale, E. A.	Steadman, W. C.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Strachey, Sir Edward	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)	Summerbell, T.
Robinson, S.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radciiffe)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.
Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Rogers, F. E. Newman	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.	Fletcher, J. S.	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield>
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Forster, Henry William	Oddy, John James
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Gardner, Ernest	Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Ashley, W. W.	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Parkes, Ebenezer
Baldwin, Stanley	Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)	Gordon, J.	Percy, Earl
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)	Pretyman, E. G.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hamilton, Marquess of	Remnant, James Farquharson
Bowles, G. Stewart	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Renwick, George
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Bull, Sir William James	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hills, J. W.	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Carlile E. Hildred	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)
Cave, George	Hunt, Rowland	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Joynson-Hicks, William	Stanier, Beville
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.	Starkey, John R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Kerry, Earl of	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Keswick, William	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Clive, Percy Archer	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Clyde, J. Avon	Lambton, Hon. Frederick William	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)	Lockwood, Rt.-Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Courthope, G. Loyd	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Winterton, Earl
Dairymple, Viscount	MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott-	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Younger, George
Doughty, Sir George	Moore, William
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Morpeth, Viscount	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Lane-Fox and Mr. L. Renton.
Faber, George Denlson (York)	Morrison-Bell, Captain
Fell, Arthur	Newdegate, F. A.

Mr. CAVE

I beg to move to leave out the words "exceeding that value," and to insert "of which the site value exceeds fifty pounds per acre." If I rightly understand the meaning of the Bill, this is not much more than a drafting Amendment. The section as it stands reads: "In the case of agricultural land exceeding that value," the value referred to being £50 per acre. That may mean the total value, and I want to make it clear that it is site value, so that the land will have the benefit of the exemptions. I think that is the meaning of the section, and therefore I beg to move.

Sir W. ROBSON

I think the words suggested by the hon. Member are a distinct improvement, and the Government will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Lord R. CECIL

I beg to move, in section (2) to leave out "not" ["Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged"], and to insert the word "only." I do not know whether the Government will accept this Amendment, but if they are going to do so I will not occupy the time of the Committee in stating my reasons for moving it.

Mr. HALDANE

There is no substantial difference between the Noble Lord and ourselves, and we accept the Amendment.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

I wish to know whether, if this Amendment is accepted, it will have the effect that I desire it should have. I put the case on a former Amendment, and I will state it very briefly again. A piece of land has a value for agriculture and a value for building, and each is above £50 per acre. The agricultural value is higher than the building site value. That is to say, if let for agriculture it would fetch more than for building. Take it that the agricultural value is £100 per acre, and the building site value £80. Will the owner have to pay on the building site value of £80, or will he be exempt altogether from the tax when the agricultural value is £100? That is my point.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane)

I will read the section as it will stand when the Amendments have been made: "In the case of agricultural land, of which the site value exceeds £50 per acre, Undeveloped Land Duty shall only be charged on the amount by which the site value of the land exceeds the value of the land for agricultural purposes." Therefore the case put by the hon. Member will be as he says.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. CHAPLIN

had on the Notice Paper the following Amendment—in section (2), after the word "so," to insert the words "long as the land is used for small holdings, market gardens, nursery grounds, or allotments, nor so."

The CHAIRMAN

This Amendment cannot be moved here, as the point it raises was decided yesterday.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Am I to understand that your ruling is that my right hon. Friend's Amendment is out of order on the ground that the House decided yesterday not to exempt agricultural land?

The CHAIRMAN

Anything beyond what was decided yesterday must come under the Definition Clause.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

The point I wanted to put to you is this: That is a very wide exemption, and my right hon. Friend wishes a much more restricted exemption in respect only of a class of agriculture which it has been the special object of this House to promote by legislation and otherwise. The fact that the House has refused to exempt all agricultural land would not, I submit, necessarily prevent us from giving better treatment to small holdings, market gardens, nursery grounds, or allotments.

Mr. CHAPLIN

Do I understand that the moving of this Amendment is precluded absolutely by what has gone before, or am I to understand that it may be moved at another place?

The CHAIRMAN

I do not know whether one purpose of the Amendment is to include in the term "agriculture" something which is not satisfactorily covered by the Definition Clause. That should be left for consideration on the Definition Clause. But I think that is a matter which was practically covered by the decision which we have already come to.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I beg to move, in Section (2), to leave out the words "is due to," and to insert the word "exceeds."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. G. R. LANE-FOX

I beg to move to insert at the end of section (2), "and in the case of any land hired compulsorily by a county council or by the council of any borough, urban district, or parish under the powers conferred by the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged during the continuance of the term for which such land shall have been so hired." The House well knows that under the Small Holdings Act any land compulsorily hired for the purpose of small holdings can only be resumed by the owner for the purpose of building or development. If this duty is to be charged on undeveloped land, the actual owner wall have to pay the duty, and therefore there will be a direct incentive to that owner to take the land away from the small holders and to build upon it. I do not suppose that the Government want to put any obstacle of that kind in the way of promoting small holdings. The amount of revenue to be obtained is very small, but the section as it stands would have the effect of putting a very great check on the development of small holdings. I hope the Government will consider whether it will be possible to make this concession, for though it may not mean much from the point of view of the revenue, it might be a considerable concession to small holders, and it would make it very much easier for the development of small holdings to go on.

Sir W. ROBSON

The hon. Member {Mr. Lane-Fox) was a Member of the Committee on the Small Holdings Bill. He will remember that the Government were much pressed to accept the view that the landlord ought to have the power to resume the land for the purposes of building. The clause in the Bill was drafted accordingly, giving the landlord the power of resumption. The argument used in favour of the clause was that, after all, the interests of the community in respect of land for housing and for the purposes of industry were paramount to those of agriculture. That was the argument of those who spoke on behalf of the landed interest. The Government were convinced by that argument. The land hired for small holdings may be near a town, and it may be essential for the development of the town that the landlord should be able to resume possession. In that ease we cannot allow that any special exemption should be made in its favour.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

The position of the Government really is extremely difficult to follow. They thought it necessary a Session ago to take power to hire land compulsorily from the landlord in order to find allotments, especially in the neighbourhood of large towns. Now in this Session of Parliament they think it necessary to impose a tax on a landlord who has so let his land for the valuable purpose of allotments unless he at once uses the power that is reserved to him to revoke the lease and to enter into possession and build upon the land. Could anything be more absurd than such a quick change of position as that? The Attorney-General's argument, and the only argument by which he sought to defend it, was directed entirely to showing that the landlord had no special claim for exemption. My hon. Friend (Mr. Lane-Fox) did not put it on the ground of the landlord's claim for exemption. He argued that it was foolish to give powers one day to local authorities compulsorily to create these allotments and the next day to penalise the landlord if he did not exercise the power reserved to him of terminating the lease, and the Attorney-General's only justification for putting this pressure upon the landlord was that the land may be urgently required for the development of the town. Of course you can imagine a plot of land which is urgently required for the development of the town; and that plot of land is likely to be obtained for that purpose when that urgent demand arises. The price is far too tempting to allow any landlord to keep it at the low rent which he gets from the allotments, and naturally he exercises the power reserved to him. But if he does not you have got powers to force him. You can expropriate him and hire the land for the purpose for which it is required. The great mass of this land is not thus urgently required for building. It has a building value. It is the old question which we can never get the Government to look in the face. While a certain amount of land is required in the neighbourhood of every growing town, there is a vast deal more land with a building value on which it is possible to build than can be absorbed at any one time or in any short period of years. I suppose there is not one of our big towns around which you cannot find land offered for building. In many cases two pieces of land are owned by one person, and a portion of the land is let in allotments until the other land is absorbed for building. Yet you are going to place a tax upon the man who keeps this land in allotments when it is not required for building and fine him because he serves the purpose, whether under compulsion or voluntarily, which last year you thought of sufficient importance to take compulsory power to oblige him to do.

Mr. HALDANE

If the land is not required for building then he will not be asked to pay on it.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Why not?

Mr. HALDANE

Because the land will not have the value. If it is required for building then it will have the value, and he ought to pay, because it is his duty to the community to make the land available. Therefore there cannot be any hardship under the clause as it stands, and it is consistent with the policy of the Act, which gave a power of resumption. This power is in the nature of a duty if the land became more desirable for building purposes.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I do ask the Committee to examine for one moment the statement just made by the Secretary of State for War. His statement is that no land has any value for building purposes unless it is required for building at the moment. That is his statement. That is prodigious nonsense; and everybody except the right hon. Gentleman knows it; and he will know it if he will make the slightest inquiry into the values of land in the neighbourhood of our big towns. There are thousands and thousands of acres all of which have a building value in excess of their agricultural value, but you cannot market them all to-morrow for building.

Mr. HALDANE

I did not say now.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

The right hon. Gentleman is shuffling.

Mr. HALDANE

The right hon. Gentleman has put a word into my mouth which I did not use, and then when I correct him he says that I am shuffling. That is not good Parliamentary manners.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I do not wish to be personally offensive, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to escape from the dilemma on which he has involved himself by altering his ground.

Mr. HALDANE

Do not alter my words.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

The right hon. Gentleman is attempting to attach a new meaning. What is his statement? I said that land not now required for building purposes and land remaining in allotments would be subject to this tax, and the right hon. Gentleman denied that, because he said that if it is not now required for building it will have no building value and nothing but an agricultural value. I am within the recollection of the House that this is the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made, and if he did not make that statement he made no answer to me at all. It was the only attempt at justification of the Government's position. That was the statement that no land at any given moment—I will not use the word now—has a building value unless it is required for building at that moment. That statement is nonsense. Everybody knows that there are hundreds and thousands of acres which have a building value, but which are not required for houses now. A small portion of them is required, but that small portion might be any portion. I do not think that we can have any more signal illustration, within the shortest possible compass, of the ignor- ance of the Government of the subject with which they are dealing and of their total misconception of the elementary facts and of the fallacies on which they have based their proposals than were given in the half-dozen sentences of the Secretary of State for War.

Mr. COX

I regret that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Austen, Chamberlain) has introduced what appears to me to be unnecessary heat into our discussion. At the same time, I appeal to the Government to reconsider this point. It does not appear to be a very big point, but I really think it is a case where the concession ought to be made. Who is to pay this tax? The owner is to have the land taken away from him compulsorily. He is getting nothing out of it except its agricultural value. The county council are merely a go-between between the owner and the small holder, and the small holder is only using it for market garden purposes, and you cannot expect him to bear the tax. If you are going to put this tax on the owner yon are going to give an inducement to him to exercise his privilege and to throw the land again into the building market, although the county council has quite recently perhaps taken the land for small holdings, presumably because they think it useful for small holdings. I can quite understand the Government being reluctant to give way on various suggestions made from the other side, because they conceive that if they did so they would be cutting away the basis of their tax; but in this case they cannot think that because the thing is strictly limited. It is limited to cases of land which the county council have taken compulsorily, and it is quite clear that those cases will not be greatly extended. There will not be many of them, and therefore we are losing no revenue, and I do think they will be better carrying out the policy of last year if they do allow this small exemption; and I do not suppose that it will cost them a £10 note in the course of the year.

Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBY

I really think that the right hon. Gentleman must have got a little confused between the present value of land for building purposes and the prospective value for building purposes. It is, after all, a simple case. Some land can be built on at once and has got a present value for building purposes, and there is also a large amount of land in this country which would be liable for this Undeveloped Land Tax which has got a prospective building value. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks over the matter he will discover that the greater part of this very land which my hon. Friend (Mr. Lane-Fox) wishes to exempt from this Undeveloped Land Tax is this very land which has got a prospective building value, and which is of particular value at the present time for small holdings and allotments. After all, the moment you get far away from the town and get away from the land which has got a prospective building value, then the land will be too far away to be of service to the railway men and other men employed in the town, and who wish to go out to their allotments. Of course, I consider that all the land held under the recent Acts passed by the Government for small holdings and allotments will have got a prospective building value, and will be liable to a heavy tax under the clause of this Bill. The whole thing is one of those extraordinary confusions of policy of His Majesty's Government. In the first Session of Parliament we were engaged passing a Bill in order to give security of tenure to farmers. In the next Session Parliament was passing a Bill in order to kick the farmers out for the small holders and the holders of allotments. This Session Parliament is engaged in passing a Bill to keep out the small holders and holders of allotments in order to put in cottagers. That is the only way we can explain the action of the Government at the present moment. It is perfectly palpable that is what they are doing. After they have gone through all this cumbrous machinery set up under previous Acts, after having turned out the farmer, having put the county council or the town council to the expense of taking up some land near a town with the prospective building value, and having got all the railwaymen, miners, and men employed in workshops to dig up the land and make it good land to grow their peas and potatoes on it, now you come along and put this tax on that land, because, according to the right hon. Gentleman, it will very shortly be required for building or is required for building, and you will compel the landowner to give all these men notice to quit and spend his £100 an acre on it and turn all these men out.

Sir FREDERICK CAWLEY

I cannot see any difference between a piece of land taken compulsorily by the county council and any other piece of land. The owner of that land is in exactly the same position as any other land-owner. Any other landowner can turn his tenants out for building; and so can the man who has had his land taken compulsorily. He can turn out the tenant of the county council. Of course, if he likes to let the land remain with the tenant for the 38 years while the land is increasing in value he ought to pay the tax on it.

Mr. BALFOUR

Is it the policy of this Committee, or is it not, to allow a man to turn his land to the best account he can for himself, irrespective of what the result may be of so turning it to the community at large? I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Sir F. Cawley) that there is no valid distinction to be drawn between land compulsorily taken for small holdings and land voluntarily used for that purpose.

Sir F. CAWLEY

There is no difference between that land and land taken voluntarily, or any other land let by the landlord.

Mr. BALFOUR

I want to know whether the doctrine laid down by the hon. Gentleman is really the doctrine laid down by the Committee. Is it really the view that the proper use of land by the landlord is to get the biggest income he can out of it? If the Committee are of opinion that directly land is worth more to the community than the same land when used as accommodation land for railway men and other classes, then I agree that this Amendment ought not to be accepted. But I do not think that is the case. Supposing there is a demand for building land by the community that would be satisfied by ten acres in a given year. There are 20 acres available in the district where the cottages are required, so that ten acres may be actually used for small holdings and the remainder may be used for other agricultural purposes. I should have thought the idea would be to keep the small holdings rather than the larger holdings.

Sir F. CAWLEY

It would be an economic question whether a portion of the land would be better used for small holdings, and the other much better used as building land.

Mr. BALFOUR

The landlord is unfortunate who tries to frame his policy on the views expressed in the House of Commons. I have listened to a good many diatribes against land-owners, and the complaint used to be that the land-owners always wanted to make the largest income they could, and I thought that proceeding was called "blackmailing." Not at all. It is "blackmailing" on the platform, but now it is "the highest economic use." Certainly it offers the land-owner an extremely narrow and very difficult path to follow in point of policy without bringing upon his head the condemnation either of Gentlemen below the Gangway, or of Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, who may take the blackmailing view, or of the other school who think the landlord is not doing his duty by the community unless he sells to the highest bidder who comes forward. I do not agree with that doctrine. If the view of the Committee that small holdings are a specially valuable use to which to put land, surely they ought not to add to the natural temptation which already exists of selling land to the highest bidder by the special inducement which the imposition of this tax carries with it. I cannot believe that anybody who votes against this Amendment can seriously go to our big towns and say they are in favour of extending the number of small holdings.

Mr. HALDANE

The right hon. Gentleman has made a speech of great interest, because he has brought out the question of principle. My only criticism upon what he says is this, that the principle which he puts forward as the principle of the clause is not the principle for which we are contending. It is quite true that this tax tends to bring land into the market; but that is not the purpose of the tax, or the only purpose. The purpose of the clause is to tax people on what they have got, what is actually there, the value of the land. The tax is put on the value which the land-owner possesses, whether let in the ordinary way, by voluntary agreement, or whether let to county councils with a resumption clause, such as the Act of last year gives them. The principle of the tax is simply that the person who has got this value at his disposition ought to pay something out of it. That is a principle which I think the right hon. Gentleman in his argument admitted. Whether the land is let to the county council compulsorily and with power of resumption, or whether it is let voluntarily, the person who has got the land seems to be in the same position, and the right hon. Gentleman said, very fairly, that if this arrangement were carried out it would have to be extended to other cases. But we are really discussing a very small and nugatory question, for such land as might be taken is really of very small quantity.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I know of hundreds of acres used in this way.

Mr. HALDANE

There are plenty of other cases in which persons have let their land for other agricultural purposes because they are waiting for movements of population which will enable them to realise a still larger price, but the number of small holdings held under compulsory powers is so small and migratory that I really do not think it is worth while considering it.

Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAM

If the problem has this very minute form, I cannot understand why the Government should deliberately overthrow the work of a public body like the county council. The landlords are suspected of keeping land in market gardens and allotments in order that they may realise a greater future value; but, in the present case, will the Government for a moment deny that a public body like the county council, after looking far and near to find suitable land for small holdings, have acted in the public interest? If the land is to be diverted from the purpose for which it was acquired compulsorily, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he is putting a public body in a position in which it cannot possibly discharge the duties imposed upon it by earlier legislation? The very fact of there being so small an amount of land acquired compulsorily is a reason why the Government should give way, and is a proof that the county councils and other bodies have been at great pains to discover land, which, by its situation, is calculated to fulfil a great public object. I cannot understand the Government's hostility to agriculture, which denies to public bodies the exercise of powers so recently conferred upon them.

Mr. ARNOLD LUPTON

This Amendment is intended to do the Government out of the tax. Nothing is easier than for a landlord to divide his land into small holdings and get exemption from the tax in consequence. The right hon. Gentleman opposite attacked the Secretary for War for saying that the land would not sell as building land because it has not a building value. That is true, but it is a truth which is seldom heard in this House. Landlords may come to an agreement only to sell land for building purposes by the yard, though if that land were put up for sale by auction to-morrow it would only be sold by the acre. I know the whole business. They say that all this building land must not be sold at less than 5s. a yard, though, as a matter of fact, it is only worth £50 an acre.

The CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. Member's observations do not apply to the Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. LUPTON

My point is that the Secretary for War is absolutely right in what he said. This is one of the great causes of the unemployment in this country that we have to-day.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must keep to the Amendment.

Mr. LUPTON

I was trying to answer the points that had been raised by the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire, but since you rule the whole case for the Amendment as put by the right hon. Gentleman I will not continue.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

As I understand it, this is a proposal to exempt land which has been compulsorily taken by the local authority and hired out again in allotments. The question has been asked, and is a very pertinent one, What is the difference between that land and land which the owner has voluntarily allowed the local body to hire out? It is impossible, as a matter of justice, to say that one category of that land should be taxed and the other should escape, because in both those cases the owner had through the local authority permitted his land to be used, or at all events it is being used, for the purposes of these small holdings. There is a further category of land than those two. We find in most of our best-managed estates round most of our large towns—I

myself know a great many instances of it—cases where the landlord himself has laid down for local purposes a considerable strip of land to be used for these small holdings. In those instances the practical point arises, Why should one, category of that land be taxed and the other not? As a matter of equity and justice, it is perfectly obvious that there is no answer to that question, except that such land ought to be treated alike in all those three cases. Therefore it is only possible to support this Amendment on the basis that it ought to be extended, and that it ought to include not merely the land which is compulsorily taken and hired out in the way that is suggested, but also the other land that is similarly used. Of course, those are points that have already been raised in several Amendments on previous days, and they have been refused by the Government. Now, when a case is brought forward, such as is involved in this Amendment, where the particular hardship and the particular grievance—aye, and a step further, the great impolicy of the tax—is shown, and that it is a most impolitic thing to do anything to dissuade landlords from allowing land in the vicinity of towns from being used for a very excellent purpose, the Government find themselves in such a position that they are bound to refuse to accept it. I shall vote for the Amendment, not because I think that that-particular category of land is any more worthy of exemption than many others, but because I think it ought to be exempted, and if there were other Amendments proposed to bring other categories into the same exemption, I should feel myself bound in the same way to-support them.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 204.

Division No. 419.]	AYES.	[8.5 p.m.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)	Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckam)
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Gordon, J.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Clyde, J. Avon	Goulding, Edward Alfred
Ashley, W. W.	Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)
Baldwin, Stanley	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Harris, Frederick Leverton
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)	Courthope, G. Loyd	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Cox, Harold	Hills, J. W.
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Doughty, Sir George	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Kerry, Earl of
Bowles, G. Stewart	Faber, George Denison (York)	Keswick, William
Bull, Sir William James	Fell, Arthur	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Fletcher, J. S.	Lambton, Hon. Frederick William
Cave, George	Forster, Henry William	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Gardner, Ernest	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)	Starkey, John R.
Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Stone, Sir Benjamin
MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	Pretyman, E. G.	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Magnus, Sir Philip	Randles, Sir John Scurrah	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Remnant, James Farquharson	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Moore, William	Renwick, George	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Morrison-Bell, Captain	Ronaldshay, Earl of	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Newdegate, F. A.	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)	Rutheriord, Watson (Liverpool)
Oddy, John James	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Lane-Fox and Mr. Younger.
Parkes, Ebenezer	Stanier, Seville
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Rainy, A. Holland
Acland, Francis Dyke	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)	Raphael, Herbert H.
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Harwood, George	Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)
Alden, Percy	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Armitage, R.	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Richardson, A.
Atherley-Jones, L.	Haworth, Arthur A.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Baker, Joseph A. (Flnsbury, E.)	Hazelton, Richard	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Hedges, A. Paget	Robinson, S.
Barker, Sir John	Helme, Norval Watson	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Barnard, E. B.	Henry, Charles S.	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Barnes, G. N.	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Rose, Sir Charles Day
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Higham, John Sharp	Rowlands, J.
Beale, W. P.	Hobart, Sir Robert	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Berridge, T. H. D.	Holland, Sir William Henry	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)	Holt, Richard Durning	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Brace, William	Hudson, Walter	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Branch, James	Hyde, Clarendon G.	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Bright, J. A.	Jardine, Sir J.	Sears, J. E.
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Seely, Colonel
Brooke, Stoptord	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Shackleton, David James
Bryce, J. Annan	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Sherwell, Arthur James
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Jowett, F. W.	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles	Kekewich, Sir George	Simon, John Allsebrook
Byles, William Pollard	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Soares, Ernest J.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Laidlaw, Robert	Stanger, H. Y.
Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Lambert, George	Steadman, W. C.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Lamont, Norman	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Clough, William	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Levy, Sir Maurice	Summerbell, T.
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Lewis, John Herbert	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Compton-Rickett, Sir J.	Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Lupton, Arnold	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Cowan, W. H.	Lyell, Charles Henry	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Crooks, Willam	Lynch, H. B.	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Cullinan, J.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Tillet, Louis John
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Macpherson, J. T.	Verney, F. W.
Duckworth, Sir James	M'Callum, John M.	Vivian, Henry
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Walton, Joseph
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	M'Laren H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Wardle, George J.
Elibank, Master of	Markham, Arthur Basil.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Everett, R. Lacey	Massie, J.	Waterlow, D. S.
Falconer, J.	Masterman, C. F. G.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Ferens, T. R.	Menzies, Sir Walter	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Micklem, Nathaniel	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Mond, A.	Whitehead, Rowland
Findlay, Alexander	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Wilkie, Alexander
Fuller, John Michael F.	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Gill, A. H.	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Glover, Thomas	Myer, Horatio	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Napier, T. B.	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Griffith, Ellis J.	Norman, Sir Henry	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Gulland, John W.	Partington, Oswald	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Hail, Frederick	Pearce William (Limehouse)
Hancock, J. G.	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	TELLERS. FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	Pirie, Duncan V.
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk E.)

Mr. GEORGE RENWICK (for Mr. Joynson Hicks) moved to insert, at the end of section (2), the words "Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged in respect of land acquired for the extension or improvement of manufactories or industrial works."

I ask leave to move this Amendment, which I think raises a very important point, because I believe it is well known to all those connected with manufactories and industrial works in this country that in almost all cases when the works are founded more land is acquired for carrying on those works than is immediately required, or, in other words, provision is made for any future extension of such works. It happens invariably in connection with railways that they have a certain amount of land waiting for extension. It happens also in connection with most of our industrial works, such as shipbuilding, ship repairing, glass making, marine engineering, timber yards, and other open-air industries. This land is not immediately required, but it has been acquired at the same price as the land which is being used. I have referred before to a case with which I am personally acquainted, where 18 acres of land were acquired at a very high price, and only eight acres were immediately required. Efforts have been made to sell a portion of the remaining 10 acres, but without avail. It stands to reason that that land in the immediate neighbourhood of a large factory has no site value as far as cottages, workmen's dwellings, or residences of any description are concerned. It has a site value for buildings in connection with the factory, but for nothing else. It would be as absurd to put dwelling-houses upon a site on the banks of the Manchester Ship Canal, or of any other navigable water-way, contiguous to great factories, as it would be to put workmen's dwellings in one of our great squares in the West End of London. Land, especially on the banks of a water-way and in the neighbourhood of great factories, is required, urgently in some cases, and later in most, for the extension of the works; and it is of the greatest importance to our manufacturers and those connected with industrial undertakings that the Government should give their favourable consideration to this Amendment. There is no desire to take undue advantage, but they want to have land already acquired exempted from this tax.

If another argument is required to commend this proposal it was supplied by the Prime Minister this afternoon, when he told us that the valuation will commence with undeveloped land. Therefore we may find manufacturers in this extraordinary position. Take the shipbuilding and the marine engineering industries, both of which are in a state of great depression. Many of our shipbuilding yards have their shares at an enormous discount; they are making no profit; and yet, if this undeveloped land is valued, as no doubt it will be, at the price of the portion of the land which is being used, then notwithstanding the fact that the company is making no income, it will be saddled with this heavy tax. The instance to which I referred is a case in the neighbourhood of Manchester, where there are 10 acres of surplus land. The whole of the land was acquired at £1,250 per acre. It stands to reason that the neighbouring land will probably be assessed at £1,250 per acre. That represents not a few shillings, but £5 2s. 4d. per acre per annum for Undeveloped Land Tax. I do not think the Committee can say that it is either fair or just, or that it will help the industries of the country to place a charge of that description upon such land. This is a real substantial grievance, to which manufacturers in all parts of the country earnestly desire Parliament to give its attention. It is an important matter for towns, whether large or small. Take, for instance, the town of South Shields, which the Attorney-General knows very well. There is no town in the country in greater want of undeveloped land. South Shields is bounded on the east by the sea and on the north by the river. It has large shipyards and ship-repairing yards. Owners of works are most anxious to extend them, but there is no undeveloped land to enable them, to do so. Two of the largest firms have acquired land by purchasing public-houses and dwelling-houses, pulling them down, and diverting roads, in order to extend their works. The serious part of the matter to towns is this. A factory may be of vital interest to a town, and the manufacturer will be face to face with the problem whether it will pay him better to buy up the surrounding property or to remove his factory altogether. If he chooses the latter alternative, there is an immense drop in rateable value to the town, and many people are thrown out of employment. It is for this reason that manufacturers, knowing the difficulty of getting land in many cases when it is wanted, have had the foresight to buy more land than is actually required for the moment. I do not think the Committee has quite grasped this important subject. If the result of this Undeveloped Land Tax is to force land into the market, who is going to buy it? The company owning the land may not be making a profit, and they may be unable to raise further capital. Land speculators will step in, for they will say, "Sooner or later this land will be required by the works to whom it now belongs. We will buy it, and hold it, and then when the company wants it we will make them pay for it." We have been told that this tax is based upon the experience of Germany. It is a curious thing that the very state of things to which I have referred has arisen in Germany. Only last week there was a conference of the National Town Planning Society, at which a representative from Munich said:— In Berlin land speculators have acquired all the land purchaseable for a great distance, and before long they will be able to command prices 10, 20, or even 50 times greater than were originally paid for the land. That is an aspect of the matter which the Government have not anticipated. The original land-owner may have to part with the land, but the Government cannot prevent land speculators in this country, as in Germany, acquiring the land and then, when it is required, demanding 10, 20, or even 50 times the price they paid. For these reasons I submit that this Amendment should be accepted by the Government. We do not want to take any undue advantage, as I have said. I believe that most manufacturers would be perfectly satisfied if the Amendment were limited to land already acquired for the legitimate purpose of the extension of works. If the Government look at it from a reasonable point of view I am sure they must acknowledge that it would be one of the worst day's work this House ever did if it passed an Act injuring the industrial development of the country. I am certain that if an Amendment of this description is not accepted we shall do an irrevocable wrong to many manufacturers and others connected with our great industries. If that is so, it is not the rich land-owner who will suffer, and probably not the owners of factories. It is the working class who will suffer. They are the men who will be thrown out of work by a tax of this description. For all these reasons I commend this Amendment to the favourable consideration of the Government, and I beg to move.

Sir WILLIAM ROBSON

What does the sum of the argument of the hon. Gentleman lead to? He spoke, for instance, of the manufacturer, who would be paying under this tax £5 per acre for land adjacent to his manufactory which he some day would require for the purposes of his business. This would be such a heavy burden, he said, that the manufacturer would be driven to sell his land—already, he says, such a result has happened in Germany—the land will fall into the hands of speculators, and will be no longer available for the purposes of his business, and the working man will suffer! Of course, those are dreadful consequences. But let us look at the premises upon which they are founded. If the manufacturer is called upon to pay £5 an acre for land adjacent to his works, that would mean that the land itself was worth £2,500 an acre. This is on the hypothesis that he is not using the land. If he were using the land, it would be entirely exempt, because it would be used for the purposes of trade or business. But he has bought this land for use; for future possibilities in connection with his business, and he is content to stand out of the interest on £2,500. Manufacturers generally reckon on making more than 4 per cent. They get it more often than the Income Tax Returns show. He is, therefore, standing out of an income of from £100 to £200 per year. Yet, according to the hon. Gentleman, the moment you put on a charge of £5 a year, he cannot hold the land any longer! His business must be without extension, the workman without employment, and the decadence of the district will have set in. That scarcely seems to us a hypothesis that justifies exemption. The Amendment is not by any means one which the Government would be disposed to accept without very very strong reasons being shown. See what it involves. It says that the duty shall not be charged in respect of land acquired for the extension of manufactories or for industrial purposes. "For," means "for the purpose of," and "for the purpose of" is a reference to the intentions of the purchaser of the land. How are we to judge of that? Because land is purchased by a manufacturer, and may be somewhere in the neighbourhood of his works—that, no doubt, is, under ordinary circumstances, very reasonable grounds for supposing that he bought it for extensions, and means to use it for purposes which would give him exemp- tion—but he could use it for other purposes. We cannot test the accuracy of his intentions. We cannot bind him down to carry them out. This is not an Amendment that we could on those grounds possibly accept. I cannot help thinking that hon. Members opposite alarm themselves unnecessarily by drawing these very small burdens as though they were bound to have a result, which undoubtedly in some cases will happen, to make the owner of the land throw his land upon the market a little earlier than he otherwise would. That is the tendency which will operate in some cases, but it is a mistake to suppose that that is the only object of the tax.

Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN

I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman, from the nature of his reply, seems to have misread the purport and object of this Amendment. So far as I am concerned, I should support this Amendment just with the same keenness that I support, and have supported, Amendments for the exemption of agricultural land. And on these grounds: that they are both manufactories. Land is the raw material for the manufacture of food. Land is necessary for the building and extension of existing manufactories, and in that sense also it is raw material; and the extension of manufactories, together with the improvement of the condition of agriculture, have both one common result and advantage, among other things, that they provide more employment for the people of all classes. That is an object on which both sides of the House already unquestionably are agreed. That is an object which Members of the Liberal party, quite as much as Gentlemen on this side of the House, are always professing their anxiety to improve so far as means and opportunities allow. What are the objections to the proposal of my hon. Friend? All I can gather from the hon. and learned Gentleman is this. He says: "Oh, but manufacturers may be standing out for future possibilities!" I take the words of the Amendment, "Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged in respect of land acquired for the extension or improvement of manufactories, or other industrial works." Why should he be standing out for an increased price for his land on the chance of his selling it when the very object of his purchase is to use it for extension? "But," says the hon. and learned Gentleman, "even supposing that is so, we cannot bind him to carry out his pro- jects." I should have thought that it was quite unnecessary to have any means, or even the power, to bind him. You cannot have a greater inducement that a man should keep his bargain than his own interest. This land has been purchased because it is necessary and required, or will be necessary in the course of time, for the business in which the man is engaged. I fail altogether to see the reason why there need be any fear of his parting with his land because he might get a higher price for it. So far as I am concerned, I shall give my most hearty support to the Amendment of my hon. Friend. If I did it on no other ground I should do it on these grounds: That this Amendment and the object of my hon. Friend is to improve the position of the various industries in this country, so providing more employment for the people, especially at the present, when one of the greatest difficulties and one of the most terrible problems that we have to face is the enormous lack of employment. I cannot conceive anything more unfortunate than the opposition of the Government to an Amendment of this kind, the effect of which at all events, if carried, would certainly be in the direction of helping and not hindering employment.

Mr. G. N. BARNES

I must say I have very considerable sympathy with this particular Amendment, because it seems to me that the object aimed at is rather to relieve manufacturers who may be otherwise hard hit, and who have to contend with very serious competition. I understand that the object of this particular tax is to bring land into the market from those people who hold it up not for any reason connected with business, but for the purpose of getting an enhanced price, and it seems to me that the particular class of land referred to in the Amendment does not come into that class. The Amendment seems to be right in principle, but at the same time I cannot vote for it as it is framed, because it is open to an interpretation going very much beyond the object stated by the hon. Member who moved it. The Amendment proposed to exempt land which has been acquired for the extension or improvement of manufactories or other industrial works. Thai, of course, would leave it open to any manufacturer to say that 20 acres of land around his works had been acquired for the purpose at some time or another of extending his business. At the same time, I do not agree with the argument advanced by the Attorney- General that the manufacturer, in holding land, is depriving himself of the value he might get in the shape of interest provided that the land was really bought for the purposes of extension. That argument does not apply. I desire to make what I regard as a practical suggestion. I do not see any reason why we should not have some part of this Amendment embodied in the Bill. I think it would come in in sub-section 4, where there is a provision that in the event of one acre of land being held, together with a dwelling-house, that acre should be exempt from taxation. I should like to see some part of this Amendment embodied in the Bill by which a limited and modest amount of land held by a manufacturer for the purposes of his business should be exempt, and if the Amendment was moved in that form I should support it.

Mr. ALFRED MOND

The speech which the hon. Member has just made is of a very practical nature. I certainly felt that the reply of the Attorney-General to the Mover of the Amendment was not altogether convincing. The case of a manufacturer having to buy a larger quantity of land than he actually wants to build upon is well known to those acquainted with industrial enterprise. No one can tell when starting out on a new enterprise how much land he can cover, and no prudent manufacturer would limit himself barely to the land which he required for his warehouses at the time being. Under sub-section (2), section 10, the words are used, "Land which is being used bonâ fide for any business, trade, or industry, other than agriculture." These words are remarkably vague, and it is very difficult exactly to know what they mean. I hope the Attorney-General will give us some interpretation of these words. If these words mean what I think they were intended to, there may be no necessity for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle. I would like to ask the Attorney-General this question: Suppose you have a 10-acre plot of land, and supposing you have a factory occupying half an acre at the end of it, and suppose the rest of the land is not covered with buildings, but is used partly for railway sidings and coal storage and timber storage, is that land land which is being used under the conditions of subsection (2), Clause 10? If it is, that would seem to me to meet the difficulty. It is difficult to find just what you are actually using. If the Attorney-General assures me that this clause means what I think it was meant to mean, then the Amend- ment would be unnecessary. A good deal of such land is utilised by a manufacturer long before he wants to cover it with buildings. I think the Government might very well consider the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Black-friars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes). I quite agree with the Attorney-General that this halfpenny tax probably will not ruin any manufacturers or seriously interfere with them; still, there is no reason why you should not plainly and logically carry out the intention as I understand it in sub-section (2) of section 10. You already exempt land which is being used, and therefore I think you ought logically to extend the exemption further to land which is to be used for similar purposes. The principle underlying the Amendment is a perfectly reasonable one, and I think it should be met with sympathetic consideration by the Government.

Mr. CAVE

I do not want to introduce controversial matters, but I cannot help remarking that when we were dealing with the industry of agriculture we got very little sympathy from the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Mond) or the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes), but when a question is raised dealing with industrial matters in which they are naturally interested we do get a little sympathetic consideration from them. With regard to the Amendment in question, I do not think the hon. Member for Chester's argument with regard to the construction of certain sections quite covers the point. At present the only land which is to be exempt in this connection is land actually used for the purposes of the manufacture. I do not think that a nominal or collusive use such as he suggested would do—

Mr. MOND

I did not mean to imply any collusion. I merely meant land not used for the purpose of building upon it.

Mr. GEORGE CAVE

Not as a merely nominal user. Supposing a manufacturer looks a little ahead. He has a place of business, and he hopes and believes it will grow, and in a short time, perhaps in 5, 10, or 15 years, he will need to extend his business. If he is a wise man he buys more land than he can use at the time, and if he gets a chance he buys the adjoining land, hoping the time will come when his factory will need extension. It cannot be said that that man is holding up land which he ought to sell. On the contrary, he is a wise man, and has prepared for the time when he may want to develop his factory and his business. That man ought to have some consideration, and you should not discourage that kind of prevision and prudence because he has provided for the near future. Surely that case can be met. The Attorney-General will see that the object of this Amendment is appreciated in all parts of the House, and the only question is what is a safe way to meet it without destroying the effect of the tax in the large towns and cities. Would it not be met in this way? The tax might be confined to land bonâ fide required for the purpose of extending a manufactory or place of business, and giving exemption from the tax for a reasonable time only. This exemption might be put, if you like, at 10 years. What I suggest is that where it is proved that land has been bonâ fide acquired for the purpose mentioned in this Amendment, namely, for the extension or improvement of manufactories or industrial works, then the land shall be free from the Undeveloped Land Duty for a period of 10 years from the time it is acquired. I think that meets the object of the hon. Member for Glasgow, and it might be considered in connection with the present Amendment. If the land has been acquired before the passing of this Act, if it passes, in that case the exemption would extend for a period of 10 years from the passing of the Act, so that a man will have time to develop his business. I hope we shall approach this matter in a wholly uncontroversial spirit, and I trust this Amendment will be carefully considered.

Sir JOHN RANDLES

The Attorney-General apparently is of opinion that this tax will not bear very hardly upon manufacturers. That is perhaps true, but the same argument would apply to any of the taxes which it is proposed to place upon people by this Bill. The Increment Tax and the royalties may be of small moment taken individually, but the tendency of them is to pile charges up which cumulatively have a serious effect upon the manufactories and industries of the country. I think the recognition by the Government of the claims of agriculture may fairly be carried into the domain of manufacturing industries generally. It is a fact that about any large works, such as iron works, the manufacturer must take a very large area of land other than that which is immediately required, because he has to provide for an enormous deposit of waste or slag, which must be deposited upon the land somewhere which is undeveloped, and which, so far from being developed, will ultimately be covered with refuse material which may be regarded in the nature of a nuisance. It will be hard lines on the manufacturer if he were compelled to pay a tax upon undeveloped land which really never was intended to be developed, and which was required for such purposes as I have indicated. Further, a manufacturer choosing the site for an iron works must take, not only the 10 or 20 acres on which the works will actually be erected, but he must take a very considerable area of the surrounding land. Probably he might have to buy a whole farm, because his works are going to be something in the nature of a nuisance to the immediate neighbourhood, and the land-owner will not wish to sell 20 acres for this purpose, because so much surrounding land will be spoiled by the immediate continuity of the works. Consequently the manufacturer is obliged to take a larger area than the immediate necessities of his case demand. In view of future development, he may be obliged to take a very much larger area of land than he originally contemplated. I do not know how the Attorney-General will be able to meet our object in the wording of the Bill, but I am quite sure, with a disposition to meet the legitimate requirements of manufacturers, he will be able to find words which will carry out the obvious intention of Members on all sides of the House. I am not sure that the 10 years' restriction which has been suggested would meet the case I have in mind. In cases of large iron and steel works perhaps hundreds of acres are taken which will not be 10 years before they are developed, but may possibly be 20, 30, or 40 years. In fact, it will be almost impossible to develop them by reason of the nature of the industry or occupation carried on. With a disposition to meet such cases and such requirements, I am sure the Government can, if they will, instead of putting hindrances and burdens on manufacturers, do something to prevent an increase of the load which is already upon them. In any foreign countries where they desire to have manufactories, you find, so far from burdens being placed upon industries of this kind, arrangements are made by which taxes and rates are not charged upon manufacturing and industrial undertakings for a long period of years. Exemptions are made in many countries to attract and induce the opening up of manufacturing industries. We are not asking for that, but I think it is a reasonable thing to ask that in the apportioning of burdens some regard should be had to those who are doing all they can under the very difficult conditions of manufacturing industries to compete with other nations which have different tariff arrangements to ours. I think in that way we might relieve to a certain extent the burdens upon our industries.

Mr. W. P. BYLES

I am disappointed to find my hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars and the hon. Member for Chester lending even a partial support to this Amendment. I have only risen because I take a totally different view, and I hope the Attorney-General will not give way one inch to this Amendment. I understand the intention of the Bill is that we should derive some revenue from a tax upon undeveloped land. If that is the principle, surely it is a strong case for imposing the tax upon the kind of land referred to in this Amendment, because the words of it are "land acquired for the extension or improvement of manufactories or other industrial purposes." Land which has been acquired to keep it undeveloped until it is wanted is precisely the kind of land the Government has thought should bear revenue. I think the exemptions with regard to agriculture are all wrong, and see no reason why one industry should be relieved any more than another; but because we have exempted and relieved agriculture, surely that is no reason why we should exempt these manufactories and industrial works. Of course, the tax is an unpleasant burden, and has a slight effect in deterring manufacturers from acquiring land, but that is inevitable with regard to all taxation. You have got the money to raise, and if it is not raised on land surrounding manufacturers' works you will have to put it on something else. I suppose hon. Member's opposite, if they had to do it, would put the tax on those far less able to bear it I sincerely hope the object of the Bill will be kept clearly in view by the Government, and that neither this exemption nor any other will be made.

Mr. PRETYMAN

This Amendment, besides being important in itself, has been rather instructive in the matter of the Debates and the quarters from which it has been supported. The hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Mond) and the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) both look at this tax from a very different standpoint when it affects industries of which they themselves have some knowledge and experience. They then find it is going to injure those industries, and that exemption ought to be granted. We might, on that ground, ask them to have some sympathy for industries which are going to be infinitely more injured than the industries it is proposed to exempt here. [An HON. MEMBEE: "Which?"] Why, the industry of developing building land and agriculture. Do not hon. Gentlemen understand that this tax is going to fall upon the industries of the country as a whole? The hon. Member for Chester was rather inclined to attribute selfish interest to us on this side of the House. I hardly think it comes very well from him to immediately support an Amendment which, clearly in the most direct way affects an industry with which he himself, I believe, is associated.

9.0 P.M.

I can understand the objection of the Attorney-General to accepting the Amendment in the form in which it is upon the Paper, because it is rather wide, but I would suggest, and I think I have the consent of my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Renwick), that, instead of the words upon the Paper, my hon. Friend should withdraw his Amendment and move it again in the following form: "Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged in respect of any land proved to be reasonably acquired for the extension or improvement of manufactories or other industrial works and in the same ownership." That, I think, would prevent any undue stretching of the privilege which would be granted. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) rather suggested a time limit. I am not in favour of a time limit for this reason: We have two distinct objects to serve—First, to exempt all land already acquired for the object of future extensions; and, secondly, to enable manufacturers in the future to carry out the very wise principle, when they buy a site for a factory, always to purchase enough land to allow for reasonable extensions. The House has universally approved of the action of the Admiralty, when it bought the site at Rosyth, in buying a large area of land which would allow for all future extensions. Hon. Members behind me who have spoken, have much more practical knowledge than I have of this question, but they have left out one consideration. It does not only affect the future growth of factories, but also their present construction. It is obvious there are two ways of making extensions. There is the economical and businesslike way of leaving plenty of room in the first instance between the different buildings and departments of the factory to allow for separate extensions, and there is the other way of crowding them all together and then afterwards of having to pull them down to extend them.

It is important to manufacturers that they should be able to put their buildings some distance apart, and that each building should be capable of subsequent extension. Although the extra tax may not be a very large sum in proportion to that which the manufacturer would have to spend in buying his land, it is just one of those factors which tell. It is the last straw which is the burden. When a man is thinking of setting up a factory or works, it is a common thing that there is a very small margin in his mind as to whether it is worth his while and whether he is justified in embarking his capital or not. I do not say that where it is obvious a man must succeed in his enterprise, this tax is going to prevent him buying land or establishing a factory; but, where it is a question whether it is worth embarking in a certain enterprise or not, you cannot afford to introduce any factor, however small and however out of proportion to the total cost, which will act as a deterrent to any man or company in starting a new enterprise and employing fresh labour. It cuts both ways. If the tax is small the relief is small. The measure of relief to the taxpayer is the measure of the loss of the Government; and if the relief to the taxpayer is small the loss to the revenue is small. I am not speaking of this from the point of view of the individual. I very much desire to protest against the suggestion constantly made on the other side of the House that we on this side of the House are here to protect the interests of the individual taxpayer or the owners of property. That is not what we are here for. We are here to look after the interests of the nation as a whole, just as much as the Government; and it is entirely from that point of view we approach this question, from the national point of view, and from the point of view of revenue. The Government will get a great deal more in revenue by encouraging enterprise and industry than by penalising it in the manner 'proposed by this tax. They will get more revenue by encouraging industries to make money, and then getting their revenue out of the money when it is made, than by putting on small harrassing restrictions and taxes of this kind, which will be a burden upon an industry from the very moment it is started and before it has made any money. It will be a deterrent, and will inflict an injury entirely out of proportion to the amount of revenue raised. It is an unbusinesslike proceeding from the pure national point of view of sound finance, and I think the Government would be wise to accept the Amendment, and they ought to be extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for moving it.

Mr. W. H. COWAN

I hope the Government will not give way in this matter. A great deal has been said in the course of this Debate about interested motives. Certain Members are supposed to represent certain interests rather than the interests of their Constituents, and two hon. Members, who have spoken more or less in support of the Amendment, have been twitted by right hon. Gentlemen opposite with being influenced by their personal interest—in one ease that of a manufacturer, and in the other case that of a working man. I am also interested in manufactories, and I have no hesitation in saying, and I know something of the subject, that this small tax cannot have any prejudicial effect upon the extension of any manufactory. And, on the other hand, that contribution, being in the nature of relief for the rates, will facilitate the extension of manufactures, a man who establishes a manufactory looks ahead, and, unless he sees profitable business to be done, is not likely to buy more land to establish a factory than is actually required. If later on ha does buy more land he does so because he is doing a profitable business. There is a sense in which hon. Gentlemen supporting the Amendment are looking ahead; they are looking to the time when the tax has grown up—when the halfpenny has become a shilling, and that is what they fear. Personally I do not fear that; but, clearly, they can only object to this because of the prospect of some enormous increase of this tax. I think if those who are supporting this Amendment would have the straightforwardness to say so, the fact is that is what they are looking forward to, and they do not regard this mineral tax as in any way handicapping their manufactory; what they fear is an increase of the tax.

Mr. RENWICK

I am quite willing to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, but I think I have a right to say a word or two in reply to certain criticisms.

The CHAIRMAN

Perhaps we had better put matters in form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendment proposed, at the end of section (2) to insert the words, "Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged in respect of any land proved to be reasonably acquired for the extension or improvement of manufactories or other industrial works in the same ownership."—[Mr. Renwick.]

Sir W. ROBSON

I do not think this is an Amendment on which the Committee will desire to spend much time, and I therefore propose to deal with it in as few words as possible. I need not repeat the objections I put forward on behalf of the Government to the original Amendment, but I must say I think that the words it is proposed to substitute introduce a very dangerous principle. If the manufacturer really thought it worth his while to purchase land near his works in view of further developments there could be no objection to his keeping it in view of that possibility. But what he will have to prove will be the necessity of buying the land, and of keeping it undeveloped until some future time when he may require it. How is he to prove that it is reasonably required for the extension of his works? It can, after all, only be an expression of opinion; but taking the case put forward by the Mover of the Amendment, I say that if the manufacturer feels that the land is required for the purposes of the future expansion of his works, he would not sell that land because of the extra burden put upon it. If he thinks it worth his while to secure the land in order to keep it, in view of future developments, surely he ought not to object to pay a very small tax upon it. The words of section (2) provided that the land shall be deemed to be undeveloped land if it has not been developed by being built upon, and therefore it will not be subject to the Development Tax.

Sir J. RANDLES

The case I put was that of land not being actually used at the time, but the larger area of land which was being kept in reserve for that purpose.

Sir W. ROBSON

That is the kind of illustration which it is absurd to put before the House. The Question will be a matter for the tribunal appointed to deal with these matters, and not for this House at all. The case of a factory was put which spoils the adjacent land, and which nobody wants, and in that case I should say that land which was subjected to all these disadvantages from the neighbourhood of a factory was certainly exempt. The Amendment, as it is now before the Committee, suggests that litigation of a costly character should be entered upon in regard to a matter which could scarcely be satisfactorily decided by anybody as to whether a manufacturer really does or does not deal with his property for the purposes of future extension of his business. It is only introducng a fresh element of doubt into the matter, and I put it to the Committee that, in view of the very great quantity of business we have to go through, the time has come for a decision on this point.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

There is an amazing difference in the capacity of the referees to decide questions, according to whether the Government want them to decide them or not. The Attorney-General has just told us that it would be perfectly easy for a referee to decide what amount of value is reasonable in regard to the disposal of slag turned out from furnaces, but says it is absurd to bring a case of that kind before the House of Commons. We cannot decide it here, but the referee apparently will decide it standing on his head, without any difficulty whatever. But the same referee will be absolutely unable to give a reasonble answer to the question, What is the amount of land which can be reasonably reserved for future development? The arguments are absolutely contradictions one of the other. If the one thing is possible the other is possible; if the one thing is easy, the other thing is easy; and if the one thing will lead to a vast amount of costly litigation, then so will the other. They stand on exactly the same footing, and anything which could be said about one of these operations could equally be said about the other. According to the Attorney-General's earlier observation, no manufacturer would be forced to sell land reasonably required for future extension of his works by the fact of this small tax being imposed. I think that is very probably so, but is that the principle on which the tax is founded? We have had two arguments urged in favour of the tax. One is, you are not making a proper use of your land, and by proper use for this purpose the Government mean that use which is of the greatest benefit, or which they conceive to be of the greatest benefit to the whole community. The other argument is that people hold up their land, and if you fail to force them to build upon it therefore your tax fails to produce its essential object.

I agree that the tax would not in a prosperous concern force the manufacturer to sell his land, but I say it is impossible for the Government to defend a tax imposed on the ground that the best use is not being made of the land when land is being reserved by a landlord for the sake of a higher return which he can get for his capital in the case of the extension of his business. Somebody on that side—I think it was the Prime Minister—spoke with warm approval of the tendency which there is for manufacturers to leave the crowded towns and go further out in the country districts, but he did not seem to think that one of the reasons for their doing so was the very high rates which prevail in our large towns, and which cause the manufacturers starting new factories to find fresh scope for developing and to go to other neighbourhoods where the burdens are lighter. That will not be encouraged, moreover, if the Government put new burdens on land by which they are going to tax such extensions. Would any sane manufacturer starting a factory in one of those new districts, which we must suppose he would not do unless he saw reasonable prospect of a prosperous trade, would he confine himself to buying just that quantity of land which he required at the commencement of his enter-

prise? Would not every sensible man buy at once as much spare land as he thought he would require in any reasonable number of years and as he could afford to pay for, and to hold in the meantime? I say any reasonable man would do that, and that, in fact, the Government know what a reasonable man will do, because part of their argument on the Increment Tax was that it was the covering of the land with these houses which raised the value of the land all round, and, therefore, a man would not content himself with buying at the start just that portion which is required for a start, because he may expect to pay for the land at a very much higher rate later when he wants to develop it. In consequence, any prudent business man starting a new factory in a district where land is valuable would take more land than is wanted at the time, and you tax him because he is not making the best use of it. I say, however, he is making the best use of it, and I say what any prudent man would do in these circumstances is in the interests of the community to have done, and the justification which you have proffered for this tax, that it is a tax on land which is not used to the greatest extent for the advantage of the community, fails altogether when you refuse to accept an Amendment of that kind.

Sir W. ROBSON rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 66.

Division No. 420.]	AYES.	[9.25 p.m.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Bowerman, C. W.	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Brace, William	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Bright, J. A.	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Brocklehurst, W. B.	Duckworth, Sir James
Armitage, R.	Brooke, Stopford	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)
Atherley-Jones, L.	Bryce, J. Annan	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Everett, R. Lacey
Barker, Sir John	Byles, William Pollard	Falconer, J.
Barnard, E. B.	Cawley, Sir Frederick	Ferens, T. R.
Barnes, G. N.	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Clough, William	Findlay, Alexander
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Collins, Sir Win. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman
Beale, W. P.	Compton-Rickett, Sir J.	Fuller, John Michael F.
Beauchamp, E.	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Gibb, James (Harrow)
Beck, A. Cecil	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Gill, A. H.
Bellairs, Carlyon	Cowan, W. H.	Glover, Thomas
Berridge, T. H. D.	Crooks, William	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Gulland, John W.	M'Callum, John M	Shackleton, David James
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Maddison, Frederick	Sherwell, Arthur James
Hall, Frederick	Markham, Arthur Basil	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Hancock, J. G.	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Silcock, Thomas Bali
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	Massie, J.	Simon, John Allsebrook
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Masterman, C. F. G.	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Menzies, Sir Walter	Scares, Ernest J
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)	Micklem, Nathaniel	Stanger, H. Y.
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)	Molteno, Percy Alport	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Harwood, George	Morse, L. L.	Steadman, W. C.
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Haworth, Arthur A.	Myer, Horatio	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.	Napier, T. B.	Summerbell, T.
Hedges, A. Paget	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Helme, Norval Watson	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Ratcliffe)
Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)	Norman, Sir Henry	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Henry, Charles 8.	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Partington, Oswald	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Higham, John Sharp	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Holland, Sir William Henry	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Verney, F. W.
Holt, Richard Durning	Pirie, Duncan, V.	Vivian, Henry
Hope, John Deans (File, West)	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Walton, Joseph
Hudson, Walter	Rainy, A. Rolland	Wardie, George J.
Hyde, Clarendon G.	Raphael, Herbert H.	Wason, John Cat heart (Orkney)
Jardine, Sir J.	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)	Waterlow, D. S.
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Rees, J. D.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Richards, Thomas (West Monmouth)	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Richardson, A.	Whitehead, Rowland
Jowett, F. W.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Wilkie, Alexander
Laidlaw, Robert	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)	Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Lambert, George	Robinson, S.	Wills, Arthur Walters
Lamont, Norman	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Levy, Sir Maurice	Rogers, F. E. Newman	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Lewis, John Herbert	Rowlands, J.	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Lupton, Arnold	Rutherford, V. H. Brentford	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Lynch, H. B.	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Sears, J. E.
Macpherson, J. T.	Seely, Colonel
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.	Fell, Arthur	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Ashley, W. W.	Fletcher, J. S.	Moore, William
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gardner, Ernest	Morrison-Bell, Captain
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)	Newdegate, F. A.
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Gordon, J.	Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Parkes, Ebenezer
Bowles, G. Stewart	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Bull, Sir William James	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Percy, Earl
Carlile, E. Hildred	Helmsley, Viscount	Pretyman, E. G.
Cave, George	Hills, J. W.	Randies, Sir John Scurrah
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Hunt, Rowland	Remnant, James Farquharson
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.	Renwick, George
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Kerry, Earl of	Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)
Clyde, J. Avon	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Stanler, Beville
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Courthope, G. Loyd	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Doughty, Sir George	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)	Younger, George
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Du Cros, Arthur	Magnus, Sir Philip	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E. Talbot and Mr. H. W. Forster.
Faber, George Denison (York)	Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Question put, "That the words 'Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged in respect of any land which proves to be reasonably acquired for the extension or improvement of manufactories or other industrial works in the same ownership' be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 197.

Division No. 421.]	AYES.	[9.35 p.m.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.	Fletcher, J. S.	Moore, William
Ashley, W. W.	Forster, Henry William	Morrison-Bell, Captain
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gardner, Ernest	Newdegate, F. A.
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)	Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Gordon, J.	Parkes, Ebenezer
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Bowles, G. Stewart	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)	Percy, Earl
Bull, Sir William James	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Pretyman, E. G.
Carlile, E. Hildred	Helmsley, Viscount	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Cave, George	Hills, J. W.	Remnant, James Farquharson
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Hunt, Rowland	Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.	Stanier, Beville
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Kerry, Earl of	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Clyde, J. Avon	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Courthope, G. Loyd	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Doughty, Sir George	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)	Younger, George
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Du Cros, Arthur	Magnus, Sir Philip	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Renwick and Sir J. Randies.
Faber, George Denison (York)	Middlemore, John Throgmorton
Fell, Arthur	Mildmay, Francis Bingham

NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Gibb, James (Harrow)	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Gill, A. H.	M'Micking, Major G.
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Glover, Thomas	Maddison, Frederick
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Markham, Arthur Basil
Armitage, R.	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)
Atherley-Jones, L.	Gulland, John W.	Massie, J.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Master man, C. F. G.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Hall, Frederick	Menzies, Sir Walter
Barker, Sir John	Hancock, J. G.	Micklem, Nathaniel
Barnard, E. B.	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	Molteno, Percy Alport
Barnes, G. N.	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Mond, A.
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Morse, L. L.
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Beale, W. P.	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)
Beauchamp, E.	Harwood, George	Myer, Horatio
Beck, A. Cecil	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Napier, T. B.
Bellairs, Carlyon	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Haworth, Arthur A.	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)
Berridge, T. H. D.	Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.	Norman, Sir Henry
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Hedges, A. Paget	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Bowerman, C. W.	Helme, Norval Watson	Partington, Oswald
Brace, William	Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Bright, J. A.	Henry, Charles S.	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Brooke, Stopford	Higham, John Sharp	Pirie, Duncan V.
Bryce, J. Annan	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.J
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Holt, Richard Durning	Rainy, A. Rolland
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Raphael, Herbert H.
Byles, William Pollard	Hudson, Walter	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Hyde, Clarendon G.	Rees, J. D.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Jardine, Sir J.	Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)
Clough, William	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Richardson, A.
Compton-Rickett, Sir J.	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Ridsdale, E. A.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Jowett, F. W.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Cowan, W. H.	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Crooks, William	Laidlaw, Robert	Robinson, S.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Lambert, George	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Lamont, Norman	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Rowlands, J.
Duckworth, Sir James	Levy, Sir Maurice	Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Lewis, John Herbert	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Lupton, Arnold	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Everett, R. Lacey	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Falconer, J.	Lynch, H. B.	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Ferens, T. R.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Sears, 1. E.
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Seely, Colonel
Findlay, Alexander	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Shackleton, David James
Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Macpherson, J. T.	Sherwell, Arthur James
Fuller, John Michael F.	M'Callum, John M.	Shipman, Dr. John G.

Silcock, Thomas Bail	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Simon, John Allsebrook	Thorne, G. B. (Wolverhampton)	Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Soares, Ernest J.	Thorne, William (West Ham)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Stanger, H. Y.	Verney, F. W.	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)	Vivian, Henry	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Steadman, W. C.	Walton, Joseph	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Wardie, George J.	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Strachey, Sir Edward	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	Waterlow, D. S.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Summerbell, T.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Taylor, John W. (Durham)	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.
Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)	Whitehead, Rowland
Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)	Wilkie, Alexander

Mr. CAVE

I beg to move in section (3), after the word "any" ["value of any parks, gardens, or open spaces"], to insert the words "common, as denned by the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, or on the site value of any."

The object of the Amendment is to exempt common lands from the Undeveloped Land Duty. There are two reasons why I suggest that commons should not be subject to this duty. One is that even if they could be developed by building it is certainly not desirable that that should take place. Commons are in many oases the lungs of the districts, supplying air space to the adjoining towns and villages. It is therefore decidedly undesirable, even if it could be done, to encourage building on commons for residential purposes, or the putting up of buildings for industrial purposes. The second reason for exempting commons would be enough if the first did not exist. It. is that commons, speaking generally, cannot be developed, even if it were desired to do so. I know that the popular idea is that a common is an open space to which the public can go. The Secretary of State for War knows that that is not so. The position of a common is something very different. As a rule, a common is land belonging to the lord of the manor, over which a certain number of persons have certain common rights. The public have no rights over a common as such. Indeed, there is another kind of common, where nobody has any right at all, save the owner, except for a certain short period of the year. Take the case of Lammas lands. These are lands belonging to a private owner, and enclosed lands over which a certain number of tenants or freeholders in the neighbourhood have the right of pasture only for a few months in the year. Therefore they are in no sense open to the public. As regards these lands the owner, if he wished, could not develop or build upon them, and if he attempted to do so he would at once be met by objections from commoners, who would say, "We have the right of pasturage or other right over this land, and you cannot build upon it." I suggest to the Committee that the inference from that is-obvious. If the owner cannot develop the land, it is not fair or right to put on him a tax in respect of land which he is prevented from developing. That is a simple statement of what I think are the main reasons for the Amendment.

Mr. HALDANE

It is a pleasure, to listen to the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cave), who is always so accurate in putting his case. The Government is in substance in agreement with him, but I think we have done better than his Amendment, and, if we have not, we shall be very glad to consider the point. As the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, it is a popular delusion that a common is a place to which the public have a right of access. The public always come there, but they have no right of access. There are all sorts of curious anomalies which arise under the Inclosure Acts. Let us see what ought to be done. I quite agree with him that it is very unfair to charge a man whom the Inclosure Acts prevent from developing these lands, and that is met by the Amendment on page 36 of the White Paper in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which proposes to take account of rates of communal land. That is only one point, but that is not enough in itself. The second point is this, that wherever the public have access de facto to the land the land should be exempt. The public have no access to communal land, and therefore it is not quite right to say that all land under the Inclosure Acts should be freed in virtue of the public having access; because the public have no right of access, and in some cases they have not even de facto access. Generally they have, but not always. There is an Amendment put down on page 16 of the White Paper in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which will cover this point. He proposes, in Clause 11, page 9, line 23, to leave out "granted to," and insert "enjoyed by," which brings in de, facto enjoyment. In other words, the view of the Government is that where the land is de facto enjoyed, as the communal land generally is, it should be exempt. But where the public are not admitted to the communal land the land-owner ought not to be exempt.

Mr. CAVE

He cannot develop it.

Mr. HALDANE

He will have valuable Tights over it very often. That is taken account of by the Amendment to which I first referred.

Mr. CAVE

The Amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman referred does not exempt common land from the duty. The Amendment only refers to valuation.

Mr. HALDANE

That is just what I want to point out. The measure of the exemption of the land-owner would be the deduction from the value of the communal rights in the valuation. You ex elude the common rights, and thereby you reduce the valuation. That is exactly the scientific way of dealing with the case.

Mr. PRETYMAN

He cannot build.

Mr. HALDANE

That is taken into account in the valuation. It is deducted in the valuation. It is perfectly absurd to give a man exemption for what he does enjoy. The scientific plan is to deduct from the amount of valuation the burden on him by these restrictions.

Mr. YOUNGER

He only gets that deduction if the Commissioners decide.

Mr. HALDANE

Surely the hon. Member would not have the valuation at his own sweet will. We will come to the question of the Commissioners later on. A tribunal of some sort assesses the re ductions to be made from the value of the land by virtue of the existence of the communal right. I maintain that that is right. The second point is, Ought there to be an exemption by virtue of the fact that the public have access to the land? The public, as has just been pointed out, sometimes do not have access to the land, and there fore there ought not to be exemption in these cases. The hon. and gallant Gentle man opposite (Mr. Pretyman), who stands for the divine right of property in this House—

Mr. PRETYMAN

My objection has nothing to do with the divine right of pro- perty. My objection is to a tax which is imposed upon undeveloped land with the idea that it could be developed and is not developed, being levied on land which cannot be developed.

Mr. HALDANE

I thought I had explained ad nauseam that that was not so, and that by the subsequent Amendment to which I have referred standing in the name of the Government there would be reduction from the valuation for this reason. I may be very dense and stupid in expressing myself, but I can only state those things as distinctly as I can, and I cannot state them any more than three times over. I come to the second point, of the land which is subject to exemption by reason of the public having access. We know that in some cases, as the hon. Member for Cambridge has pointed out, the public have no access to the land, but wherever the public are de facto allowed to enjoy access to the communal land that land is proposed to be exempted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment on page 16 of the White Paper. I think that these two ways of dealing with the matter deal with it more scientifically than the proposition of the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment. The Government agree with him in the substance of it; we only want to get it into the right form. It appears to me that these two Amendments do put it into the right form, and that is why we prefer that way of doing it. If, in the course of this discussion or between now and the time these Amendments come on, it can be pointed out that there is anything not covered which is really legitimate to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member we shall be glad to consider it; because what we think he has at the back of his mind in this matter is thoroughly reasonable, and we agree with it.

Mr. CHAPLIN

I was greatly pleased when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Haldane) said he would favourably consider the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave), and that he was going to give something a great deal better. That sounded so agreeable that I was going to congratulate my hon. and learned Friend, but as the right hon. Gentleman proceeded in his speech, I confess that I thought that there was very little for my hon. and learned Friend to be grateful for. What I gather from the right hon. Gentleman is this, that where there is no right of access to the common on the part of the public then there is to be no exemption. I am not inclined to quarrel very violently myself with that, but the point on which I understood my hon. and learned Friend to sum up the whole of his case was this, that where the owner has no power of developing the land then he ought to be exempted from the tax.

I do not understand that the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to make that concession, and I gather that the owner who cannot develop his land—which was the one point on which my hon. and learned Friend laid chief stress, and on which the right hon. Gentleman is going to give my hon. and learned Friend something better and something more than he asked for— is still to be taxed. It seems to me that if this is the admirable concession which is so much better than the Amendment we have to thank the right hon. Gentleman for nothing at all.

Mr. STEWART BOWLES

The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War has explained to us that in theory and principle the Bill of the Government is in agreement with the object of my hon. and learned Friend, for he appeared to take the view that the Amendments to which he referred as standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer contain the principle of the present Amendment. As I understand the object and purpose of the Government, it is that common land to which the public de facto has access, will be exempt from the tax, but in the case where the public has not in fact access, then the land will be subject to this duty. The right hon. Gentleman has said that if anything can be shown in the proposals of the Government to be unreasonable in any particular, the Government will consider the point between this and Report. Let me put a simple and concrete case in regard to Lammas land. It is enclosed land, and for a certain period of the year persons in the neighbourhood have a definite legal and undeniable right of pasture and access. The effect, in the case of an owner of such land, is that however much he may desire to develop it, he is prevented from doing so, and consequently he is unable to bring the land within the exemption under the clause.

Mr. HALDANE

That is provided for.

Mr. BOWLES

Where is it provided for?

Mr. HALDANE

On page 36, where the Amendment which is down says that the valuing is to take into consideration all common rights.

Mr. BOWLES

That does not really meet the case. Lammas land would be-subject to deduction, but not to exemption. I leave it to the good sense of any fair-minded Member of the House whether where an owner has no power whatever to develop land such as I have described, it is not a monstrous thing to come down upon him and tax him a farthing? Mere deduction will not meet the equity of the case.

Mr. HALDANE

In that case the whole site value is taken.

Mr. BOWLES

The right hon. Gentleman well knows in his heart, and every member of this Committee knows, that if the equity of this case is to be met, the owner should not pay a farthing; yet, in the name of science, the right hon. Gentleman refuses to meet such a case.

Mr. HALDANE

It is a very common case under the Inelosures Act for an owner to enclose half his land and build upon it. That has gone on very much in the past, and, in that case, it would be very unjust to let the land off altogether, because it is subject to commonable rights, and when the landlord has power to enclose a certain portion of the land.

Mr. BOWLES

The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are cases like that of Lammas land, where the rights I have described do not apply to the whole land. The Government must provide for that. What the Committee has a right to ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether he will provide for such a case as that I have stated. It is not provided for. It is not enough to say it can be dealt with by deduction. It is quite clear that where a man cannot develop his land he should not be charged a halfpenny.

Mr. W. P. BEALE

I cannot think that the framers of this Act intend that any land ordinarily understood and known as common land should be hit by this tax. In regard to Section (3) of Clause 14 it does not appear to be quite clear, and an Amendment may be required to make it clear, though I do not think the Amendment before us is needed. If you look at this tax it is to fall upon the amount by which the site value exceeds the value for agricultural purposes. That value under Section (14) is to be arrived at by taking the fee simple, subject to any easements affecting the land and common rights. I do not think that that is well expressed, because common rights are not easements. Some of them are in the nature Of custom, and are not, strictly speaking, easements. I think the Amendment that is required is an Amendment of the definition of site value such.as will exclude and diminish the site value as a site for building purposes by taking into consideration that it is subject to turbary and all sorts of rights in the nature of common rights which absolutely prevent it from being developed into building land without the aid of an Act of Parliament. It may be that the idea crossed the minds of some hon. Gentlemen who are acquainted with the Statute of Merton, that theoretically the lord of the manor can enclose without an Act of Parliament if he leaves anything to satisfy the commoners. But practically we know that commons cannot be enclosed without an Act of Parliament. I think the whole thing will be met by making section (3) of Clause 14 take into consideration all those restrictions—whether they are easements or however created—which in fact diminish the site value of land, and, as I say, may possibly, in most cases of common land, destroy it altogether for building purposes.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I venture to submit that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has not dealt quite clearly with this Amendment. The class of case which is met by this Amendment, and which is not met by any part of the Bill, is where a man who may be the lord of the manor owns certain land which is subject to common rights. That may be very good land for him. It may be land on which timber grows, and the common rights which it is subject to may be of small monetary benefit. They may be small rights comparatively, such as that of turbary, but such as they are they are sufficient to prevent the lord of the manor from ever building on that land. Those who have experience of the Commons Preservation Society know of the very valuable use they may be put to in preventing the owner from building on such land. The Amendment is meant to prevent this tax applying at all to that land on which he cannot build. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, misunderstood the purport of the Amendment, because the case we make is that the land may be subject to the tax. In the first instance you make the owner value the land, but according to the Secretary of State, from that value there is to be a deduction of the common rights which are upon it, and which may be very small. But although they may be small in value the owner has the value of the timber and amenities and the enjoyment which he gets from having an open space, possibly in the neighbourhood of his house. According to the right hon. Gentleman, in valuing that land you are to give the owner a deduction for the value of the common rights. It is not building land, but it may be of considerable value, and therefore it is subject to the taxation on the capital value, although the owner has no power to build on it.

Sir FRANCIS S. POWELL

I think this question is one of very great importance indeed. I had the honour many years ago of being Member for the town of Cambridge, where they have an extensive area of commons, which tend greatly to the health of the place and, I believe also, the prosperity of the town is greater owing to those commons. I am most anxious as to the sanitary effect of those commons and open spaces, because I am quite sure that they tend greatly not only to the health of the community, but also to the general well-being of society. It seems to me, and I made this remark last year, a strange thing that the Government should bring forward a measure for the housing of the people and the planning of towns, and at the same time they should introduce proposals to prevent fresh air and open spaces which they seem to provide by their Housing and Town Planning Bill. I certainly cannot express my feeling too strongly, and my extreme regret at the policy of the Government' in opposing those open spaces. We have large parks, and they are a great blessing, but the blessing will be greatly increased if besides those parks there were a number of open spaces to which the working people could resort at the end of their day's work to seek recreation in the open air of the most healthy and most stimulating and most beneficial character.

Mr. W. CROOKS

I wish to speak on the necessity of rejecting this Amendment, and relying on the Government proposals. There seems to be a misunderstanding altogether on the subject. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is under the impression that we want to do away with the commons for the public use. Nothing of the kind. What we want to do is to safeguard certain rights or what are called public rights. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment referred to Lammas land, which has always been protected. Within measurable distance of this House there was a large tract of Lammas land full of marshes, which was not only stolen from the people but built over. We have been told of Lammas lands to the advantage of the community, and that Lammas land should not be taxed. But what have you done about Fulham Marshes, which was robbed from the people? [An HON. MBMBEB: "What has that got to do with it?"] What has that got to do with it? Well, we can judge by past experience as to what would happen in the future. You have stolen land from the people and built on it for private enterprise for private profits, which will be done again unless we are very careful about it. No one wants to cover the common, and I can only rejoice at the conversion even of the Secretary of State for War, who wants to preserve the commons, but I have in my mind Woolwich Common, which he commenced to build on. While I am trying to do some little good for the people, I want to take good care that this private enterprise is not doing the public at the same time.

Mr. BALFOUR

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman speaks for other Members in that quarter of the House. If so it must be admitted that he left this rather tangled subject in a much greater tangle. In the first place I would ask what has this alleged robbery from the people got to do with this Amendment? In the second place I observed that except the Secretary of State for War I am not sure that anybody has robbed anything from the people. I am one of those who greatly regret that so many commons have been enclosed which would now be very useful and very convenient in the shape of commons. In the third place, I would observe to the hon. Gentleman that he has upset the whole basis of this Bill by an observation which fell from him with regard to private enterprise. What is the private enterprise? Building houses for the people. I thought the whole of the taxes we had been discussing were in order to induce the people to use their land for building houses. He seemed to think that building houses was in itself—

Mr. CROOKS

That is hardly fair.

Mr. BALFOUR

What is not fair? I do not want to press the hon. Gentleman too far, but when we have thrown at our heads night after night that land is being held up, it is rather hard that we should be hit on the other cheek by the hon. Gentleman, who holds up this very building of houses as an atrocity due to private enterprise.

Mr. CROOKS

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. What I argued was that the people who have certain rights over Lammas lands ought not to have them taken away by private individuals for private benefit when the land belonged to the public as a whole.

Mr. BALFOUR

I think the discussion has gone a little far from the actual Amendment, which is of a very simple character. The object of the Government is to tax land which has a developing value. We ask them to take the tax off land which has no developing value. We ask no more than that. The Government say that land which can be developed shall be taxed on the value at which it can be sold as developing land, and that land which cannot be developed ought not to be taxed. It would greatly conduce to the harmony of our proceedings and to the clearness of the Bill if, when the Government mean a thing, they stated it quite clearly in the Bill. We have had the utmost difficulty in understanding this most complicated measure. The language used seems intended to cloud the meaning of the framers of the Bill. Then when we know clearly what their intentions are, and I gather that we know what they are in this particular matter, they refuse to put in words which will make those intentions perfectly clear, and they refer us to future Amendments, which will not and cannot have the effect of clearly and explicitly excluding from the whole operation of this tax land which, on the very theories of the Government themselves, ought not to be taxed. I should have thought that subjects of the King had a right to ask, when the taxation of their property is in question, that it should be made quite clear who is to be taxed and how he is to be taxed. The Bill ought not to be so framed as to include those who are not open to the tax, and we ought not to be put off with a clause which may possibly be interpreted as a means by which they may be relieved-of some of the unjust burden. We have been told over and over again by the Chair that this is the clause in which the exceptions ought to be embodied. Let us embody them in clear and explicit language, and thus carry out the views not of the Opposition, but of the whole House, which are shared apparently in this case by the Government.

Mr. HALDANE

The right hon. Gentleman has made, as usual) a lucid speech, but one which, I think, strongly supports the course which the Government have taken. He says that land which cannot be developed ought not to be taxed. I agree, and that is what we want to embody in our proposal; but what we have before us is not that, but a proposition that land which comes within the In-closure Acts should be exempted. In many cases such land ought to be exempted, as it cannot be developed; but there are other cases which are by no means so clear. We have already discussed some of them. We propose to meet the point of the right hon. Gentleman on Clause 14, sub-section (3). Clause 14 says: "The total value of land means the amount which the fee simple of the land, if sold at the time in the open market, by a willing seller in its then condition, might be expected to realise." Further, "The site value of land means the amount which the fee simple of the land, if sold at the time in the open market by a willing seller, might be expected to realise if the land were divested of any buildings, etc." And then sub-section (3) says: "For the purposes both of total value and site value, land shall be deemed to be sold free from incumbrances, but subject to any easements affecting the land and to any covenants restricting the use of the land." To that we propose to add the words of the Amendment standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which include "and any right of common." Take as an illustration Woolwich Common, to which the hon. Member for Woolwich referred. It was purchased by the Government long ago. They bought up the rights of all the commoners they could find. Consequently, although it is a common, they claim the right to enclose land and build upon it. No doubt the land has very large development land value in it. Only the other day we were forced by public necessities to build upon a portion of Woolwich Common. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich made a good deal of protest against it.

Mr. CROOKS

Does now.

Mr. HALDANE

Does now, as the hon. Member says. Would it not be monstrous that with that power and with that right I should escape altogether1? It is quite right that so far as the public have a de facto right to the common that the land should not be taxed. That is provided for by another Amendment—not de jure, but de facto. But the point the right hon. Gentleman dwelt upon, and to which he directed his argument, seems to me to be scientifically, accurately, and properly met by saying, as it is proposed to be said by the Amendment to Clause 14, that when the land is valued it is to be valued on a basis of what it would fetch in the market subject to the deduction which must be made on the ground that it is affected by the right of common.

Sir PHILIP MAGNUS

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Woolwich Common would be regarded as a common as defined by the Commons Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1895?

Mr. HALDANE

I should be extremely sorry to say. The question is a difficult conundrum. It just shows how careful we should be in raising these conundrums.

Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS

I think the Secretary of State for War may have overlooked the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which begins: "Where any land kept free from buildings has received the benefit of an exemption from Undeveloped Land Duty by virtue of this provision." The Secretary for War has expressed an apprehension that this. Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend may prevent commons in certain cases being developed, and the case of Wimbledon Common has been instanced. If he will refer to the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he will find that the Chancellor proposes that: "Where any land … shall not be built upon unless the Local Government Board give their consent on being satisfied that it is desirable in the interests of the public that the restriction on building should be removed." That will certainly get over the difficulty which the Secretary for War foreshadows, and it would make the whole process of exclusion of commons a far more simple one than the highly complicated and scientific one to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. COWAN

I think there is a very general agreement in the House in regard to, perhaps not the meaning of the Bill, but the purpose of this Amendment. The speeches which have been made on this side of the House show that, and there is no one more disposed to observe and protect common rights than the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War. But it does seem to me that if the Government intend to exempt commons there is no reason why they should not say so, and why they should not accept either the words submitted by the hon. Member for Kingston, or why they should not suggest some similar words. I confess I came here this afternoon intending not to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for the simple reason that I thought the Amendment would be entirely unnecessary, for I was under the impression that the proposal was to tax site value: not to tax something that had no site value. Site value implies building, or the possibility of building, and, on common land, the possibility of building is excluded. What disquieted me most is that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War said that where the public is not admitted common land ought not to be exempt. I put to the right hon. Gentleman the case of Ashdown Forest. Ashdown Forest is one of the largest tracts of common land in the South of England. It is 40 miles from London, and it is of enormous importance as a place for recreation.

Mr. HALDANE

My hon. Friend has not noted the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which deals de facto and not de jure with the matter.

Mr. COWAN

I have not overlooked that point, but I am in doubt as to whether the expression de facto is sufficient to cover this particular case. We have in Ashdown Forest a tract of 6,000 acres to which the

public has a limited access. Whether such access would be covered by the phrase de facto, and whether that is. sufficient to exclude Ashdown Forest from any rating under the Bill, I venture to think does not appear I think if the fight hon. Gentleman1 will deal with the case of Ashdown Forest that probably would cover every other case. I merely desire to be quite sure that the possibility in a Finance Bill of doing something that neither the Government nor anybody else contemplated, namely, worsening the provision of the commons and damaging the public interest, does not occur. A common is a tract of country over which a restricted public have some definite rights, and? think to suggest that a calculation could be made excluding certain commonable rights and reducing the valuation is a monstrous and an unfair thing to do. We know where there are commonable rights; the ground landlord has practically no estate in these tracts of country, and it seems to me to be an unjust and unreasonable thing that he should be taxed. For this reason I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kingston, or at any rate to give us something more definite and something clearer than the de facto assurance.

Mr. HALDANE rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 96.

Division No. 422.]	AVES.	[10.30 p.m.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Bright, J. A.	Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Brocklehurst, W. B.	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Brooke, Stopford	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Bryce, J. Annan	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Armitage, R.	Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Atherley-Jones, L	Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Duckworth, Sir James
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Buxton, Rt Hon. Sydney Charles	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Byles, William Pollard	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)
Barker, Sir John	Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight	Elibank, Master of
Barnard, E. B.	Cawley, Sir Frederick	Evans, Sir S. T.
Barnes, G. N.	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Everett, L. Lacey
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Clough, William	Falconer, J.
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Ferens, T. R.
Beale, W. P.	Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, w.)	Ferguson, R. C. Munro
Beauchamp, E.	Compton-Rlckett, Sir J.	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace
Bellairs, Carlyon	Cooper, G. J.	Findlay, Alexander
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman
Berridge, T. H. D.	Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grlnstead)	Fuller, John Michael F.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.	Gibb, James (Harrow)
Bowerman, C. W.	Crooks, William	Gill, A. H.
Brace, William	Davles, David (Montgomery Co.)	Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John
Glover, Thomas	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Macpherson, J. T.	Sears, J. E.
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	M'Callum, John M.	Seely, Colonel
Gulland, John w.	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Shackleton, David James
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Hall, Frederick	M'Micking, Major G.	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Hancock, J. G.	Maddlson, Frederick	Simon, John Allsebrook
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	Markham, Arthur Basil	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) '	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Snowden, P.
Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvll)	Massle, J.	Soames, Arthur Weilesley
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Masterman, C. F. G.	Scares, Ernest J.
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)	Menzies, Sir Walter	Stanger, H. Y.
Harwood, George	Mlcklem, Nathaniel	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Molteno, Percy Alport	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Mond, A.	Strachey, Sir Edward
Haworth, Arthur A.	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Summerbell, T.
Hedges, A. Paget	Morse, L. L.	Sutherland, J. E.
Helme, Norval Watson	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Henry, Charles S.	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)	Myer, Horatio	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Napier, T. B.	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Higham, John Sharp	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Hobart, Sir Robert	Norman, Sir Henry	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Holland, Sir William Henry	Partington, Oswald	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Holt, Richard Durnlng	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Verney, F. W.
Hope, John Deans (File, West)	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Vivian, Henry
Hudson, Walter	Pickersglll, Edward Hare	Walters, John Tudor
Hyde, Clarendon G.	Plrie, Duncan V.	Walton, Joseph
Illingworth, Percy H.	Price, Sir Robert (Norfolk, E.)	Wardle, George J.
Jardine, Sir J.	Rainy, A. Rolland	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Raphael, Herbert H.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)	Waterlow, D. S.
Jones, Lelf (Appleby)	Rees, J. D.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)	White, J. (Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Jewett, F. W.	Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)	Whitehead, Rowland
King, Alfred John (Knutstord)	Richardson, A.	Wilkie, Alexander
Laidlaw, Robert	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Lambert, George	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Lamont, Norman	Robinson, S.	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Lehmann, R. C.	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Levy, Sir Maurice	Rogers, F. E. Newman	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Lewis, John Herbert	Rose, Sir Charles Day	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Rowlands, J.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Lupton, Arnold	Runciman, Rt Hon. Walter	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Lyell, Charles Henry	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Lynch, H. B.	Samuel, Rt Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Samuel, S. W. (Whltechapel)
Maclean, Donald	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Courthope, G. Loyd	Keswick, William
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Cowan, W. H.	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Cox, Harold	Lsmbton, Hon. Frederick William
Ashley, W. W.	Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Lane-Fox, G. R.
Baldwin, Stanley	Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)	Doughty, Sir George	Lockwood, Rt. Hon Lt.-Col. A. R.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Du Cros, Arthur	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)
Barrle, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Faber, George Denison (York)	Lcnsdale, John Brownlee
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Fell, Arthur	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh
Beck, A. Cecll	Fletcher, J. S.	Magnus, Sir Philip
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Gardner, Ernest	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Bowles, G. Stewart	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Moore, William
Brldgeman, W. Clive	Gcoch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)	Morrison-Bell, Captain
Bull, Sir William James	Gordon, J.	Newdegate, F. A.
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)	Oddy, John James
Cave, George	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)	Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Parkes, Ebenezer
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Hcimsley, Viscount	Percy, Earl
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Hope, James Fltzalan (Sheffield)	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Clive, Percy Archer	Hunt, Rowland	Pretyman, E. G.
Clyde, J. Avon	Joynson-Hicks, William	Randies, Sir John Scurrah
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Kerry, Earl of	Renwick, George

Ridsdale, E. A.	Starkey, John R.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Ronaldshay, Earl of	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)	Younger, George
Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Stanier, Beville	Walrond, Hon. Lionel	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster.
Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 219.

Division No. 423.]	AYES.	[10.40 p.m.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.	Du Cros, Arthur	Newdegate, F. A.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Faber, George Denison (York)	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Fell, Arthur	Oddy, John James
Arkwrlght, John Stanhope	Fletcher, J. S.	Parkes, Ebenezer
Ashley, W. W.	Forster, Henry William	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Baldwin, Stanley	Gardner, Ernest	Percy, Earl
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)	Pretyman, E G.
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Gordon, J.	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Guinness, Hon R. (Haggerston)	Renton, Leslie
Beck, A. Cecil	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)	Renwick, George
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Bowles, G. Stewart	Helmsley, Viscount	Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hills, J. W.	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Bull, Sir William James	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hunt, Rowland	Stanler, Beville
Carlile, E. Hildred	Joynson-Hicks, William	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.	Starkey, John R.
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Kerry, Earl of	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Keswick, William	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Clive, Percy Archer	Lambton, Hon. Frederick William	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Clyde, J. Avon	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Willoughby de Eresby Lord
Courthope, G. Loyd	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Cowan, W. H.	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Younger, George
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-	Magnus, Sir Philip	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Cave and Mr. Leverton Harris.
Doughty, Sir George	Mlidmay, Francis Bingham
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Morrison-Bell, Captain
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Cawley, Sir Frederick	Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John
Acland, Francis Dyke	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Glover, Thomas
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Clough, William	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Cobboid, Felix Thornley	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Armitage, R.	Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Gulland, John W.
Atherley-Jones, L.	Compton-Rickett, Sir J.	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Cooper, G. J.	Hall, Frederick
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Hancock, J. G.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)
Barker, Sir John	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)
Barnard, E. B.	Crooks, William	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Barnes, G. N.	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Barry, Remond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Harwood, George
Beale, W. P.	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Bellairs, Carlyon	Duckworth, Sir James	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Benn, w. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Haworth, Arthur A.
Berrldge, T. H. D.	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Hedges, A. Paget
Bowerman, C. W.	Ellbank, Master of	Helme, Norval Watson
Brace, William	Erskine, David C.	Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)
Bright, J. A.	Evans, Sir S. T.	Henry, Charies S.
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Everett, R. Lacey	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)
Brooke, Stopford	Falconer, James	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Bryce, A. Annan	Ferens, T. R.	Higham, John Sharp
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Hobart, Sir Robert
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles	Findlay, Alexander	Holland, Sir William Henry
Byles, William Pollard	Fuller, John Michael F.	Holt, Richard Durning
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight	Gill, A. H.	Hudson, Walter
Hyde, Clarendon G.	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Illingworth, Percy H.	Myer, Horatlo	Soares, Ernest J.
Jardine, Sir J.	Napier, T. B.	Stanger, H. Y.
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Norman, Sir Henry	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Jones, Lelf (Appleby)	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Partington, Oswald	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Jowett, F. W.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Summerbell, T.
King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Sutherland, J. E.
Laidlaw, Robert	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Pirie, Duncan V.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Lambert, George	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Lamont, Norman	Rainy, A. Rolland	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Lehmann, R. C.	Raphael, Herbert H.	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Levy, Sir Maurice	Rees, J. D.	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Lewis, John Herbert	Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Lupton, Arnold	Richardson, A.	Verney, F. W.
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Vivian, Henry
Lyell, Charles Henry	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Walters, John Tudor
Lynch, H. B	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)	Walton, Joseph
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Robinson, S.	Wardle, George J.
Maclean, Donald	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Macpherson, J. T.	Rogers, F. E. Newman	Waterlow, D. S.
M'Callum, John M.	Rose, Sir Charles Day	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Rowlands, J.	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
M'Micking, Major G.	Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.	Wilkie, Alexander
Maddison, Frederick	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Markham, Arthur Basil	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	Williams, w. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Massie, J.	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Masterman, C. F. G.	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Menzies, Sir Walter	Sears, J. E.	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Micklem, Nathaniel	Seely, Colonel	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Molteno, Percy Alport	Shackleton, David James	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Mond, A.	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Simon, John Allsebrook
Morse, L. L.	Sloan, Thomas Henry	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Snowden, P.

Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS (in the absence of Sir Henry Kimber) moved in Section (3), after "open spaces," to omit the words, "which in the opinion of the Commissioners are open to the public as of right, or on the site value of any parks, gardens, or open spaces reasonable access to which is granted to the public, where in the opinion of the Commissioners that access is of benefit to the public, as," and to insert instead thereof the words, "public or private."

The object of this Amendment, which I move on behalf of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, is primarily to exclude from the operation of the Undeveloped Land Duty such pieces of land as are comprised in the London squares, where the public have not actually free access. I move this Amendment in a dual capacity, partly as a resident of London, because I feel that it is for the great benefit to other residents of London, and partly as a representative of the London County Council, who are very much interested in this matter, and feel that this tax should not apply to London squares. There is one danger of this Undeveloped Land Duty which I venture to think has not been properly con- templated, and that is the possibility of the sacrifice of our London squares some day or other, sooner or later, to the builder. There have been cases—more than one case in recent: years—where London squares have actually been built over or have been sold with powers to the purchaser to build over them. I think there was a case recently—at all events, in 1903—when Edwardes Square, Kensington, was sold. The county council did everything they could; I think they actually introduced a Bill into the House of Lords to prevent the square being built on, and I understand it was ultimately built over. This is not an imaginary danger. I have a memorandum drawn up by one of the officials of the London County Council, and' it states that it is very difficult to say to-what extent the various private Acts affecting squares protect them from building, but it would appear that a large majority of the squares in London can, if not at the present time, at any rate in the near future, when the leases of the surrounding-property run out, be built upon. This Undeveloped Land Tax will be an inducement, or may even be an excuse, to the owners of squares, public gardens, and so on when the leases fall in, to build over them, and it is very much desired by the inhabitants of London that these open areas, amounting, I think, to something like 400 squares in the county of London and comprising something like 300 acres, should be preserved as what have often been called the lungs of the city. Of course the question would arise, if this duty is levied on those squares, who would pay? Many of the squares are supported and entirely kept up by the owners of the soil, such as the Duke of Bedford on the Bedford estate. But there are many other squares where the residents in the neighbourhood and in the houses surrounding those squares maintain and keep them up. Is it fair to saddle those residents with the burden of having to pay this duty in addition to the cost of keeping up these open spaces? I feel very strongly that if this tax applies to squares and open spaces in London it will at all events be a reason which could be put forward by someone who wishes to make the biggest income he can out of his property for the purpose of building over it. I appeal to the Government on behalf of the London County Council to accept the Amendment.

Mr. HALDANE

I of course agree with the general purpose which underlies the Amendment, which is to relieve from the tax open spaces of which the public gets the benefit, but the Amendment goes a great deal too far. We propose to omit in line 23 the words "granted to," and substitute the words "enjoyed by," which will be sufficient to exempt them, but we make this restriction, that the public must have some benefit. If you have a private garden, no doubt it is a very nice thing for people to look through the railings, but you cannot expect to be free from the tax merely by reason of that circumstance. In places like Lincoln's Inn Fields the gardens are thrown open to children, and it is a very good thing that they have been. That is the kind of case which, so long as the public are allowed access, will be exempt from the tax. That is a very good precedent, and I wish it were followed more widely. We cannot compel people to follow it, but we feel that it is a stimulus in the right direction if we exempt places where children are allowed to go in. No doubt it is convenient for the people in Berkeley Square not to allow the public into the gardens, but that is something for which they ought to pay. If they find that it is burdensome to pay the tax, they can always get rid of it by admitting the public. [HOST. MEMBEBS: "They could build."] The de facto exemption is the canon we apply to this class of subject matter, and I think that by doing so we do very much better than by accepting this Amendment, which would enable people in the most selfish way to exclude the public from all access to places to which they might legally get access if the owners threw them open and thereby got exempted from the tax.

11.0 P.M.

Mr. BALFOUR

I am very anxious to discover what I have totally failed to discover, namely, what is the general principle underlying the policy of the Government in this matter. I understood that we were discussing the exemptions from, the tax on undeveloped land—not on land which could not be developed, but on land which could be and ought to be developed as time went on. That is the principle of the tax as stated over and over again by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman stated, in answer to an hon. Member who moved an Amendment, that where land is incapable of development it should not be taxed. Only a quarter of an hour ago I laid down that proposition, and the right hon. Gentleman who followed said that he entirely agreed to that statement. If the Government think that the tax is purely one to be levied on land which can be developed, the land indicated in the Amendment should be exempt. That I understood to be the true principle of the Bill. The tax, I understood, is intended inter alia to induce people to develop land which is capable of development. We find now that it is to be imposed for quite another reason—because people use land, not for development, but for something quite different. It is to be imposed on land which cannot be developed. The right hon. Gentleman talks about Berkeley Square. You cannot develop Berkeley Square. [An HON. MEMBER: "You can."] We might build houses in Trafalgar Square. Trafalgar Square is maintained in the interest of London. Do you require to put up buildings in Trafalgar Square in the interest of our crowded population? These open spaces that are left are to be called developable. If I have not accurately stated the views of the Government in what have I erred? I say in the first place this tax has been defended on the ground that it is only to be applied to land capable of development. That is principle number one. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that that is the principle? I say that on that principle Berkeley Square cannot be developed. I say in the second place a subsidiary principle of the Government was that the land should be taxed in order to hasten this development. If Berkeley Square cannot be developed at all you cannot hasten its development. We have been told that it is in the interest of owners to encourage them to use their land to the best economic advantage. That is sometimes the policy of the Government, and sometimes not the policy of the Government. It may be for the best economic interest, for anything I know to the contrary, of the owner of Berkeley Square to put flats on Berkeley Square. I do not know whether it is or not. If it is his interest does the interest of the. public run in the same direction and want it done? My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment was not speaking for himself. He was speaking for the greatest local authority in this country, the London County Council. They say there is a danger of many of these squares being built over. Is that or is it not a danger which the House wish to encourage? Do they regard that as a development? Is that the kind of development which they wish to encourage? We have a perfect right to have a clear answer to that question. What the right hon. Gentleman says is that the people who now spend their money keeping up the square can avoid the square being built over in the interests of the landlord by admitting persons other than themselves. It may be right or wrong, but I suppose one of the advantages of owning a house in Berkeley Square is that the children of the owners of houses there can go to a place to which the public have no access, and I do not know that that can be described as a selfish principle. At all events, that is the principle, and the right hon. Gentleman now comes down and says he will not exempt Berkeley Square from being taxed as developable land, because the owners of Berkeley Square do not open it to the children of other people. But really, we need not argue the point. Surely that is outside the scope of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has started an entirely new principle. It is a bad principle and it is inconsistent with his own policy. Unless he can tell us that Berkeley Square is a place which he thinks ought to be developed in the sense of being built over, then I say he has not the slightest occasion for refusing the Amendment, which the London County Council has asked this Committee, in the interests of a great population, to see carried into effect.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

On a point of order, I wish to ask the effect of this. Amendment on an important Amendment which comes on somewhat later. On page 17 of the White Paper the Chancellor of the Exchequer has an Amendment which comes in after line 25 with regard to land that has been kept free of buildings. To that Amendment I have put down an Amendment which raises the question of land being kept free owing to restrictive covenants. That, I think, is a different point from the one which we are now debating, but one or two Members who are interested in this Amendment of mine think it might possibly be ruled out because it might be considered to have been dealt with on this Amendment. I wish now to know whether we may have a separate discussion on the Amendment of which I have given notice, as in such case I will not intervene in the discussion of this Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN

The Amendment to the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer [raising the question of restrictive covenants] is not in order.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

Would it be in order to raise the question of restrictive covenants on this Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN

I think the question of restrictive covenants ought to come on Clause 14.

Sir W. ROBSON

That is where they come already in the Bill as it now stands. A very important section of Clause 14 deals with restrictive covenants affecting building estates of the kind referred to in the Debate, and I think I am quite safe in saying Berkeley Square, even if there were no Amendment, would not be affected. Somewhat undue stress has been laid on Berkeley Square by my right hon. Friend in dealing with the general principle of the Bill, which undoubtedly aims at the exemption and does not aim at taxing open spaces—spaces incapable of development. Particular reference to Berkeley Square, which my right hon. Friend took up rather than initiated, is not a very happy illustration of the principle, because, as far as the squares are concerned, they are amply protected by Clause 14, Section 3, which gives full effect to title, and of course the squares of London are all protected by title. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not all."] It is a question of fact. I do not profess to have any greater authority than the popular impression.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

They are not all protected by title.

Sir W. ROBSON

I should have thought they were. At any rate, we do not rely on that. So far as restrictive covenants exist they are quite sufficient to protect the squares, because the Undeveloped Land Duty can only be assessed on land which can be sold in the market, and all restrictive covenants have to be taken into account. A restrictive covenant which forbids the sale is effectual protection of land of this kind. That does not cover the whole ground, however, and therefore the Government put down an Amendment which I think will cover the whole of the ground. We have put down an Amendment standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as follows:—

"on the site value of any land where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme, whether framed before or after the passing of this Act, for the development of the area of which the land forms part, and that it is reasonably necessary in the interests of the public, or in view of the character of the surroundings or neighbourhood, that the land should be so kept free from buildings."

I think those words are adequate. Anyhow, the intention of the Government is that the squares of London should be beyond the scope of this tax on the ground that they are kept open. If the words of the Amendment are not adequate for that purpose, we shall be only too glad to consider any other words either on the consideration of this particular clause or at such a stage of the Bill as will afford abundant opportunity to consider words which may be suggested. Any words suggested would require very careful consideration. I could scarcely name a square in the Metropolis which would not come under the terms of that proposal. It is certain indeed that they are "in pursuance of a … definite scheme." [HON. MEMBERS: "Read on."] Any square is certain to have been kept free from building, and allowed to be kept free from building, either in pursuance of a restricted covenant or in pursuance of a scheme, so that those who lived in the neighbourhood should get the advantage. The mere existence of a square shows a plan and a design and a scheme which is entirely intended, whether framed "before or after the passing of this Act, for the development of the area of which the land forms part, and that it is reasonably necessary in the interests of the public, or in view of the character of the surroundings or neighbourhood, that the land should be so kept free from buildings." I think the Commissioners could scarcely put in any of the squares which are the pride and glory of this metropolis, and which distinguish it in that respect from so many capitals of Europe. It certainly has this particular advantage of which it ought not to be deprived. I cannot imagine any body of men saying that it is contrary to the interests of the public that a square should be kept free from building. That is a controversy I decline to contemplate.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I understand the Attorney-General to have abandoned the defence laid down by the Secretary of State for War—

Sir W. ROBSON

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not say that. I think it is not justified. I have explained how the Secretary of State for War gave Berkeley Square as an illustration. He was dealing with the general principle.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I am very sorry if I said anything to hurt the learned Attorney-General's feelings. I certainly was not anxious to introduce a phrase to which he could take objection. The Secretary of State for War had said as the answer to the plea of my hon. Friend that you could obtain exemption from the tax by opening the gardens for children, and that if you did not open the gardens for children that you did not deserve any exemption from the tax. The Attorney-General has been good enough to point out that that is wholly unnecessary, and that Berkeley Square is adequately protected either by the Bill as it stands, or by the new Amendment which the Government are going to move in the Bill, and that it is quite unnecessary for the protection of the owner of Berkeley Square against the tax mat the residents should admit children of nonresidents and give them free access to the gardens. I think I accurately described that as abandoning the defence of the Secretary of State for War. I think the Attorney-General made a better defence. The Attorney-General's view is that Berkeley Square and all the squares— we dwell upon Berkeley Square very much as we dwell upon dukes and individuals, and other squares famous or not famous, splendid or humble—would have been protected either by the clause which has regard to restrictive covenants or because no Commissioners would find them to be otherwise than in the interests required and of the locality in which they stand. Let me say that so high a value does the Attorney-General set upon those open spaces that he picks them out as the one advantage which London has over foreign cities. To whom do we owe that advantage? To the dukes, who are denounced at Limehouse and elsewhere?

Now let me say a word about the restrictive covenants. They are a protection only if the Commissioners think them reasonable. Suppose the Commissioners do not think them reasonable in any given case; what happens Restrictive covenants in these cases are generally mutual. They bind not only the tenant, but the landlord. They bind each tenant as against another, all the tenants as against the landlord, and the landlord as against the tenants. If the Commissioners find that the restriction is unreasonable, are the Government going to relieve the landlord from the burden of the covenant, and allow him to make that use of the land which they tax him for not having made? It would obviously be very unjust to the landlord to say, "We consider this covenant unreasonable; not in the public interest, or not in the interest of the locality; therefore, for taxing purposes we disregard it, but we still leave you bound by it, and leave you unable to carry out that development which we tax you for not carrying out." Suppose, when the landlord points out this injustice, the Government say, "Very well; we will relieve the landlord from the covenant in such a case," then they will inflict an equal injustice upon those who have taken property in the neighbourhood on long leases on the ground of this very covenant, which they thought would preserve them in the enjoyment of the amenities of their residence. You get into an inextricable tangle in this matter, whatever position you adopt, unless you stand by these covenants, whether the Commissioners consider them reasonable or not.

The CHAIRMAN

I do not think this is the time to discuss the covenants, ex- cept in so far as they were used by the Attorney-General as an answer to the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman is going rather beyond that.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

It was my intention to confine my remarks to what was relevant to the statement of the Attorney-General. What consistent line of thought runs through the action of the Government in relation to these matters? A few hours ago they refused to exempt from the tax any land which had been compulsorily hired by a public authority for allotments. A public authority cannot hire land compulsorily for allotments without first proving an urgent public demand, and showing that it is in the public interest that the land should be so used. But the Government, disregarding that public interest, and the proof offered at the inquiry which sanctioned the compulsory hiring, say that the land is to be taxed. Now they say that land left open like Berkeley Square is to be exempted from the tax, and a little further that land which has been let on a lease originally for not less than five years is to escape taxation. What measure of relative importance do the Government attach to those allotments and small holdings, upon which they spent so much time the other day, and to the preservation of Berkeley Square or a Cricket-field, when they exempt the latter but refuse to exempt the former? It is impossible to conceive of any principle underlying the whole of these provisions. They are thrown together haphazard; it is done before our eyes. We see how when we mentioned particular cases of hardship during the Debates on the Resolutions, those cases are attempted to be dealt with by provisions in the Bill. But those we did not mention, and which did not occur to the Government, are not dealt with, and any attempt to deal with them is rejected.

Mr. F. B. MILDMAY

I wish to criticise the statement of the Secretary for War just now, when he said that the inhabitants of Berkeley Square ought to pay for the privilege of retaining it as at present. He makes a very great mistake if he thinks we are not paying a considerable sum, as he can be told by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works. It cannot be denied for one moment that Berkeley Square is a lung, a breathing place, and that all who live there or in the vicinity, rich and poor, would be very sorry to see it disappear. We hardly know where we stand at pre- sent. As was pointed out, the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War and the learned Attorney-General were completely at variance. The Secretary for War told us that if Berkeley Square was kept as at present it would have to pay duty. On the other hand, the Attorney-General said that there was no intention of levying duty in the case of Berkeley Square. If I misunderstood these declarations I apologise. We all know that the object of this Undeveloped Land Duty is admittedly to force land into the building market. I do maintain, as many maintain, that it is altogether wrong to levy this duty on land which cannot be forced into the building market. It has been reported by the Attorney-General, in pursuance of his declaration, that the Government do not intend to tax Berkeley Square. I do not know quite if that will be so, because all squares are held under such very differing tenures throughout London. We have had an instance given us of a square offered some years ago for sale independently. All squares have not been created as part of a scheme. It is evidently as part of a scheme that squares will be exempted in this Amendment: "On the site value of any land where it is shown that the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme, whether framed before or after the passing of this Act." On these grounds, I think that these squares, which are so valuable as breathing places and lungs for the metropolis, require greater consideration than is given to them in this Bill.

Mr. R. D. HOLT

Surely in the case of these squares the owners of joint private gardens should be dealt with in the same way as the separate owners of a garden? The Government say that a single private house in Berkeley Square or anywhere else may have a garden of one acre in extent. Why should not three tenants have three acres jointly? It is quite obvious that the owners of these squares have only to allot the gardens to the houses separately to escape taxation altogether. Would it not be better to raise this point on the later Amendment?

Lord ROBERT CECIL

One would think, listening to the Debate, that there were only two squares in London. There are a great many squares scattered all over London, and many of them in the poorest parts of London. They are all of immense value to the City, and I think the Government ought to show very clearly to the House that their Bill does protect them; otherwise they ought to show their willingness to protect them. The Attorney-General referred to Section (3) of Clause 14, but what you really want to do is not to give any inducement to people to shut up these squares. There are cases in London where the square is the joint property of the houses round about it. I know of one case where a speculative capitalist bought up all the houses except one or two—it was some years ago, and he may by this time have since bought up the other two— with the deliberate purpose of eventually building on the square. Are you going to encourage proceedings of that kind? Are you going to hold out inducements to people to do that kind of thing? Are you going to induce people who hold shares in squares to sell them to speculative financiers in order to enable them to turn a square into a plot for building? Everybody who knows anything about the recent municipal history of London knows that the London County Council have more than once in recent years promoted Bills in Parliament to prevent this very thing from happening, and to make it illegal to build on squares.

These Bills failed for one reason or another, but at any rate it shows the danger, and how totally inadequate Section (3) of Clause 14 is to deal with the matter. What is the other protection? The new Sub-section (c) of Section (3) of Clause 11? But that only deals with land kept free, I believe, in pursuance of any development scheme for the development of the area-How are you going to prove that Golden Square was kept free of building for the development of Soho? You cannot do anything of the kind. Is the Government serious in desiring to protect the square? If they are it is a very simple thing to do without going into all sorts of rigmarole about a scheme for the final development of the area and scientific treatment of the question. What nonsense this is. In the last Amendment we asked to have commons protected. The Secretary of State for War says "Oh, no; that is not the scientific way. You must have all sorts of provisions, the effect of which would be not to charge Undeveloped Land Duty." Is that the way to legislate? For heaven's sake let us leave science and come to common-sense. If we were in Grand Committee and the Members were allowed to vote as they thought fit the Government would be left in a minority of three. I never heard of a more astounding way of conducting a Bill when the Government are anxious to save time.

Mr. J. TUDOR WALTERS

I hope the Government will not take any narrow view on this matter. Surely it cannot be the object of this Bill to develop land that could by any possibility be developed without it. When you are developing any given area of land the more open spaces you can have between the houses, and therefore the smaller number of houses per acre, the better it is for the community. Instead of offering anyone inducements to build on the square I would rather afford them some inducement not to do so. This is not only a question of squares in London, but also of open spaces in our provincial towns. In any modern system of town planning the great object should be not to cover all the available land with buildings, but by an intelligent rational process of development make the places habitable and the district beautiful and attractive. To say that you should use all your land to the highest economic advantage is in my judgment an entirely false proposition. One of the principle objects of this Bill is not to crowd houses on land, but to bring larger areas of land into development. By extending the borders of towns and bringing in these larger areas the houses will not be planted so closely together, and there will be more open spaces.

The CHAIRMAN

This is not a Second Beading Debate. I hope the hon. Member will make his remarks more relevant to the Amendment.

Mr. TUDOR WALTERS

I was trying to show why these squares in London and open spaces generally should not be subject to this Undeveloped Land Tax, because the policy of this Bill is not to crowd houses together, but leave plenty of squares and open spaces. I hope the Government will not be content with the vague words, "square forming part of a scheme," but make their proposals definite that these open spaces, where they are an advantage to the public, shall not be taxed, but on the contrary their maintenance should be encouraged and there should be no inducement to build upon them.

Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBY

On this question I feel some difficulty as to how I ought to vote. I differ most profoundly from most hon. Members who sit on the Opposition Benches. For the greater part of my life I have lived in a square, and I have always felt that I should very much like to see the squares with the railings round a beautiful garden demolished so that everybody could have access to it. I have no doubt my views are not shared by many hon. Members here, but they are my personal views, and I hold them. There are a certain number of people who count it the greatest blessing to be surrounded by railings, but personally I have no particular desire to be enclosed like a Polar bear or a lion in iron railings with gates and keys to them. Holding these views, I was rather pleased when I heard the Secretary of State for War lay down the propositions on which the Bill is founded. I thought that at last the railings of Belgrave Square would be swept away, and also the railings of Audley Square, round which I have to walk every day. I understood from him that, unless the babies, the public, and myself are allowed access to that square, they would have to pay the Undeveloped Land Tax. That was distinctly what I understood from his argument. I thought if that was the case I should vote with the right hon. Gentleman, and not with my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. But what happened later? The Attorney-General got up and said, "Oh, no." He is going to oppose the Amendment, because it is not needed, and the effect will be that these squares will be surrounded by the railings, and there are plenty of clauses which protect them from being open to the public. I therefore entirely lost all my interest in the matter. The idea of the Secretary of State for War of the principles of the Bill had entirely disappeared. It is impossible for a layman like myself to go into these different clauses, and find out what the meaning of the words will be. We have seen two of the greatest legal luminaries of the Government profoundly differing on these two points. Cannot we have a third opinion? Members of Parliament occasionally have the advantage of getting legal opinion for nothing. Why could we not have a third opinion from the Government to say what really is the effect of the Amendment? Perhaps the Solicitor-General or the Prime Minister might assist us. It would really be interesting to know whether the effect of this tax would be to pull down the railings round the squares of London or whether it would be to plant them more firmly than ever in their sockets and close the keys against those who wish to pass across. I really think before we go to a Division the question should be settled by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government Bench.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

May I ask the Committee to look at an Amendment of the Government further down the Paper to insert a new Sub-section (c). There is the word "and" ["and that it is reasonably necessary in the interests of the public"]. If instead of the word "and," you put in the word "or," I submit that that would cover the purpose we have in view. Can the Attorney-General see his way to accept that?

Mr. REES

I think the Bill should be cut up for the sake of the squares and gardens, and not the squares and gardens for the sake of the Bill. I should like to ask the attention of the Committee to the case of Harrow School lands, as to which I addressed a question the other day to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill without getting any answer. It seems to me to be clearly raised by this Amendment. It is the case of the land belonging to Harrow School, and I showed that this tax would represent 20s. out of a rent of 30s. That I described as a crushing tax. I was asked to verify my figures. I did so, and I found I had forgotten to make a deduction of £50 for agricultural value. If I do that, and knock off the capital value of the land £100 per acre, I still find that this Undeveloped Land Duty would amount to 15s. as compared with the 30s. received as rent. If that amount were used for the purpose of—

The CHAIRMAN

How does this bear on the Amendment?

Mr. REES

Because the Amendment proposes to insert the words "public or private," and this, being private land, would come under the section.

The CHAIRMAN

I do not think that covers the case of which the hon. Member is speaking. This land would not come under the heading of "parks, gardens or open spaces."

Mr. REES

I submit it would be covered by the words "open spaces."

The CHAIRMAN

It does not seem to me that land let for farming purposes would come under that heading.

Mr. REES

I submit that it does. These lands are acquired by the Governors of Harrow School not for the purposes of gain, but admittedly for the purpose of holding them up, and to prevent their being built upon. It therefore comes under this section.

The CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Gentleman say the land is let for farming purposes?

Mr. REES

It is so let merely because they want to keep it as an open space.

The CHAIRMAN

Then it comes under the sub-section we have already dealt with.

Mr. REES

I submit if I am not allowed to put the case further, I shall be in order in referring to other open spaces not far from London. Take the case of Cassiobury Park, which, although it is a private park, is to the town of Watford what Hyde Park is to London, owing to the generosity of the owners. It is of the utmost value to people of all classes in. Watford, but as I understand this section, that park would be liable to Undeveloped Land Duty unless this Amendment is passed. The words of the hon. Member for Wandsworth are "public or private," and it is the latter word I want inserted^ Take another case, that of Osterley Park; there again there is an open space in the hands of a private owner, and of the utmost value to all classes, rich and poor alike, because this open space is maintained by the private owner—"held up," if you like—to the benefit of the locality. As I understand this section, the whole of that park will come under this Undeveloped; Land Tax unless this Amendment is accepted. Going further from London there is a park neax Oxford Wytham in which people are allowed to ride. It is a park of great extent, and it is at the disposal of the public owing to the generosity of the owner. This matter is of the utmost importance, because these large spaces, although they are in the hands of private owners, are of the greatest benefit to the whole of the localities in their neighbourhood. If the people of these places were to be polled there would be an overwhelming majority in favour of these open spaces being left on their present footing in the hands of their present owners, but if these parks are to be taxed at a high rate it may make it difficult for the owners, unless they are rich men, to-continue their generosity. In the hands of their present owners they have been advantageous to the public, and some such Amendment as this would be accepted in order to preserve to the public the advantages which they at present enjoy through the generosity of present owners.

Mr. BALFOUR

There are two very important points on which I should like your considered ruling. One of them arises out of what you said with regard to the propriety of discussing covenants on Clause 14 rather than on this clause. Clause 14 deals with deductions. The point that has been raised with regard to certain Scotch cases is one in which deductions are not really in question. It is a case where there ought to be no tax at all, where, in fact, by the admission of the Government, the tax is utterly improper. It is a case where there can be no building and no development. Is not this, rather than Clause 14, the proper place where that particular class of difficulty ought to be dealt with The title of this clause is "Exemptions from Undeveloped Land Duty," and it is exemptions from Undeveloped Land Duty, which really is the case suggested by a very large class of important covenants dealing with such things as squares connected with houses, and so forth. The other point is suggested by something which fell from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rees) and your ruling thereupon. The hon. Gentleman brought forward the case of Harrow School, where certain land was bought for the sole purpose of being kept undeveloped, and having an area round the school which was not to be built upon. It was, however, let, because, having been bought, it had to be used to the best advantage. You ruled that that ought to be treated as agricultural land. May I ask whether, if that rule be accepted in this particular case, it will not rule out, for instance, such cases as where a farmer has a right of pasturing sheep, a very common case, indeed, which surely, I think, ought not to be treated as agricultural land any more than the particular case of Harrow School?

The CHAIRMAN

The question of whether covenants affecting undeveloped land should be dealt with on this clause or on Clause 14 is one of great difficulty. It sometimes is more convenient to take such questions on a clause like this dealing with exemptions to the tax in question. Perhaps, if I have a conversation with the hon. and learned Gentleman, I can better find out whether that particular Amendment can be taken here or not. I think covenants generally should be dealt with on Clause 14, but obviously some of these cases of particular exemptions may apply almost entirely to one tax, and in that case they might just as well be taken as an exemp- tion to that tax, as dealt with in a more general way on Clause 14, which deals with original site values. It is a question of extreme difficulty to decide where it should come, but what I do not want to do is to discuss matters twice over. Here we have three taxes, and if the general considerations affecting covenants affect all the three taxes they should be dealt with on Clause 14. As to the other case of Harrow land, after all here we are dealing with an Amendment to Sub-section (3), and if the Amendment under consideration were accepted it would read: "Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on the site value of any parks, gardens, or open spaces contributing to the amenity of the locality." I understood the Harrow land was agricultural land bought for the purpose of the school, and that it was not an open space contributing to the amenity of the locality in this section. That was why I thought that particular case was out of order.

Mr. F. B. MILDMAY

May I ask the Secretary of State for War whether, under the definition of parks open to the public as of right, is included a park through which there is a right of way, and an un-fenced park in which the public are expected to keep to a path, the rest of the park being let to an agricultural tenant?

Mr. HALDANE

If there is a right of way and it is necessary to go along a defined line, then the park is not open.

Mr. STANLEY WILSON

I do wish to press the Government for some further explanation. The Government have placed the Committee in a position of the most extraordinary difficulty. I should like to ask hon. Members opposite whether they are followers of the Secretary of State for War or of the Attorney-General, because within a quarter of an hour these two hon. Gentlemen have stated diametrically opposite views of this particular Amendment. [Cries of "No."] The Secretary of State for War said that squares are to be taxed and the Attorney-General said that they are to be exempt. I think the Secretary of State for War does owe to the Committee some further explanation. Does the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the first statement he made to the Committee to-night? If he does so, we shall then really know where we are. If not, I am perfectly confident that neither of the hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill has the very slightest idea of what the Measure really means. I wonder whether any Member of the Committee knows who of these two representatives of the Government is right.

Mr. ASHLEY

Am I to understand from your ruling that I am to be allowed on this Amendment to raise the question of Harrow? Some years ago it was thought by those interested in Harrow School that it would be undesirable that the growth of London towards Harrow should strangle the school. Other schools have had to move away from the places with which their traditions were bound up, and in order to avoid that in this case, Old Harrovians put their hands in their pockets and bought hundreds of acres round the school.

The CHAIRMAN

I cannot definitely state that the Amendment is out of order, because I do not know whether the land which the hon. Gentleman is arguing about affects the amenity of the locality.

Mr. ASHLEY

I think I can perfectly and honestly say that it does add considerably to the amenity of the locality. It is within ten miles of the Marble Arch, and will never be built on, or if it was built on it would be devoted to a purpose for which it was not intended when the land was originally bought. Do the Government mean by their Amendment or under their Bill to safeguard this land which has been bought for Harrow School in order to maintain it as a living institution, or do they mean that this land should be subject to this tax? An answer to this question would avoid a great deal of unnecessary discussion.

Mr. T. ARNOLD HERBERT

It appears to me that there is a matter of considerable importance arising out of the answer just given by the Secretary of State for War to the hon. Member for Devonshire (Mr. Mildmay). He asked whether a park would be considered to be open to the public if the public merely had a right to walk across a defined path, and had not the right to wander wherever they pleased in the park, and the right hon. Gentleman

said that such a park would not be considered open to the public, and would not escape the tax. I want to ask how does that rule apply to a garden? Would it be possible to say that a garden into which the public were admitted, but in which they were restricted to the paths, should be taxed, and that a garden would not be exempted unless the public had a perfect right to walk over the flower-beds?

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

If we had had any kind of answer it might be argued that we were guilty of tedious repetition in repeating questions, but I submit that the Rule was never intended to allow Ministers to sit silent and refuse to answer perfectly reasonable questions. The only possible remedy open to a minority when these questions are not answered is to repeat them until the Government have made up their minds to give an answer.

Mr. HALDANE

Will the right hon. Gentleman try to confine his question in a. specific way?

Mr. BALFOUR

The question, I think, may be put quite clearly and explicitly in this way: Suppose a public institution buys land in order to prevent, its development, and the fact that that land should be left unoccupied is very desirable for that institution, is the land: bought for that purpose to be taxed as-development land or to be excused from taxation? That is a very simple and precise question, and I think it does deserve respectful treatment from the Government.

Mr. HALDANE

I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that he was alluding to a school which exists for profit in some shape or form. It is a private institution, no matter however well known, and that land has been acquired exclusively for its own purposes, and ought to be taxed.

Question put, "That the word 'which' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 192;. Noes, 101.

Division No. 424.]	AYES.	[12.5 a.m.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Burnyeat, W. J. D.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Beale, w. p.	Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Bellairs, Carlyon	Byles, William Pollard
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Carr-Gomm, H. W.
Armitage, R.	Berridge, T. H. D.	Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry	Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Cawley, Sir Frederick
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Bowerman, C. W.	Channing, Sir Francis Allston
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Brace, William	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Barnard, E. B.	Brocklehurst, W. B.	Clough, William
Barnes, G. N.	Brooke, Stopford	Cobbold, Felix Thornley
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Burns, Rt. Hon., John	Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)
Cooper, G. J.	lllingworth, Percy H.	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Jardine, Sir J.	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	Jenkins, J.	Rose, Sir Charles Day
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Rowlands, J.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Davles, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Rutherford, v. H. (Brentford)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Jowett, F. W.	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Duckworth, Sir James	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Lambert, George	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Lamont, Norman	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Lehmann, R. C.	Seely, Colonel
Elibank, Master of	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Shackleton, David James
Erskine, David C.	Levy, Sir Maurice	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Evans, Sir S. T.	Lewis, John Herbert	Simon, John Allsebrook
Everett, R. Lacey	Lupton, Arnold	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Falconer, J.	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Soares, Ernest J.
Ferens, T. R.	Lyell, Charles Henry	Stanger, H. Y.
Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Maclean, Donald	Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)
Findlay, Alexander	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Strachey, Sir Edward
Fuller, John Michael F.	Macpherson, J. T.	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Gibb, James (Harrow)	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Summerbell, T.
Gill, A. H.	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	M'Micking, Major G.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Glover, Thomas	Maddison, Frederick	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Markham, Arthur Basil	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Massie, J.	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Griffith, Ellis J.	Masterman, C. F. G.	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Gulland, John W.	Menzles, Sir Walter	Verney, F. W.
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Micklem, Nathaniel	Vivian, Henry
Hall, Frederick	Mond, A.	Walsh Stephen
Hancock, John George	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Walton, Joseph
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Wardle, George J.
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Morse, L. L.	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)	Myer, Horatio	Waterlow, D. S.
Harwood, George	Norman, Sir Henry	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	O'Grady, J.	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Haworth, Arthur A.	Partington, Oswald	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Whitehead, Rowland
Hedges, A. Paget	Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)	Wilkle, Alexander
Helme, Norval Watson	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Henry, Charles S.	Pirie, Duncan V.	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Rainy, A. Rolland	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Higham, John Sharp	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Hobart, Sir Robert	Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Holland, Sir William Henry	Richardson, A.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Holt, Richard Durning	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Hudson, Walter	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.
Hyde, Clarendon G.	Robinson, S.
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.	Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)	Kerry, Earl of
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Courthope, G. Loyd	Keswick, William
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Cowan, W. H.	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Cox, Harold	Lambton, Hon. Frederick William
Ashley, W. W.	Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Lane-Fox, G. R.
Baldwin, Stanley	Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)	Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Du Cros, Arthur Philip	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Faber, George Denison (York)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Fell, Arthur	MacCaw, Wm J. MacGeagh
Beauchamp, E.	Forster, Henry William	Magnus, Sir Philip
Beck, A. Cecil	Gardner, Ernest	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Bowles, G. Stewart	Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)	Moore, William
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Gordon, J.	Morpeth, Viscount
Bryce, J. Annan	Gouldlng, Edward Alfred	Morrison-Bell, Captain
Bull, Sir William James	Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)	Newdegate, F. A.
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Oddy, John James
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hay, Hon. Claude George	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Helmsley, Viscount	Parkes, Ebenezer
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Percy, Earl
Clive, Percy Archer	Hunt, Rowland	Pretyman, E. G.
Clyde, J. Avon	Joynson-Hicks, William	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Renton, Leslie	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Renwick, George	Stanier, Beville	Wills, Arthur Walters
Ridsdale, E. A.	Starkey, John R.	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Ronaldshay, Earl of	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)	Younger, George
Rutherford, John (Lancashire)	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Leverton Harris and Mr. Cave.
Salter, Arthur Clavell	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.	Walters, John Tudor

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

EARL of KERRY moved to leave out from Sub-section (3) the words "which in the opinion of the Commissioners are."

Mr. HALDANE

I am prepared to omit the words at this point. They are in a different position lower down, where it is really a question of law.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved in Section (3) after "open" ["gardens or open spaces … open"] to insert the words "or offered to be open on reasonable terms as to superintendence, and damage, and reasonable hours." There is a considerable number of properties of beauty and of value belonging to private people, which the owners have from time to time allowed visitors to go over to enjoy the beauty of the scenery, and so on. It would be reasonable that this provision should not be confined to open spaces actually enjoyed by the public, but that the exemption should extend to such places where the owners are willing to allow the public on reasonable terms to enjoy the beauty of the scenery. It is with that object I move this Amendment, and if the actual words are not acceptable to the Government, I shall be very glad if they will embody other words carrying out the same idea. It is with that object, to preserve the possibility of the public enjoying these very enjoyable places, that I move this Amendment.

Mr. HALDANE

We propose to meet the object of the hon. Gentleman in the words of the Amendment "enjoyed by." What would be the result if we take the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman? Land which the public do not want access to at all, but nobody wished to relieve from rating, might be very easily relieved. You have only to let it get covered with mud and strewn with broken bottles for it to escape rates.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

May I say that I have put down an Amendment to the words "enjoyed by." Could what I have put down be taken in conjunction with the Government Amendment?

Mr. HALDANE

I am afraid it is the same consideration over again. If land is land that the public do not wish to enjoy, then it ought not be exempt.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MILDMAY moved, in Section (3), after "any" ["the site value of any parks, gardens, or open spaces"] to insert the word "woodlands." There are many beautiful places in North and South Devon much frequented by tourists to which public access is given by the owner. I understand the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HALDANE moved, in Section (3), to leave out the words "granted to" ["access to which is granted to the public"], and to insert "enjoyed by."

Mr. ASHLEY

May I ask for some explanation from the Government as to what this change in the Bill really means? Now, the Amendment substitutes the words "enjoyed by the public." What does "enjoyed by the public" mean? I quite understand what "granted to the public" means. I presume that means that the owner has notified to the public through the Press or by some other means that his park is open to them on certain days a week. I will put a concrete case to the Committee. A friend of mine admits the public to his park on certain days. He does not admit they have any legal right, but his park is used in the summer time three or four days a week by parties of excursionists, not only from the immediate locality, but from the surrounding large towns. They write previously to my friend and say: "We wish to hold a fete, or we wish to walk through the park, or to sit in the grounds," and in most cases my friend writes back and says: "I shall be very pleased to enable you to enjoy yourselves." Can the Government give me any idea whether my friend's park would in these circumstances be exempt from the Undeveloped Land Tax? There are no legal rights to the public, but they are at liberty to enjoy the amenities of the park under certain restricted circumstances. The owner maintains the right to exclude them altogether if he wished. The owners of parks are put in a very difficult position with regard to this Undeveloped Land Tax. If they make their parks public altogether they have to bear a considerable expense, because most parks are not used simply for walking about in; they are used for agricultural purposes, and bring in a very considerable revenue to the owners. If the public are forced in under this clause the owner will undoubtedly suffer in the agricultural returns he gets for his park. Excursionists, for instance, could not be allowed to walk all over that portion of the park which is reserved for meadow. If a man grazes cattle on his park he cannot have large numbers of people moving about among the beasts; it prevents them fattening as soon as they otherwise would. In the park which I have in my mind when a large party comes to visit it the cattle have to be moved from one part of it to another, which means the expenditure of money and time. I think, therefore, before we pass this Amendment we ought to have some idea of what "enjoyed by the public" means as compared with "granted to the public."

Mr. J. S. HARMOOD-BANNER

Does the word "enjoyed" include where the public take French leave? Does it mean that in such a case the property will be exempt from the Undeveloped Land Tax1? I have in mind a suburban park of some acres where the public have taken French leave. There has been no granting of leave, because the public have pulled down the fences. The result has been that people have fallen into the quarry and been killed and the owner has been condemned by the coroner's jury. They have also fallen into the pit in the middle of the gardens, and the owners have been condemned for not putting a fence round the pit. If that is what is called enjoyment of the property, will it free the owner from the payment of this Undeveloped Land Tax? I think we are entitled to some explanation of that point, because those who have suburban property to look after have difficulty enough at the present time in keeping the public off the property without any proposal of this kind.

Mr. BALFOUR

I think the Government will feel that they ought to help the Committee to understand what is meant by this proposal. They might at least tell us how the Commissioners are to exercise the powers which it is proposed to give them under this sub-section. As far as I understand the point, I am in sympathy with the Government, but it will be extremely difficult for the Commissioners to carry out their duties even if they know what they are. So far the Government has not explained those duties. Clearly there must be some restriction upon the enjoyment by the public. I know one case not very far from London, close to a large town, where from time immemorial the owner has allowed all his neighbours and those living in the district to have the full enjoyment of his park, but that privilege is not extended to people living further off, except upon special application. I think everybody will admit that this is a reasonable enjoyment. I have known other cases in the suburbs near one of our great provincial cities where permission is given by the owner in writing to particular institutions on particular days, but it would be quite impossible for general access to be given to all who desired it without some restriction. Otherwise it would be much better for the owner to build over the site and develop it, and go and find a more solitary and peaceful habitation elsewhere. Again, people living in a less crowded part give full enjoyment of their land to their friends and neighbours in the district, and everybody will feel that very little harm is done. I understand that the Commissioners would have to decide these extraordinary difficult cases within their discretion. That may be right or it may be wrong, but as regards the method I think it is wrong. But, waiving that, surely we ought to know what the Government themselves think "reasonable enjoyment" means. It would greatly enlighten the Committee if they would tell us, and I only rose before the right hon. Gentleman in order that we might have an opportunity of hearing how the Government proposed to deal with some of the difficulties. It appears to me great injustice will result to owners if the powers of the Commissioners are used.

Mr. HALDANE

The only hesitation I have in endeavouring to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question is because it is an unanswerable question. It is ex tremely difficult to give a definition which, is exhaustive, or do more than show the general principle which underlies the words. No doubt the right hon. Gentle- man is right in saying they must be interpreted differently in different localities. It might not contribute to the amenity of the locality to permit people from a distance to have the same free access as the people of the locality. That, I think, is a view the Commissioners might legitimately take. It is, at any rate, clear that a reasonable access might be enjoyed by the public, although there might be certain restrictions to safeguard the owner as well as the people who go there. It might be quite right that the place should be shut after a certain hour at night and not opened until a certain hour in the morning. All I think one can say is that the case of the generous owner who throws open his park with restrictions for the general amenity of the property, and for making access to it more pleasant for the people themselves, so that the amenities of the locality are really contributed to, would be exempt. A reasonable degree of access is compatible with a certain amount of restrictions. Hon. Members have a reasonable degree of privilege of making speeches and of moving Amendments, notwithstanding there are at rimes considerable restrictions; and so, if the public are de facto entitled to go to a park, notwithstanding that people from a distance are not treated on the same footing as people of the locality, that case would, in view of the Government, come within the meaning of the clause. I am sorry it is not possible to give an exhaustive definition. It is a matter in which individual cases must be dealt with on their merits by the Commissioners.

Mr. WALTER LONG

I think the speech we have just listened to has really only served to show, if possible, with greater clearness than before, the extraordinary position we have been brought into. The suggestion made to my hon. Friend is that the Commissioners shall take into consideration the language that is here quoted, and shall interpret it according to the special powers conferred in each district. But the proposition is that the Commissioners shall ignore the fact which has hitherto been acknowledged as universal that the owners of these properties have voluntarily given to the people who enjoy their enormous advantages. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the Commissioners shall consider what the privileges are—of what kind, quality, or degree. But there is no suggestion under consideration that the Commissioners shall proceed from the standpoint that these people are dealing with their own property, and have dealt with it in a spirit of wide liberality. The Government frequently agree with our criticisms, and the right hon. Gentleman says he does so in this case, but unfortunately the Government will not accept the suggestion which we believe will best carry out the views we are advancing. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the Commissioners may have regard to the fact that the access of school children to these parks and open spaces may be in itself an injury. We have protested before now against this growing practice on the part of the Government of creating public bodies and endowing them with enormous powers. According to the right hon. Gentleman's own admission the Commissioners are to be entitled to exercise discretion because the owner has been either illiberal or too liberal.

Mr. HALDANE

I only used the illustration for the purpose of showing how restrictions might be imposed.

Mr. WALTER LONG

The right hon. Gentleman said there might be so much access as to be injurious, and that it might destroy the amenities of the neighbourhood. But surely that can be left to the person who owns the property. The question is whether you are not giving the Commissioners a power altogether unfair and one which may be exercised in a very arbitrary way. The Secretary of State for War has not removed the objection urged by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. HICKS BEACH

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the particular merit of the Amendment proposed by the Government over the word in the Bill. Can he also tell us in what form the instructions will be set out to the Commissioners? Will they tell the Commissioners what the Government mean by "reasonable access," and are we to understand by that that the access is to be given to the public every week, or will it be reasonable access if the public are allowed to go through when they desire to do so? Will instructions be sent to the Commissioners how many flowers the public will be allowed to pick when they go through?

Mr. PRETYMAN

Does the right hon. Gentleman interpret the word "public" to mean that the permission must be general, or that the public may obtain permission by special permit. That is a very important point, and there is a very wide and important distinction. There are not many parks which are open to the public, without distinction as to what the word "public" means, but there are many where it is common to give particular applicants permits, but they are not given indiscriminately to any person who likes to come at a given time.

Mr. HALDANE

I cannot undertake to give a definition of every case. I can conceive the public being given permission when asked for, and it may be desirable in the interest of the public to exclude undesirable characters. On the other hand, it would not do to admit large sections of the public on political grounds, and to exclude other sections in blocks. For instance, if an hon. Member opposite wished to throw open his park only to gatherings of the local Liberal Association, I am afraid that would not do. The restrictions must be more or less in the public interest. As to the question of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Hicks Beach), you cannot give Commissioners instructions in the terms of the Act, and they are the judges of any instructions which the Government give them.

Mr. BALFOUR

Surely the right hon. Gentleman has laid down a dictum in absolute contradiction to that which he laid down five minutes ago in reply to me, when he said he entirely agreed with my proposition that it might be reasonable to allow neighbours to go in, but not the general public. That is dividing the public into blocks, and I should like to know how that apparent or real contradiction is to be reconciled. In his first speech he assumed that the public who came from a distance might reasonably be divided from the public who lived close by and said that those who lived near might be given admission and those who resided further off excluded. Now he says you cannot divide the public into different categories, and that the word public has but one meaning, viz., everybody except the owner. There is the owner on one side and the rest of the world on the other, and you cannot divide that word by an arbitrary classification, or indeed by any classification, arbitrary or otherwise. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do something to reconcile these two statements.

Mr. HALDANE

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the opening of parks, especially for the benefit of the locality, and he thought the advantage of the public would not be contributed to if a large number of people were allowed to come from a distance outside and destroy the general amenity of the locality. In a sense that is dividing the public into sections, but the other case I instanced, about a political party on one side being admitted while those on the other side were not, referred to the case of people in the same neighbourhood, and had nothing to do with the amenity in the case upon which I founded my first answer to the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD

May I put one more case. I happen to be the owner of a park which is a great attraction to visitors. Next door to me lives a Liberal landlord who owns villages, one feature of which is a number of lodging-houses. The people who go there know they only have to write a postcard to me and they have leave to go through my park. If I am to be taxed on the undeveloped value of my park, that undeveloped land is added to the unearned increment of my Liberal neighbour, and that is rather hard.

Mr. W. PEARCE

I think that the words as they stand, "enjoyed by," would mean that the Commissioners would have to undertake the framing of regulations and schemes relating to all these open spaces, so that it might be recorded on some document to which they have given their sanction that there were privileges accorded to the public which brought the particular open space or park within the words of the section. Otherwise, you would not be able to say that the public were enjoying reasonable access under proper conditions. The effect of leaving it as it now stands would be that there would be various applications made to the Commissioners for exemption from the tax on the ground that the public were having a certain quasi public right which could not be enforced and could not be held to be sanctioned by the Commissioners.

Mr. BONARLAW

It may be that I have failed to understand the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, but I have not in the least gathered the object of altering these words. As I understand, he said in one speech, that the object was to prevent anyone from getting the exemption in respect of ground to which access is so restricted as to be absolutely useless to the public. It appears to me that that case would be met by the words "granted to" in the section as it now stands in the Bill. According to the Amendment before the Committee the exemption is only to be given if in the opinion of the Commissioners reasonable access is "enjoyed by" the public to parks, gardens, or open spaces. I fail to see what difference the Amendment would make. My right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, seemed to have the idea that the Government did not intend to give the right of appeal under this section. I do not think that any statement of that kind has been made. I think it would be extremely unfair to say that the right of appeal should not be given here as in other parts of the Bill. In my opinion the words "granted to" have in this connection exactly the same meaning as "enjoyed by."

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the words 'enjoyed by' be there inserted."

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to insert after "enjoyed" the words "or offered to be enjoyed on reasonable terms as to superintendence and damage and reasonable hours." This enjoyment must begin at some time, and if landowners are to be precluded from making an offer which will start that enjoyment by the public, the fact that the enjoyment has not actually taken place will mean that the landowners will still have to pay the tax. It would appear from the wording of the clause as if the Government deliberately intended that the landowners should come forward and offer the use of these advantageous places to the public. The acceptance of the Amendment by the Government would do a great deal to induce the owners of these places to offer such reasonable access as would satisfy the Commissioners. The Government would be perfectly safe in accepting the Amendment, because in the next line it is stipulated that "in the opinion of the Commissioners that access is of benefit to the public."

1 A.M.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman)

For the reasons which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Haldane) has already given, it is impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment. In the earlier part of the clause we are discussing the Government accepted Amendments, which are in the nature of very large concessions to what is generally recognised as generosity on the part of the landowners of this country, but it is impossible for us to so enlarge these concessions as to enable anybody to take advantage of them who happens to have undeveloped land in the neighbourhood of a town, and thereby to evade the payment of the tax. The Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Watson Rutherford) might have considerable application just in those neighbourhoods where I think everyone in the House will agree that no kind of special claim for exemption arises. I know cases in my own Constituency where land is being held back for building purposes which are simply estates of waste land, where there is no access to the public, which is of no benefit to the public, and where the existence of the waste land as it stands at the present time does not contribute to the amenities of the locality. But, so far as I understand it, if the intention of the Amendment were carried into effect, it would only be necessary for the owners of that land to assert that they were allowing free access to the public and they would escape the tax. The general wording of the clause seems to us to be as wide as we can possibly make it. It would be utterly impossible for us to lay down, either in the clause or in regulations, sufficient answers to the various interesting conundrums and questions which have been propounded from the other side. The Government have made very considerable exemptions from the tax, and I submit that it is rather unnecessary to present a series of this particular kind of instance.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "enjoy" to insert the words "or offer to enjoy on reasonable terms." Amendment to the proposed Amendment put, and negatived.

Lord ROBERT CECIL moved in Section (3) after the word "public" ["reasonable access to which is granted to the public"], to insert "or by the inhabitants." This is a very small point. It is to meet a point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. As the words stand in the Government's proposition, they are a little doubtful. I, therefore, move to insert "or by the inhabitants" after "public" in line 23. I do not know whether the Government intend to accept the Amendment?

Mr. HALDANE

I make no objection.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. CAVE moved in Section (3) to leave out the words "where in the opinion of the Commissioners that access is of benefit to the public as contributing to the amenity of the locality." The object is to get rid of one of the many occasions on which the Commissioners have a discretion. Somebody has counted 37 such occasions. We have got rid of several, and this is another. As the Bill stands, if a man who has a park allows access to the public, and the public actually enjoy that access, that is not enough. There is a further condition. The matter must go before the Commissioners, and they must say whether the public are wise in enjoying that access, and whether it is of benefit to them. The point I put is this: if a man allows the public to use his park or garden, he has done his part, and if the public actually make use of that park or garden that should be enough to show that the access is for the public benefit. It s needless and mischievous to bring in a third party to judge whether access is useful or not in such a case. One point that has been put is that a man might strew his garden with broken bottles and invite the public in. In that case the public would not use the garden, and therefore such a case could not arise. I say quite frankly that if the Bill were drafted so as to give a right of appeal against the decision of the Commissioners my objection to these words would be very much lessened. But as the Bill stands there is no such right of appeal at all, and the Commissioners would be able to say, however generous a man might be, and however much the public might use his land, that the land ought not to be free from the duty. That is wrong; it gives the Commissioners too much power.

Mr. HALDANE

The hon. Member's proposal is rather wide. He will notice that the clause applies to "open spaces," a very general term. The view of the Government is that exemption should only be given where, in the opinion of the Commissioners, the access is of benefit to the public as contributing to the amenity of the locality. There are cases in which people, merely in order to spite their neighbours, have invited large parties to the locality. I have known of injunctions being granted to prevent people exercising their legal rights because they proposed to exercise them in such a way as to create a nuisance. The Government lay great stress on the words the hon. Member proposes to leave out: that the access of the public must be such an access as will be of benefit to them as contributing to the amenity of the locality. Who is to be the judge of that? It is obviously a question of which the Commissioners are as good judges as any court of law. It is not a question of law at all; it is a question of fact, and I do not know of any better tribunal for such a question. Nor do I think an appeal would assist us much on a question of fact. But from what I have said the hon. Member will see that we regard his proposal as going a great deal too far.

Mr. YOUNGER

The right hon. Gentleman put his finger on the spot when he asked who was to be the authority. It is very obvious that the Commissioners are not the best authority to settle this question. If the right hon. Gentleman will carry his mind back a year or two he will remember that when exemptions of this kind were suggested in another Bill, a Select Committee reported that the people who ought to decide on these exemptions were the local authority. The local authority obviously know best whether open spaces are an advantage to the locality or not. In Scotland, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the local valuation authority would be a most excellent authority. They know their own locality infinitely better than the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is introducing the question of the local authority. There is an Amendment to be proposed on that point: that the opinion of the local authority should be conclusive evidence.

Mr. YOUNGER

I do not want to introduce that. I want to get rid of the Commissioners. I think the Commissioners are a most improper authority for this purpose. I am asking the Committee to realise what for all practical purposes these Commissioners will be? They will be the local taxing authorities, sent from Somerset House, no doubt, with no knowledge of valuation and an insufficient knowledge of the local circumstances. Is the individual who is to represent the Commissioners in all these districts in Scotland and elsewhere to be considered the best authority to say whether these spaces are to be taxed or not, or whether the access is suitable or not? I say simply "No." I shall support the Amendment in order, if possible, to get the Commissioners out of the Bill altogether.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

One short argument is very conclusive. The Com missioners who are to decide whether the amenities of the locality are sufficient to exempt the land from the Development Tax are the taxing authority, and the duty of the Commissioners is to get in as much tax as they can. Therefore, you are putting them in a most invidious position. It seems to me that if there is one point in the Bill where the Commissioners' opinion ought not to be final it is this very point.

Sir W. ROBSON

I would point out that it is not only the duty of these people to collect the tax, but it is also their duty to administer the exemptions. It has been pointed out that they have a specific function and duty. Their specific function and duty is not confined to the collection of the taxes; they have an administrative duty as well.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I do hope the Government will not adhere to their action on this Amendment, even if they cannot accept the full Amendment of my hon. Friend. I hope they will strike out the words "in the opinion of the Commissioners," which matter is to arise in the next Amendment. It is evident that there are two sub-sections to be discussed together, and it is somewhat inconvenient. I do not wish to say anything on what my hon. and learned Friend has said on the other part of the Amendment. I feel it is not right to make the Commissioners judges without appeal in a matter of this kind. It is odious to put them in such a position as proposed in the Bill; but it is really ridiculous to anybody who has had any dealing with the Inland Revenue authorities to attempt to regard them as impartial as between the taxpayer and the Crown. It is asking more than you can expect of human nature to ask them to be impartial. Of course, their bias is in favour of the Crown. It is not right to make them into a judicial body without appeal. The Government have more than once at the request of the Opposition agreed to strike out words, and they would be wise to consider how far an appeal in regard to the decision of the Commissioners can be given. The words "in the opinion of the Commissioners" are not necessary, and to insert them here will prejudice the question whether there shall be an appeal when it comes to be dwelt with later on. But the moment you say the matter is to be decided by the opinion of the Commissioners, it shuts out the possibility of the right of appeal. I think it is a reasonable request that the Government should agree to strike out these words, without pledging themselves on the matter of the appeal, and leaving that till later on. They should not insist upon the insertion of the words here. I hope the Government may see their way to meet us on this point. I think there are many hon. Members who sit on the other side of the House who think as we do about the Commissioners being both judges and tax collectors.

Sir JOHN DICKSON-POYNDER

I think there is some force in the arguments just heard from the other side. It must be obvious to everybody that the Commissioners who are to be tax collectors are not the proper body to adjudicate on questions of this character. They are not questions of fact; they require very nice discretion. They are not only matters that require a nice discretion whether this class of property should be exempt from taxes or not; but this class of property, which should have every facility offered it, is in many instances for the benefit of many localities around it. You, Mr. Chairman, have ruled out of order our reference to the alternative body; but I agree with the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. Younger), and I think it would be most injudicious to leave the matter as in the Bill, and that it would be better to leave the decision to the local authority. I have an Amendment down on the Paper which would place the matter in the hands of the local authority. If the Government adhere to their decision and decide on retaining the Commissioners in the Bill, there will be no opportunity for discussing the alternative authority or the local authority.

The CHAIRMAN

I mentioned that we must not have the matter mentioned by the hon. Baronet discussed both on a specific Amendment and on the point now raised. I do not mind which way it is done.

Sir J. DICKSON-POYNDER

The reason why I agree with the Amendment in regard to the Commissioners is not because I do not realise the necessity of having some tribunal. I think another authority would be a very much better one. I might mention certain institutions which are exempted from rating under an Act of 1843, known as the Scientific and Literary Institutions Exemption of Rating Act. The local authority there was not deemed the proper authority to decide as to whether certain institutions were to be exempted from rating, and that power was made to rest in the hands of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Such institutions as the Arts Union and the Society of Arts, and many others, are exempted from rating on a certificate from the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and I think that is a fair analogy to the case we have before us. I therefore ask that the Government will reconsider their decision.

Mr. HALDANE

I have listened to the speech of the hon. Baronet, and to the speeches of the other hon. Gentlemen, and I must say that I think there is something in them. It seems a little awkward that the taxing authority should be the exempting authority. On the other hand, I do not think it would be a good thing that the local authority should be called in. A body which we have brought in in other parts of the Bill is the Local Government Board. But I do not think we should decide this thing straight off; it is too important. I will undertake to consider before the Report stage whether the Local Government Board would be the suitable body for this work. We can then discuss the matter on Report, and if necessary insert an Amendment to that effect.

Mr. WALTER LONG

I hope the Secretary for War will go a little further, and will also take in an appeal. He has admitted the manifest injustice of the provision in the Bill. [Cries of "No."] Yes, he has. I do not desire to put the case stronger than he did, but I think he admitted that to make the taxing authority the authority as to exemption was most undesirable. I only stretch his language when I say that it is an injustice, and I say it at any rate for myself. I am glad he has made the admission. I hope he will not limit his consideration between now and Report to the introduction of the Local Government Board. I have had some experience of that Department myself, and I do not quite see how on earth they are going to exercise these powers. During recent years the Local Government Board have been made the Cinderella of the Government. Whenever there has been a difficulty the Local Government Board has had to find a way out. There is this also to be considered, that they have no local officials, no local representatives. They would have to send down an inspector to inquire into every one of these cases. There will be no other way of arriving at the necessary information. I do not quite like the suggestion of the hon. Baronet below the Gangway (Sir J. Dickson-Poynder) that the county council should be the body to exercise this power. There are manifest difficulties in the way of that which make the local body far from the model body for this particular duty. I find great difficulty in making any suggestion in regard to the matter, for the reason that the task you are throwing upon those who have to make this decision is one of extreme difficulty. You are laying down a whole series of very vague conditions. The language of the clause is of the vaguest possible kind. You are asking the same unfortunate person who suffers from the consequences of your legislation to prevent the difficulties which you yourself see will follow. I do not rise to make a suggestion, but I do hope that the Secretary for War will at least do what the Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Robert Cecil) suggested, namely, keep the matter open by leaving the words out now without prejudice to the insertion of the Local Government Board or the local authority, and will earnestly endeavour to find some tribunal more satisfactory than the one he has suggested.

Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON

I am sure that the concession the Government has made and intend to make is one which will be very much appreciated in the cases to which it applies. I am not sure that the number of cases will be very large, and therefore I think that some central authority could undertake the work quite well. I do not think that the Inland Revenue Commissioners would be the proper body to employ. I am quite sure they are not. With all deference to what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) has said, I believe that in England the Local Government Board would be the satisfactory body to decide what should be done I am not quite sure whether the same can be said of the Local Government Board in Scotland. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War understands Scotland, perhaps he will bear that point in mind. I should not think them much more competent than the Inland Revenue authorities to decide the matter.

Mr. BONAR LAW

We are all satisfied with the view expressed by the Secretary for War that the matter should be considered. He recognises that as it stands the position is one that should not be allowed to continue. [Cries of "No."] He has certainly made that admission. There is not an axiom of Jaw better known than that a man should not be the judge in his own case. The Government are repeating here the same proceeding they took in the earlier discussions on this Bill when they refused altogether to give an appeal. There is no conceivable reason why the right of appeal should not exist here just as much as in the earlier part of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War will consider the instances affected by this section he will see you ought not to leave the decision to a body which is indirectly interested in the result, a decision which may have the effect of injuring the property of citizens of this country. That is a state of things which should not be allowed to continue, but it is exactly what will happen. The whole section goes together. Take, for instance, the case of a school, where a person has bought some thirty acres of land and put up a school. It is for the Commissioners, and nobody else, to say whether or not these fields are to be taxed. If they are to be taxed, it simply means that in this ease the school could not be worked, and no greater injury could possibly be inflicted. The Secretary for War has shown that this is not a question of fact. If it were it might be left to the decision of the Commissioners. It is a question which largely affects the interests of individuals. What is the objection to there being a right of appeal? Probably it will not be used very often. I am perfectly certain that I am only stating what will be found to be true, namely, that the Government will have to do here what they have done in the other parts of the Bill—give the right of appeal. All I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do now is not to insist on prejudging the question, so that when the appeal clause comes up for discussion its provisions may be made to apply to this particular part of the Bill.

Mr. HALDANE

In response to the appeal made by the Committee, I am quite prepared on behalf of the Government to leave it an open question if the Amendment is withdrawn. We will then review the whole situation. I do not think it is so bad a case as right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think. The Inland Revenue Commissioners are already judges under the Finance Act.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

There is an appeal.

Mr. HALDANE

No, that is not so. In a great many cases there is not an appeal. However, we are here dealing with rather a special case, where I do recognise that some different body would probably be better. I should like to take time to consider this, and if the Amendment is withdrawn I undertake to consider with a very open mind whether it would not be possible to substitute the Local Government Board, unless something better can be done. I am at present rather averse to an appeal, but I will consider it.

Viscount MORPETH

As the right hon. Gentleman has said he has an open mind, will he also consider whether the Local Government Board is a suitable body. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro Ferguson) and the right hon. Gentleman himself, who both come from Scotland, advocate the Local Government Board in England as being the most suitable body for this country. I do not share their opinion. In the first place, it is a very arbitrary body, and, secondly, it is very slow in its action. It is a Government Department; it is very grasping, and is always endeavouring to rake fresh power into its hands. For these reasons it is undesirable that it should be given these very wide powers. It has also been suggested that the power should be given to the local authorities. I think that would be equally undesirable for a great many reasons, one only of which I will give. It is that the local authorities are themselves parties to the case, for they share half the proceeds of the tax. It seems to me that the best plan would be to leave it to the Commissioners, subject to an appeal. If there were an appeal I think it is very unlikely the Commissioners would act in an unreasonable manner, and probably only in very rare cases would the right of appeal be exercised. The Commissioners would know that they were subject to a higher court, which would adjudicate as to whether the user of the parks was reasonable or unreasonable.

Mr. CAVE

In view of what the Government have said I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. WEDGWOOD

I beg to move, in Section (3), after the word "public" ["that access is of benefit to the public"] to insert the words "equivalent to the amount of the duty remitted." I want to afford some sort of guide to the Commissioners, or the Local Government Board, or whoever it is that is going to decide this knotty point as to whether the access granted to the public is of sufficient benefit to the public to justify exemption from Undeveloped Land Duty. I think, obviously, the guide should be the amount of the duty that would be raised from the property if such access were refused. As the right hon. gentleman the Member for Dublin (Mr. Long) said just now, the wording of the clause is so vague, and it is so doubtful what is exactly meant by the words, "where in the opinion of the Commissioners that access is of benefit to the public as contributing to the amenity of the locality," that I hope the Government will accept the Amendment, which, without being injurious to any interest concerned, would make the duty of the Commissioners or Local Government Board more explicit than it is at present.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Acland)

I am afraid I have to say that it is impossible to accept this Amendment.

Question, "That those words ['equivalent to the amount of duty remitted'] be there inserted," put, and negatived.

Mr. CLYDE

I beg to move in Section (3) to leave out the words "as contributing" ["is of benefit to the public as contributing to the amenity of the locality"] and to insert the words "or contributes." It is a comparatively small matter which is raised by the Amendment, and the words are rather of a drafting character than otherwise. As the Bill stands, the phraseology used is "where in the opinion of the Commissioners that access is of benefit to the public as contributing to the amenity of the locality." What the Amendment proposes to do is to make it read "where in the opinion of the Commissioners that access is of benefit to the public or contributes to the amenity of the locality." The exact reason which led to this Amendment being put forward is this: It seems a very curious qualification—I suppose as it reads it suggests a qualification—to say of the public benefit that it shall be a benefit in the way of contributing to the amenity of the locality. What I propose is to make it clear that what the Commissioners are to test is public benefit, independent altogether of any qualification as to how that may affect the amenity of the locality.

Mr. HALDANE

I think there is something in the criticism of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Clyde), but I am not sure that the way in which he proposes to word the alteration is the best. I pointed out in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) that this was a matter which might be for the advantage of the locality. It enables you to discriminate between sections of the public, and say that, although you do not allow great crowds to come from some city twelve miles off to an open space, yet it contributes to the amenity of the locality if, while putting on that restriction, you throw open the gates to the children of the immediate neighbourhood. Therefore, as the Committee will see, there is a distinct and definite advantage in keeping in the restriction. I agree that the words "as contributing" are a clumsy way of expressing the intentions of the Government, and I would suggest that better words would be "and contributes." I think by the use of those words we should save the advantage of which I have just spoken, and at the same time improve the phraseology of the clause.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I hope the Government will accept the Amendment as it stands on the Paper. I cannot say that the suggestion of the Secretary for War is an improvement on it. It would add greatly to the restriction on the owners as drafted in the Bill if the Commissioners had to be satisfied not only that access was of benefit to the public, but also that it contributed to the amenity of the locality. The fairer course is to say that the exemption should apply if the Commissioners are satisfied either that access is of benefit to the public or contributes to the amenity of the locality. That is a temperate view, and I should have thought it was substantially what was intended by the words of the Government as they stand. They are, as the Secretary for War has said, clumsy words, and I certainly hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Clyde) will adhere to the resolution as he has moved it, as I do not care for the right hon. Gentleman's suggested alteration in its wording.

Mr. HALDANE

I cannot reconcile the contending views. I do not like the disjunction, and I do not quite like the grammar of the drafting as it stands. I think what I have suggested, "and contributes," comes nearer than anything else to meet the views expressed. I think it-improves the drafting, and certainly expresses what the Government mean.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I prefer the words as they stand to "and contributes." "Or contributes" would be better, but I would rather see the words "as contributes" than those which the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. HALDANE

It is a small point; let us leave it.

Mr. CAVE

The access must be for the benefit of the public. That means the whole public, and it is a great pity to limit

it to these cases. There are many cases-where the access is not to the whole public, but contributes very much to the comfort and convenience of the public around or of a particular class of the inhabitants. The Amendment of my Noble Friend just now was exactly on the same lines, and was accepted by the Secretary of State. In that case we had "or locality." I think the case is exactly met by the Amendment as it stands. It would allow the Commissioners to pass as sufficient access, which fulfils, one of two conditions—either it must be for the public benefit or for the benefit of the locality. I hope the Amendment, as proposed, may be accepted.

Question put, "That the words 'as contributing' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 74.

Division No. 425.]	AYES.	[1.45 a.m.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Masterman, C. F. G.
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	Menzies, Sir Walter
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Glover, Thomas	Micklem, Nathaniel
Armitage, R.	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Mond, A.
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry	Griffith, Ellis J.	Morse, L. L.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Gulland, John W.	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Myer, Horatio
Barnard, E. B.	Hall, Frederick	Norman, Sir Henry
Barnes, G. N.	Hancock, J G.	O'Grady, J.
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	Partington, Oswald
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Beale, W. P.	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)	Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	pickersgill, Edward Hare
Berridge, T. H. D.	Haworth, Arthur A.	Pirie, Duncan V.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Bowerman, C. W.	Hedges, A. Paget	Rainy, A. Rolland
Brace, William	Helme, Norval Watson	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)	Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)
Brooke, Stoplord	Henry, Charles S.	Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.>
Bryce, J. Annan	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)	Richardson, A.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Higham, John Sharp	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Hobart, Sir Robert	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Robinson, S.
Byles, William Pollard	Holt, Richard Durning	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Hyde, Clarendon G.	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight	tiling worth, Percy H.	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Jenkins, J.	Rose, Sir Charles Day
Clough, William	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Rowlands, J.
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Runciman, Ht. Hon. Walter
Cooper, G. J.	Jones, William (Carnarvon)	Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Jowett, F. W.	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Lambert, George	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon)	Lamont, Norman	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Davies, Sir W. Howeli (Bristol, S.)	Lehmann, R C	Seely, Colonel
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Levy, Sir Maurice	Simon, John Allsebrook
Duckworth, Sir James	Lewis, John Herbert	Soares, Ernest J.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Luiton, Arnold	Stanger, H. Y.
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)
Elibank, Master of	Maclean, Donald	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Erskine, David C.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Summerbell, T.
Evans, Sir S. T.	Macpherson, J. T.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Falconer, J.	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Ferens, T. R.	M'Micking, Major G.	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Maddison, Frederick	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Markham, Arthur Basil	Thorne, G R. (Wolverhampton)
Fuller, John Michael F.	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	lire, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Verney, F. W.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Vivian, Henry	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Walsh, Stephen	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Walters, John Tudor	Whitehead, Rowland
Wardle, George J.	Wilkie, Alexander
Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.
Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Waterlow, D. S.	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Morrison-Bell, Captain
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Gordon, J.	Oddy, John James
Ashley, W. W.	Gouldlng, Edward Alfred	Parkes, Ebcnezer
Baldwin, Stanley	Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)	Percy, Earl
Banner, John S. Harmood	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)	Pretyman, E. G.
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Renton, Leslie
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Ridsdale, E. A.
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Helmsley, Viscount	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Bull, Sir William James	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Hunt, Rowland	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Cave, George	Joynson-Hicks, William	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Kerry, Earl of	Stanler, Beville
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Starkcy, John R.
Clive, Percy Archer	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Staveley-Hill. Henry (Staffordshire)
Clyde, J. Avon	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Courtnope, G. Loyd	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E. R.)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers	Magnus, Sir Philip	Younger, George
Faber, George Denison (York)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Forster, Henry William	Moore, William	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.
Gardner, Ernest	Morpeth, Viscount

Mr. PRETYMAN moved: "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

It is now nearly two o'clock, and I do not think the Government will desire to carry on the Debate any further to-night. We sat very late indeed on Monday night, and last night we sat till a quarter to twelve. It is obvious that it is impossible to make any substantial progress to-night in view of the large number of Amendments still on the Paper, and their important character. Further, we have to consider the prospect before us for the remaining day of this week, because Clause 14 is a most important clause, and it is obvious that it cannot be effectively discussed to-morrow considering the position we are in now. If the Government desire to finish Clause 11 to-night, then even with the most active desire on the part of the Opposition to give help in discussing only absolutely necessary Amendments, those Amendments cannot be disposed of until many hours have elapsed. Then to discuss Clause 13, and to enter on the discussion of Clause 14 to-morrow, would again carry us to a late hour in the morning. It is not fair to suggest such a course, and I desire to move to report Progress now. Then we should be able to finish Clause 11 in a reasonable time to-morvow, and after Clause 13—Clause 12 having gone—we should be able to enter on the discussion of Clause 14 under conditions in which we should be in a better position to discuss it.

Mr. HALDANE

The Government desire to meet the views of the Opposition if possible, but they cannot think of accepting this Motion. Last night we had a night off, and here we are all fresh. We have had quite an interesting discussion and the Committee has been doing its work in a very business-like fashion. But hon. Members should really remember that there are 78 clauses to be got. I am not myself peculiarly devoted to Christmas holidays, but still I should like to see some prospect of finishing this Bill by Christmas. I remember one Session in which we adjourned for Christmas Day. It is a long time ago, and if we can avoid it I do not think we should repeat that experience. I see no reason why we should not get to the end of Clause H to-night. If the Opposition were to offer to give us Clause 14 by to-morrow night it would be different. But in present circumstances, I think we must continue in the spirit that has been shown hitherto until we finish Clause 11.

Mr. PIKE PEASE

The speech to which we have just listened is an extraordinary one considering the position in which we are placed. We have sat since February last, with the exception of a few weeks, and nearly every week, and really the time has come when some decided protest ought to be made against the way in which the Government are carrying on the business of the nation. It seems rather an outrage for the Secretary for War to suggest in a casual way that we should now sit on till Christmas. The position we are placed in has been caused to a great extent by the way the Government have altered the Bill from time to time. If it had not been for the action they have taken to-day in regard to a particular clause, and the long statement that had necessarily to be made as to the alteration regarding royalties, we should not be in the position we are tonight. I appeal to the common-sense and goodwill of hon. Members opposite to say whether they do not think that the majority are taking advantage of their great powers. It really is ridiculous to keep us up every night till, on an average, about three in the morning, especially when one remembers that after the beginning of this Parliament it was stated openly by many Members in important positions that it was quite impossible to consider any legislative proposal seriously after midnight.

2 A.M.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I have listened to the speech of the Secretary of War with great interest and with some regret. He says the Committee have been doing their work admirably, but he cannot think of adjourning at two o'clock. He went on to explain that if we were to do so there would be no prospect—indeed there is no prospect in any case, so far as I understand him—of getting through the Bill before Christmas. And that is if the Committee do their work in a thoroughly reasonable and business-like spirit too. I venture to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to exercise that faculty which he recommends so much to others—the faculty of clear thinking. I do venture to ask the Government to consider a little carefully—after all it is holiday time now and I suppose they have a little time for thinking; ordinarily I do not believe Ministers have any time at all for thinking—what they really propose to the House of Commons as a programme to get through their Bill. Do they really seriously mean that we are to sit up week after week, night after night, till three or four, or five or six o'clock in the morning, pretending to legislate? Is it reasonable to ask that of Members? Of course, I am not referring to hon. Members below the Gangway, whose boyish spirit is the admiration of the whole House. I ask is it really reasonable to suppose that you can discuss the intricate details of the Finance Bill between the hours of two and six in the morning, or after that? [A LABOUR MEMBEB: "Yes."] Well, are they hours that hon. Members below the Gangway would work? [LABOUR MEMBEBS: "We have had to do it," and cries of "Order."] If an hon. Member chooses to make a disorderly interruption, I am bound to answer. Does the hon. Member say he has ever worked these hours? They are ridiculous hours to expect even for the meanest type of men who live, and if it is intended that we in this House are to exercise any kind of mental effort at such a time it is really absurd. It is absurd to suppose that we can at these hours discharge our duty either to our constituents or to the country, and we ought not to be asked to sit these hours. What I want to know is what the Government really contemplate about this Bill? What is their idea? Because it is really absurd to suppose that they are going to sit up in this way night after night. I think we are entitled to know, and the country are entitled to know, what the Government contemplate, and we are entitled to support my hon. Friend.

Mr. RAWLINSON

Are we going on to discuss this Amendment to Clause 11, dealing with the Questions of cricket grounds and similar things? These and spaces kept for recreation grounds depend very largely upon what happens to Clause 25. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were here he would know that depends very largely on the Amendments he has promised to Clause 25. I have more than once asked that the Amendments to Clause 25 should be in our hands before we discussed Clause 11. It is impossible to discuss fairly Clause 11 without knowing what the Government's Amendments are on Clause 25. With those proposed Amendments in our hands we should know where we are, and, may I say, in regard to the Bill more particularly. Of course, if you come here and say you are going to get the Bill through without proper discussion, that is one way of looking at the matter; but really, if we are to understand the Bill as a whole and to deal as fairly with the clauses as it is possible for us to do, we ought to have the Government Amendments on the Paper. Can we really discuss an intricate Bill like this without knowing what the other clauses are going to be in a Government Bill of this magnitude and importance? From time to time in discussing parts of this Bill we have not the slightest idea, and the Government in some cases cannot have the slightest idea, of what effect the proposition is going to have on the Bill. We have got to discuss certain clauses exempting on certain grounds when we know that Clause 25 is not going to be adopted in its present form.

Mr. HALDANE rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Sir W. ANSON

May I add my appeal to that of my hon. and learned Friend. The right of exemption is of very great importance to a great many societies to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already made some reference. The Government Amendments put down to Clause 25 we have not yet seen, but we are asked to discuss exemptions of very much the same character, and it is really impossible to discuss what we are expected to discuss to-night fairly and

fully and satisfactorily unless we see these other Amendments to Clause 25, and it is to be remembered that we have had submitted to us to-night a new resolution which is practically a new Bill. Under these circumstances, and in consideration of the progress made to-night, I ask the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Haldane) not to allow us now to deal with these exemptions, as I hope we shall have a better understanding of the position when the Chancellor of the Exchequer returns.

Sir W. ROBSON

There is really no necessary connection between Clause 25 and the clause we are now discussing. Clause 25 deals with exemption of land held for public and charitable purposes. I do not see how anyone can suggest that we cannot deal with Clause 11 without having before us Clause 25. Whatever the Amendments to Clause 25 they will be put early on the Paper.

Mr. HALDANE rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 70.

Division No. 426.]	AYES.	[2.10 a.m.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Hyde, Ciarendon G.
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Duckworth, Sir James	Illingworth, Percy H.
Armitage, R.	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Jenkins, J.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Barnard, E. B.	Elibank, Master of	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Barnes, G, N.	Erskine, David C.	Jowett, F. W.
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Evans, Sir S. T.	King, Alfred John (Knutstord)
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Falconer, J.	Lambert, George
Beale, W. P.	Ferens, T. R.	Lamont, Norman
Beauchamp, E.	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Lehmann, R. C.
Beck, A. Cecil	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Fuller, John Michael F.	Levy, Sir Maurice
Berridge, T. H. D.	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Lewis, John Herbert
Bowerman, C. W.	Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	Lupton, Arnold
Brace, William	Glover, Thomas	Lyell, Charles Henry
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Brooke, Stopford	Griffith, Ellis J.	Maclean, Donald
Bryce, J. Annan	Gulland, John W.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Macpherson, J. T.
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Hall, Frederick	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles	Hancock, J. G.	M'Micking, Major G,
Byles, William Pollard	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	Maddison, Frederick
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Markham, Arthur Basil
Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Haworth, Arthur A.	Masterman, C. F. G.
Clough, William	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Menzies, Sir Walter
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Hedges, A. Paget	Micklem, Nathaniel
Cooper, G. J.	Helme, Norval Watson	Mond, A.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)	Morse, L. L.
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	Henry, Charles S.	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)	Myer, Horatio
Cowan, W. H.	Higham, John Sharp	Norman, Sir Henry
Davies, David (Montgomery Col)	Hobart, Sir Robert	O'Grady, J.
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Partington, Oswald
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Holt, Richard Durning	Paulton, James Mellor
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Walters, John Tudor
Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Wardle, George J.
Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Pirie, Duncan V.	Seely, Colonel	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Waterlow, D. S.
Rainy, A. Rolland	Simon, John Allsebrook	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)	Scares, Ernest J.	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)	Stanger, H. Y.	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)	Whitehead, Rowland
Richardson, A.	Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)	Wilkie, Alexander
Ridsdale, E. A.	Strachey, Sir Edward	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Summerbell, T.	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Robinson, S.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Rogers, F. E. Newman	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Rose, Sir Charles Day	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Rowlands, J.	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.
Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.	Vivian, Henry
Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	Walsh, Stephen
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Parkes, Ebenezer
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Ashley, W. W.	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds.)	Percy, Earl
Baldwin, Stanley	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Pretyman, E. G.
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Renton, Leslie
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Helmsley, Viscount	Ronaidshay, Earl of
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hunt, Rowland	Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Joynson-Hicks, William	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Bull, Sir William James	Kerry, Earl of	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Carlile, E. Hildred	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Stanier, Beville
Cave, George	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Starkey, John R.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Clive, Percy Archer	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Clyde, J. Avon	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Courthope, G. Loyd	MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Magnus, Sir Philip	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Younger, George
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Moore, William
Gardner, Ernest	Morpeth, Viscount	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr.
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Morrison-Bell, Captain
Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)	Forster.
Gordon, J	Oddy, John James

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 170.

Division No. 427.]	AYE5.	[2.15 a.m.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.	Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Vinson, Sir William Reynell	Gordon, J,	Oddy, John James
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Goulding;, Edward Alfred	Parkes, Ebenezer
Ashley, W. W.	Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)	Percy, Earl
Baldwin, Stanley	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)	Pretyman, E. G.
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Renton, Leslie
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Ronaidshay, Earl of
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Helmsley, Viscount	Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hunt, Rowland	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Bull, Sir William James	Joynson-Hicks, William	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Kerry, Earl of	Stanior, Beville
Cave, George	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Starkey, John R.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Clive, Percy Archer	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Clyde, J. Avon	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)	Willoughby de Eersby, Lord
Courthope, G. Loyd	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.|	MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh	Younger, George
Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott-	Magnus, Sir Philip
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Forster, Henry William	Moore, William	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.
Gardner, Ernest	Morpeth, Viscount
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Morrison-Bell, Captain
NOES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Hancock, J. G.	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	Rainy, A. Rolland
Armitage, R.	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)	Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Barnard, E. B.	Haworth, Arthur A.	Richardson, A.
Barnes, G. N.	Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.	Ridsdale, E. A.
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Hedges, A. Paget	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Helme, Norval Watson	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Beale, W. P.	Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)	Robinson, S
Beauchamp, E.	Henry, Charles S.	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Beck, A. Cecil	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Higham, John Sharp	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Berridge, T. H. D.	Hobart, Sir Robert	Rose, Sir Charles Day
Bowerman, C. W.	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Rowlands, J.
Brace, William	Holt, Richard Durning	Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Hyde, Clarendon G.	Samuel Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Brooke, Stopford	Illingworth, Percy H.	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Bryce, J. Annan	Jenkins, J.	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Seely, Colonel
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Silcock, Thomas Bali
Byles, William Pollard	Jowett, F. W.	Simon, John Allsebrook
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Soares, Ernest J.
Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight	Lambert, George	Stanger, H. Y.
Charming, Sir Francis Allston	Lamont, Norman	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Lehmann, R. C.	Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)
Clough, William	Lever A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Levy, Sir Maurice	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Cooper, G. J.	Lewis, John Herbert	Summerbell, T.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Lupton, Arnold	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Cowan, W. H.	Maclean, Donald	Thomas, Abel (Carmaithen, E.)
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Macpherson, J. T.	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Vivian, Henry
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	M'Micking, Major G.	Walsh, Stephen
Duckworth, Sir James	Maddison, Frederick	Walters, John Tudor
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Markham, Arthur Basil	Wardle, George J.
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Marks, G. Croydon (Lauceston)	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Ellbank, Master of	Masterman, C. F. G.	Waterlow, D. S.
Erskine, David C.	Menzies, Sir Walter	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Evans, Sir S. T.	Micklem, Nathaniel	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Falconer, James	Mond, A.	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Ferens, T. R.	Morse, L. L.	Whitehead, Rowland
Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)	Wilkie, Alexander
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Mycr, Horatio	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Fuller, John Michael F.	Norman, Sir Henry	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Gibb, James (Harrow)	O'Grady, J.	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Glover, Thomas	Partington, Oswald	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Paulton, James Mellor	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Griffith, Ellis J.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Gulland, John W.	Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.
Hall, Frederick	Pirie, Duncan V.

Sir W. ROBSON

On behalf of my right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), I beg to move the next Amendment which he has put down on the Paper relating to a very wide and important exception from the operation of the tax. The Amendment has already been brought to the attention of the Committee in connection with the discussion upon urban squares and open spaces. But it is much wider, and covers much more ground than the squares of towns. The Amendment was originally suggested by the Garden Cities Association, and is specifically intended to cover open spaces which are now under the excellent designs of garden cities necessary for the amenity of particular towns and villages. I will read the Amendment, and as I think it speaks for itself, my observations upon it need only be very brief. The governing words of the clause, as the Committee will remember, are that "undeveloped land duty shall not be charged on." Then follows a series of categories of lands which are exempt. To that series we propose to add these words:

"(c) On the site value of any land where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme, whether framed before or after the passing of this Act, for the development of the area of which the land forms part, and that it is reasonably necessary in the interests of the public, or in view of the character of the surroundings or neighbourhood, that the land should be so kept free from buildings."

The Committee will agree that these words are very wide—so wide that it is necessary to have some safeguard which will prevent the exemption from being improperly used. Therefore the Government are proposing another Amendment, which is, I may say, supplementary to this, dealing with the case of land which has enjoyed the exemption provided for by this Amendment and yet is subsequently sold, or is sought to be sold, by the Garden City or any other association which has laid out the land. The supplementary Amendment to be moved later will be as follows: "Where any land kept free from buildings has received the benefit of an exemption from Undeveloped Land Duty by virtue of this provision, that land shall not be built upon unless the Local Government Board give their consent on being satisfied that it is desirable in the interests of the public that the restriction on building should be removed; and any such consent may be given subject to such conditions as to the mode in which the land is to be built upon as the Local Government Board think desirable under the circumstances."

The effect of the two Amendments taken together is that if any body or association laying out a garden city, or any private owner developing his land in pursuance of an obviously definite design or scheme, chooses to declare that certain portions of the land are to be left open, not necessarily for purposes of recreation or access, but as reasonably necessary in the interests of the public, exemption shall be secured from the duty. But, of course, if the landlord afterwards changes his mind and desires to put the land up for sale, he must then secure the consent of the Local Government Board for that purpose. That is to say, a landlord is not to enjoy the exemption as long as he pleases and then proceed to dispose of the land. If he chooses, however, to submit that the land has been left open for public purposes, or, even without it being open for public purposes, has been intended to be left uncovered as part of the amenity of the neighbourhood, he is to be allowed to sell it or build upon it, though it has been exempt from Undeveloped Land Duty, subject to the consent of the Local Government Board. Some hon. Members may desire to extend the Amendment and others to limit it, but the principle is one which I am quite sure will be unanimously assented to.

Sir P. MAGNUS

I desire to ask the Attorney-General whether the restriction at the end of the last paragraph of the Chancellor's Amendments refers to all the exemptions, A, B, C, D, and, if not, to which of them?

Mr. J. A. CLYDE

I rise to move an Amendment to the Amendment proposed by the Attorney-General. It is after the word "land" ["On the site value of any land"] to insert the words "which is under restrictions in the title either of the land in question, or of adjoining land securing that the same shall remain as an open space and unbuilt on." Then I propose to allow the clause to stand as it is proposed, so that it will read on to the other sort of exemption, "where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free from buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme," etc. The object of the Amendment is to get rid of a situation which, as the Amendment would stand, would necessarily carry with it an injustice, indeed an absurdity. It is the case in which land is by legal restrictions in the title to it rendered undeveloped land, and which yet in the proposals of the Bill will be subject to be taxed as undeveloped land. I think it will be perfectly obvious that if you have land which, in consequence of the title under which it stands cannot be built on, and land with regard to which that restriction can be enforced by, let us say, the neighbours, it would be out of the question to treat that land as developable and therefore tax it, because by so doing you would be making a man pay for the non-development of land which, by the law of the land as it stands, he cannot develop. This Amendment, therefore, has nothing to do with the question of what may be in the public interest. It has to do with the question of what may be out of the power or competence of the man who owns the land according to the law.

I propose that it should come in at this particular place, and I do think it ought to come in at this particular place for this reason, that in the Amendment on the Paper the exemptions begin with the case of land which, in consequence of rights legally held by the public, is undeveloped. That is to be exempted, and very rightly so. Then follows the clause to the effect that land is also to be exempted if, in point of fact, it is free of buildings or is in the form of parks, gardens, or open spaces to which the public has reasonable access. That is where the question of legal right determines the question. Then when you come to the new sub-section, it deals with schemes framed with the view to building development. But there is no reference at all to the case of the land being itself restricted to restrictions, so that the man who owns it, or the people interested in it, cannot, under law, develop it at all. This matter is regarded as of no small importance in Scotland, and in particular in the large towns in Scotland. I do not know whether the reason which leads it to be regarded in Scotland is due to our system of tenure. I do not think it is, but at all events the reason is this, that in the ordinary case where the land is laid out for building on and it is desirable, or it is part of the scheme, to make some portion of the land into an open space—it may be a garden, it may be only an ornamental piece of land, or it may be a piece of land kept open strictly for the purposes of providing sufficient light and air and without any regard to beauty at all, but simply for the provision of light and air for a crowd of houses which surround it, perhaps, in a hollow square— in all these cases, or almost all of these cases—for practical purposes it is a universal rule—on planning out the land the bit of ground which is to be dedicated in that way to the service of the various houses is as a matter of title made subject to restrictions to the effect that it never may be built on, and such restrictions are enforceable not merely at the instance of the superior—the ground landlord in England—but also by each of the proprietors against each and all the rest.

So that there is no possibility of this land at any time being rid of the restriction except by the combined action and consent of the whole of the group of houses round the square, and even of the houses in several streets and squares, together with the superior. In other words, as a matter of law and of private right this land is rendered completely and permanently undevelopable. It does seem perfectly obvious that you cannot tax that land as developable land unless by some means or other you break these restrictions. You cannot break them, and you do not propose to break them. It seems to me to follow that land permanently placed under these restrictions is as much entitled to exemption as other land which cannot be developed in consequence of legal rights of the public. There is one other point. In the Amendment as it stands no distinction is made between restrictions in title, which are antecedent to the commencement of this Act—if it becomes an Act—and restrictions which are laid on the title later than that date. That was purposely done, and for this reason. Restrictions of this kind with us in Scotland are the instruments, and, so far as I know, the only instruments, we have for securing permanent dedication to the use of a group of houses of land for any of the purposes I have indicated. It would therefore be just as much out of the question to interfere with or to render nugatory or penal for the future this mode of laying out land in a way certainly not disadvantageous to the public interest, as it would be to come down on such portions of land as have already been treated in this way, and say that they must be treated as developable. An absolute exemption must be given to all land which is sterilised, if I may use the word, by private legal rights, legitimately created for legitimate purposes, just as you sterilise land which in like manner is rendered undevelopable by the existence of public rights, and no distinction should be made between rights created before this scheme came into operation and rights created after.

Sir WILLIAM ROBSON

I will first answer a question put by the hon. Member for London University, because it has a bearing on what I shall say on the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment. The hon. Member for London University asked whether the Government Amendment relating to the consent of the Local Government is applicable to all cases where land has received the benefit of the exemption. The cases on the White Paper are successive; in the copy of the Bill they are not successive. On the White Paper the first group is the site value of any parks, gardens, or open spaces, and the hon. Gentleman asks whether the consent of the Local Government Board will be necessary if afterwards the owner wants to build on the park. Clearly not. But I think it will be necessary when we come to deal with the clause referring to the consent of the Local Government Board to make it rather clearer, and to confine the operation of that clause to cases where there is a real definite building scheme in operation; not to apply it to the case of parks or gardens or other open spaces where access is given to the public, and still less to apply it to games.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

I put down an Amendment to bring that about exactly.

Sir WILLIAM ROBSON

I was just going to point out that the hon. Member had corrected an inadvertence on the part of the Government, who had put down the Amendment, as coming at the end of Section (3) which would have made it applicable to games. As to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh he has altered his place, and in altering his place he has brought about certain rather serious and inconvenient results. I should be glad to accept his Amendment in principle, but the alteration of the place has made it rather difficult for me to accept it. Let me take the first of two objections. As he had his Amendment down originally it came after the word "building," thus, "no Undeveloped Land Duty shall be charged on the site value of any land where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free of buildings," and so on. In that case the exemption would not arise until the owner had taken the trouble to show to the Commissioners that the land was being kept free of buildings in pursuance of a definite scheme, so that the owner would exercise his own option as to whether or not he would take the exemption. And it is a rather serious thing to take the exemption, because under a later Government Amendment if you do take it you cannot afterwards get rid of it and dispose of your land without the consent of the Local Government Board. The owner may, therefore, very well not desire to have his land exempted.

The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Clyde) says Undeveloped Land Duty should not be charged on the site value of any land under restrictions. Suppose I accepted his Amendment then, whether the owner liked it or not, whether he was exempted or not, his land would get the exemption, and when once he gets the exemption, it cannot be disposed of to the other parties unless he gets the consent of the Local Government Board. I am not altogether sure that we can compel the consent of the Local Government Board. Will the hon. Member take this— that the Government is quite in sympathy with his desire to secure exemption subject to the restriction that the Local Government Board consent in all cases where the owner is desirous that it should be made an open space for the benefit of the public. I should like time to consider the matter, and I daresay we can insert what is necessary before we get to the Amendment in regard to the Local Government Board to try and meet his wishes, if not, we can do so on the Report stage. I cannot help thinking that by accepting the Amendment at once we may find that the hon. Member has got something more than he requires. I should like to see where the Amendment is to come in so as to leave no doubt or difficulty as to the consent of the Local Government Board. And, may I add, that my own feeling is that where we are dealing with land in joint occupation—i.e., land which is really part of the house to which it is attached, I myself should doubt whether there are many words in the Bill that would treat that land as undeveloped. It is like a big yard of one house. It gives the house value. There, again, where one is faced with these legal problems which are put forward as concrete cases, whereas the wording of the Bill necessarily deals rather with things in a general way, we must be careful to consider how far these individual cases are met. Undoubtedly the definition clauses must be carefully considered between now and the Report stage. The Committee may rest assured of this, that we do not desire to put in operation a clause to tax urban places which the Commissioners themselves are of opinion it is for the public benefit that they should be kept open. I think if the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow his Amendment to be reserved for consideration we shall be able to select a place where words can be put with less danger than is likely to be the case if we make the alteration at the present moment.

3 A.M.

Mr. C. SCOTT-DICKSON

I should like to point out that, in the first place, the question as to whether the land is under restriction is entirely a legal question. The Amendment should not be brought in after the words "shown to the Commissioners," unless that is to make them judges of this legal question, and, as the learned Attorney General is aware, in regard to the early part of the section —in Section A on the White Paper, the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Haldane) agreed that the words, "In the opinion of the Commissioners," should come out of that clause because it involved a question of law which should not be left to the Commissioners. This matter is in exactly the same position. In every case very considerable legal difficulty arises, and legal questions should obviously not be left to the Commissioners. The only other point is this. The learned Attorney-General suggested that the owner is the one to claim the exemption. It is not a question as to whether he himself will want to retain the land and build upon it, but that every other owner who has an interest in the land with him is entitled to say, "Whatever you want I am entitled to." The superior who has sold the land subject to feu duty, although all the feuars are willing to dispense with the restrictions, will be entitled to come in and say, "I object," and there will be no answer to that objection. The effect of not taking in the Amendment will be this, that it will be impossible to build and develop the land, and yet the unfortunate owners will be initiated in the tax as though it were developable land, and they on their own motive refrained from developing it. I quite realise the sympathetic way in which the Attorney-General has met the Amendment, and I do not know what my learned Friend thinks about that. I submit to the learned Attorney-General these views meet the observations he has made. The only point he took was that it might not be subject to the control of the Local Government Board because of the change of place. I do not think that will happen. I think it is still subject to them, and, whether they like it or not, they cannot get rid of the restrictions.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

I think we are all obliged to the two hon. and learned Gentleman who have proposed and supported this Amendment for the disquisition they have given us upon Scotch law. There is no doubt about it they are right and that in Scotland they have some cast-iron system of perpetual covenants which will never be got rid of, because you have a whole row of gentlemen called feuars, and somebody else who is a superior as well, and any one of these feuars may be many, and the many may be feuars, and any one of them can insist upon the land remaining unbuilt upon and open. In these circumstances it is suggested by this Amendment that the land might always remain unbuilt upon and open and free from duty, and that it would be no disadvantage to it that it would never be built upon without the consent of the Local Government Board. I am afraid that if the Amendment were accepted in this particular place it would be a very unfortunate thing for a good many English owners of property, because there are plenty of properties in England where there are restrictions that do not last for ever, and where the people entitled to the restrictions are equally entitled to lay their heads together and put an end to them.

If this Amendment were adopted in the present place it will have rather a disastrous effect upon all those cases where the restrictions are not entitled to be perpetual, but could be put an end to at any time the character of the neighbourhood changed, and it was considered reasonable to do so. I should support the Amendment in the form in which it appears on the Paper, but if moved at the present place from an English point of view there would be an insuperable objection to it, because it would never do that land which is simply subject to temporary restrictions in England to find itself by statute freed from this Undeveloped Land Duty, but equally by statute absolutely incapable of being built upon until the consent of the Local Government Board had been obtained. That would be a preposterous position. It is for these reasons, without in any way embarking upon a criticism of the Amendment from the point of view of Scotch law, which I confess I do not understand, but purely from the English point of view, with which I have some acquaintance, that I shall object to it.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I have an Amendment dealing with the English restrictions which have been ruled out of order now, but which I have handed in as a new sub-section. That will cover the limits raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Watson Rutherford), and I suggest to him that he should not oppose the Scotch Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Clyde).

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

I will not oppose anything further.

Mr. CLYDE

As I understand the position, the learned Attorney-General says that in the question of whether it is right or wrong to include a man owning land by a title which restricts him in such a way that he cannot develop it, he agrees with me that it would not be right. I agree from the point of view of English jurisprudence my Amendment may be inac- ceptable in form. I am content to rest with the assurance that in one way or other the result will be achieved.

Sir W. ROBSON

I think we have nearly arrived at an agreement. My main anxiety is to make sure that if any person gets the benefit of the exemption they shall ultimately come under any restriction in regard to the Local Government Board. I have said that I think the case of persons who have debarred themselves by mutual covenants or by restrictions in the title either of the land in question or of adjoining land, securing that the same shall remain as an open space and unbuilt upon, is a very meritorious case which ought to be met.

Mr. CLYDE

I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS moved to omit from the proposed Amendment the words "it is shown to the Commissioners that."

I move this in order to take out these everlasting Commissioners, to whom so much power is given in various places in this Bill. I do not want to repeat the arguments used in regard to the Commissioners so many times in the course of this evening and previous Debates. I submit it is not in the least degree necessary to make the Commissioners the final arbiters. The points involved must be largely legal points. It has been admitted that where legal points are involved it is not desirable to make them the final arbiters. I know that the suggestion had been made that the whole question of the Commissioners should be left over till we come to the Government's Amendment relating to an appeal. If the Attorney-General will give me the same assurance that the inclusion of the words here will not prejudice the question of appeal when we reach it I will not press the Amendment.

Sir W. ROBSON

I am bound to say that I cannot do anything which would prejudice the position of the Commissioners, because it seems to me, as I think it seems to the Government, that this is a matter really of administrative discretion. The Commissioners are not in the place here referred to deciding a question of title such as might arise on the Amendment we have just been discussing. They are here called upon to exercise a discretion as to whether the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme. That is obviously an administrative act, and to substitute the law court for the Commissioners is really, I think, undesirable. Of course, whatever words we leave in or leave out, it does not prejudice the position of any Member, and does not bind the Government one way or the other when we come afterwards to decide the question of appeal. That question will be decided on its merits. Nobody doubts that the Commissioners ought to be the tribunal in the first instance to exercise discretion on what is a simple matter of fact, and is not worth making a law matter of. I do not think it would make any difference one way or the other to the question of appeal if we adhere to the reference to the Commissioners.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I think it is more important to get the appeal than to leave out the reference to the Commissioners, and I take the observations which the learned Attorney-General has just made to indicate pretty clearly that the Government intend that this discretion shall be subject to appeal.

Sir W. ROBSON

No, no; I have not said that. That is really putting rather more into my words than I am in a position to say or desire to say. What I said was that the question of appeal would be left quite open; that the fact of deleting the reference to the Commissioners here would not prejudice one way or the other the right of appeal. That is all I have said.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I am afraid I did not express myself clearly. I did not mean for a moment to suggest that the learned Attorney-General expressed himself on the general question of appeal. All I understood him to say was that whatever decision was arrived at on the general question of appeal the Government would not make any special exception in this case.

Sir W. ROBSON

The Government may ultimately arrive at the conclusion that an appeal may be allowed in some cases and not in others. That remains entirely open for subsequent discussion, and I do not think it is a question which should be mixed up with this Amendment at all.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I think, perhaps, it will be more convenient to discuss the whole question of appeal together. Under these circumstances, and entirely without prejudice, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I have now to move an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, which will entirely alter the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman runs, "On the site value of any land where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme, whether framed before or after the passing of this Act." I move to leave out from "of" ["is being kept free of"] to "or" ["in the interests of the public, or"], my object being to insert in substitution for the definite scheme "reasonable estate management." The point is this: I do not want to leave this question as regards a definite scheme in the hands of the bureaucracy. I suggest that if an open space is left by a ground landlord in developing an area of land unbuilt upon in pursuance of reasonable estate management, then it should be free from Undeveloped Land Duty. Under the Government's plan, in order to get an exemption, the owner must put down in black and white a definite scheme, send it up to Somerset House, and—

Sir W. ROBSON

dissented.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

The Attorney-General shakes his head. Has he read the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment? If the owner has framed a definite scheme before or after the passing of the Act, he is to show it to the Commissioners. That means a definite scheme put down in black and white, which is to be sent up to Somerset House, who will probably send down an inspector to make inquiries on the spot. This means that you are adding to the "red tape" of which there is already too much in the Bill. I think "in pursuance of reasonable estate management is a good phrase," which has been used over and over again in connection with our Debates on this Bill. The Amendment raises the question whether you are to have a bureaucratic scheme or a reasonable scheme adopted by the owner of the land, and I submit that it will obviate an endless amount of "red tape."

I must apologise to the Committee, but I have just discovered that I have made a mistake. My Amendment should come after the next "of" ["buildings in pursuance of"] and not in the place I at first suggested.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

In that case, Mr. Caldwell, I have an Amendment which would come in before that of my hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), as it follows the word "buildings."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Yes, I think that is so.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

Then I will formally withdraw my Amendment and move it again later on.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

I beg to move in the proposed Amendment after the word "buildings" ["is being kept free of buildings"] to insert the words "or of certain descriptions of buildings." My Amendment is meant to cover that which I believe the Government must mean to cover, but which I doubt whether their words do cover. Now that contemplates that this land is to be kept absolutely free of buildings as open space, and is not to be built upon, and that the fact of its not being built upon will be an advantage to the neighbouring houses and the locality in general. The case I want to submit is where the land can be developed, but can only be developed in an inferior manner. It very often happens when a building estate is being developed that there are somewhat tight restrictive covenants included, that a certain class of building shall be put upon the land, and what I contemplate is that you have certain land which has not yet been built on, and the Commissioners would naturally say to the owner, "You are liable to this duty because this land is not developed." The answer of the landowner will be, "I want to develop this land; it is my full intention to develop it, but I do not want to develop it with inferior buildings. If I were to accept an offer without any restrictive covenant, or with a covenant which would allow a very inferior type of house to be built, no doubt I could get rid of it, and it could be developed, but to do so would spoil the whole plan of my estate development. It would do harm to the rest of my land which is in development; it would do harm to the occupiers of houses on those parts which are developed, and it would be against the amenities of the neighbourhood." Such a case must be very common in high-class watering places and the like where it is absolutely necessary that superior type houses should be built. No doubt it could be said that where plots have been taken which are not developed they could be developed, but they could only be developed in an inferior way that would not be to the good of the neighbourhood, and would be to the direct injury of other occupiers of houses or other persons who have actually bought houses on the same estate in the same neighbourhood. I do not think the words of the Chancellor's Amendment do cover a case like that, although it is a very important case to be covered. Surely the Government do not want land to be built upon anyhow in any way, no matter what the effect on neighbouring property may be? Yet, if they do not guard against such a case as this the owner, in carrying out his scheme, will be faced with the alternative either of paying Undeveloped Land Duty or else of doing a great deal of harm to his whole scheme and to the rest of the property, and to the interests of those persons who already occupy houses under the scheme. That cannot be the wish of the Government, and yet I believe the words as they stand will not meet the case I have tried to put.

Sir W. ROBSON

The hon. Member obviously has some very precise intention in his own mind to which he wishes to give legislative effect; but, of course, I can only look at his Amendment as what the practitioner would have to look to if incorporated in the Bill, and it would make the Clause read, "On the site value of any land where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free of 'certain descriptions of buildings.'" One wonders what on earth "certain descriptions of buildings" means. A mere reference to "certain descriptions of buildings" could not be incorporated in the Bill with any meaning at all.

Mr. PRETYMAN

My hon. Friend's object is certainly a very good one, because it is obviously in the interest of towns, and of developments of towns at large, that certain land should be restricted for a certain class of residence, or, for the matter of that, of shops; that a certain class of property should be segregated in a particular quarter, and it is a common, and, in fact, almost an invariable practice where towns are properly laid out, and where towns are building, that a particular restriction under a definite scheme should be placed upon a certain area of land. What my hon. Friend would be anxious to secure is that a particular scheme of that kind should come under this exemption. From this point of view I am bound to say I think the intention is of rather a different kind from that intended in this particular sub-section. I do think it would be a very desirable Amendment, because it is obvious that otherwise you will be forcing people, to the injury of a district, to put land into the market for an undesirable class of premises instead of reserving it for the kind of property which is suitable to the particular part of the town. That is an important aspect that ought to deserve the Government's attention.

Sir WILLIAM ANSON

I think the Attorney-General has hardly fully grasped the meaning of my hon. Friend's Amendment. A property may be sold or let at a cheap rent in plots on the understanding that, subject to building tithes, the houses to be built on the plots are of a certain value, and then, owing to a change in the fashion of the neighbourhood, the building of the rest of the property does not go on. Those people have to go on paying their rent without being able to put up on the land the only buildings they are allowed to put up. The ground landlord, on the other hand, is bound, in the interests of those who have put up those buildings, not to release the tithes. What my hon. Friend desires to effect is that this land, which cannot, in the interests of the houses already put up, be covered with houses of a lower description, and in consequence of the building tithes injuriously affected in that way, should not be subject to this tax, because the land is undeveloped through no fault either of the lessee, who for the purposes of this Act would be the owner, or of the ground landlord; who is bound, if not in law at any rate in honour, to those who have already put up houses not to allow a lower class of houses. That is the kind of thing which is to be met by my hon. Friend's Amendment and which might be considered by the Government.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 146.

Division No. 428.]	AYES.	[3.30 a.m.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Oddy, John James
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)	Parkes, Ebenezer
Aikwright, John Stanhope	Gordon, J.	Pease, Herbert Fike (Darlington)
Baldwin, Stanley	Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)	Percy, Earl
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)	Pirle, Duncan V.
Barrle, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Pretyman, E. G.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Joynson-Hicks, William	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Kerry, Earl of	Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)
Carlile, E. Hildred	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Cave, George	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Stanier, Bev[...]le
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Starkey, John R.
Clive, Percy Archer	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Clyde, J. Avon	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Courthope, G. Loyd	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)	Moore, William	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. James Hope and Lord Willoughby de Ereshy
Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott-	Morpeth, Viscount
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Morrison-Bell, Captain
Forster, Henry William	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

NOES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Hancock, J. G.	Rainy, A. Rolland
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Handie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)
Armitage, R.	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Haworth, Arthur A.	Richardson, A.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.	Ridsdale, E. A.
Barnard, E. B.	Hedges, A. Paget	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Barnes, G. N.	Helme, Norval Watson	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)	Robinson, S.
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Henry, Charles S.	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Beck, A. Cecil	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Higham, John Sharp	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Berridge, T. H. D.	Hobart, Sir Robert	Rowlands, J.
Bowerman, C. W.	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Brace, William	Holt, Richard Durning	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Illingworth, Percy H.	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Brooke, Stopford	Jenkins, J.	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Simon, John Allsebrook
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Soares, Ernest J.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Stanger, H. Y.
Byles, William Pollard	Jowett, F. W.	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Lambert, George	Strachey, Sir Edward
Clough, William	Lamont, Norman	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Lehmann, R. C.	Summerbell, T.
Cooper, G. J.	Lever A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Levy, Sir Maurice	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	Lewis, John Herbert	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Cowan, W. H.	Lyell, Charles Henry	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Vivian, Henry
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Maclean, Donald	Walsh, Stephen
Duckworth, Sir James	Macpherson, J, T.	Wardle, George J.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Maddison, Frederick	Waterlow, D. S.
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Markham, Arthur Basil	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Elibank, Master of	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Evans, Sir S. T.	Masterman, C. F. G.	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Falconer, James	Menzies, Sir Walter	Whitehead, Rowland
Ferens, T. R.	Micklem, Nathaniel	Wilkie, Alexander
Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Mond, A.	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Morse, L. L	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Fuller, John Michael F.	Myer, Horatio	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Norman, Sir Henry	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	Partington, Oswald	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Glover, Thomas	Paulton, James Mellor	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Griffith, Ellis J.	Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.
Gulland, John W.	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Hall, Frederick	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Sir W. ROBSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That Question be now put."

Question put. "That the Question be now put."

Mr. PRETYMAN (seated and covered)

On a point of order, may I ask what is the Question?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is at present before the Committee.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD (seated in his place and covered)

On a point of order, may I point out that the Attorney-General admitted just now that this long further Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been put in the wrong place, and that it ought to come in as part of the section we are now considering in the way I have suggested. If this Question be now put, it will be impossible to amend the clause in the way suggested.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

That is not a point of order.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I put it to you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, on a point of order, that an Amendment was actually in existence moved by me and merely withdrawn at your request as a matter of convenience, and I put it to you that that Amendment being before the Committee must be put from the Chair.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

No; the hon. Member agreed to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I submit to you, Sir, on a point of order, that it was only withdrawn conditionally.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 58.

Division No. 429.]	AYES.	[3.40 a.m.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Hancock, J. G.	Pirle, Duncan V.
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Rainy, A. Rolland
Armitage, R.	Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)	Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Barnard, E. B.	Haworth, Arthur A.	Richardson, A.
Barnes, G. N.	Hazel, Dr. A E. W.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Hedges, A. Paget	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Helme, Norval Watson	Robinson, S.
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Berridge, T. H. D.	Henry, Charles S.	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Bowerman, C. W.	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)	Rowlands, J.
Brace, William	Higham, John Sharp	Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Hebart, Sir Robert	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Brooke, Stopford	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Holt, Richard Durning	Seely, Colonel
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Illingworth, Percy H.	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles	Jenkins, J.	Simon, John Allsebrook
Byles, William Pollard	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Soares, Ernest J.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Stanger, H. Y.
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Jowett, F. W.	Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)
Clough, William	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Lambert, George	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Cooper, G. J.	Lamont, Norman	Summerbell, T.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Lehmann, R. C.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Levy, Sir Maurice	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Cowan, W. H.	Lewis, John Herbert	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Vivian, Henry
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Walsh, Stephen
Duckworth, Sir James	Maclean, Donald	Wardle, George J.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Macpherson, J. T.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Waterlow, D. S.
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Maddison, Frederick	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Elibank, Master of	Markham, Arthur Basil	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Evans, Sir Samuel T.	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Whitehead, Rowland
Falconer, J.	Masterman, C. F. G.	Wllkie, Alexander
Ferens, T. R.	Menzies, Sir Walter	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Micklem, Nathaniel	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Mond, A.	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Fuller, John Michael F.	Morse, L. L.	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Myer, Horatio	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	Norman, Sir Henry	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Glover, Thomas	Partington, Oswald
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Paulton, James Mellor
Griffith, Ellis J.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.
Gulland, John W.	Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)
Hall, Frederick	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reyneli	Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)	Parkes, Ebenezer
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Ed.)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Baldwin, Stanley	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Percy, Earl
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)	Pretyman, E. G.
Barrle, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Hunt, Rowland	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Joynson-Hicks, William	Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Kerry, Earl of	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Carlile, E. Hildred	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cave, George	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Stanler, Beville
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Starkey, John R.
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Clive, Percy Archer	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)	Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire)
Clyde, J. Avon	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Courthope, G. Loyd	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Younger, George
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-	Moore, William
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Morpeth, Viscount	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster.
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Morrison-Bell, Captain
Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Gordon, J.	Oddy, John James

Question, "That the words, 'or (c) On the site value of any land where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme, whether framed before or after the passing of this Act, for the development of the area of which the land forms part, and that it is reasonably necessary in the interests of the public, or in view of the character of the surroundings or neighbourhood, that the land should be so kept free from buildings,' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put" in regard to the words to the end of Section (3) ["The opinion of the Commissioners as to matters arising under this sub-section shall be final, and not subject to any appeal"].

Lord ROBERT CECIL (seated and covered)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, the Division which is on the point of being concluded has been irregularly taken, and should be taken

again. Under Standing Order 28 it is provided "If, in the opinion of the Speaker or Chairman as to the decision of a question is challenged, he shall direct that the Lobby be cleared." No such order to clear the Lobby was given by you.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

It was given, and the Question was put twice.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

That is not so. You are really mistaken in making that statement.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I am in the recollection of the House. I put the Question twice, and gave the order, as I always do, to clear the Lobby.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Is it really the case?

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

At this time of the morning, does it matter whether the Lobby was cleared or not?

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 58.

Division No. 430.]	AYES.	[3.47 a.m.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Byles, William Pollard	Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Glover, Thomas
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Channing, Sir Francis Aliston	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Armitage, R.	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Griffith, Ellis J.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Clough, William	Gulland, John W.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Hall, Frederick
Barnard, E. B.	Cooper, G. J.	Hancock, J. G.
Barnes, G. N.	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Cowan, W. H.	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)
Berridge, T. H. D.	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Bowerman, C. W.	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Haworth, Arthur A.
Brace, William	Duckworth, Sir James	Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Hedges, A. Paget
Brooke, Stopford	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Helme, Norval Watson
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Henry, Charles S.
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Evans, Sir S. T.	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Higham, John Sharp
Hobart, Sir Robert	Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Summerbell, T.
Holt, Richard Durning	Pirie, Duncan V.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Illingworth, Percy H.	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Jenkins, J.	Rainy, A. Rolland	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)	Vivian, Henry
Jowett, F. W.	Richardson, A.	Walsh, Stephen
King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Wardle, George J.
Lambert, George	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Lamont, Norman	Robinson, S.	Waterlow, D. S.
Lehmann, R. C.	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Rogers, F. E. Newman	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Levy, Sir Maurice	Rowlands, J.	Whitehead, Rowland
Lewis, John Herbert	Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.	Wilkie, Alexander
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Lyell, Charles Henry	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Seely, Colonel	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Maclean, Donald	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Macpherson, J. T.	Simon, John Allsebrook	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Soares, Ernest J.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Markham, Arthur Basil	Stanger, H. Y.
Marks, G. Croydon (Launcesten)	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.
Partington, Oswald	Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Strachey, Sir Edward
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.	Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)	Oddy, John James
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Gordon, J.	Parkes, Ebenezer
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)	Percy, Earl
Baldwin, Stanley	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Pretyman, E. G.
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Ridsdale, E. A.
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Hunt, Rowland	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Joynson-Hicks, William	Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Kerry, Earl of	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Carlile, E. Hildred	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cave, George	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Stanier, Beville
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Starkey, John R.
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lockwood, Rt. Hon, Lt.-Col. A. R.	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Clive, Percy Archer	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Clyde, J. Avon	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Courthope, G. Loyd	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	Younger, George
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-	Moore, William
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Morpeth, Viscount	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.
Forster, Henry William	Morrison-Bell, Captain
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Question put accordingly, "That the words of the Clause to the end of Section (3) stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 57.

Division No. 431.]	AYES.	[4 a.m.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Gulland, John W.
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Cooper, G. J.	Hall, Frederick
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Hancock, J. G.
Armitage, R.	Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Cowan, W. H.	Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Barnard, E. B.	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)
Barnes, G. N.	Dowar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Haworth, Arthur A,
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Duckworth, Sir James	Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Hedges, A. Paget
Berridge, T. H. D.	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Helme, Norval Watson
Bowerman, C. W.	Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Henry, Charles S.
Brace, William	Elibank, Master of	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Evans, Sir Samuel T.	Higham, John Sharp
Brooke, Stopford	Falconer, J.	Hobart, Sir Robert
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Ferens, T. R.	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Holt, Richard Durning
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles	Fuller, John Michael F.	Illingworth, Percy H.
Byles, William Pollard	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Jenkins, J.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Glover, Thomas	Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Clough, William	Griffith, Ellis J.	Jowett, F. W.
King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Lambert, George	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Summerbell, T.
Lamont, Norman	Pirie, Duncan V.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Lehmann, R. C.	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Ratcliffe)
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Rainy, A. Rolland	Tennant, H.J. (Berwickshire)
Levy, Sir Maurice	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Lewis, John Herbert	Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)	Vivian, Henry
Lyell, Charles Henry	Richardson, A.	Walsh, Stephen
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Wardle, George J.
Maclean, Donald	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Macpherson, J. T.	Robinson, S.	Waterlow, D. S.
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Rogers, F. E. Newman	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Maddison, Frederick	Rowlands, J.	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Markham, Arthur Basil	Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.	Whitehead, Rowland
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	Wilkie, Alexander
Wenzies, Sir Walter	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Micklem, Nathaniel	Seely, Colonel	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Mond, A.	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Morse, L. L.	Simon, John Allsebrook	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)	Soares, Ernest J.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Myer, Horatio	Stanger, H. Y.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Norman, Sir Henry	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Partington, Oswald	Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Strachey, Sir Edward
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Gordon, J.	Oddy, John James
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)	Parkes, Ebenezer
Baldwin, Stanley	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Percy, Earl
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Hunt, Rowland	Pretyman, E. G.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Joynson-Hicks, William	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Kerry, Earl of	Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)
Carlile, E. Hildred	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Cave, George	Lane-Fox, G R.	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Stanier, Beville
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Starkey, John R.
Clive, Percy Archer	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Clyde, J. Avon	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Courthope, G. Loyd	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott	Moore, William	Younger, George
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Morpeth, Viscount	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster.
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Morrison-Bell, Captain
Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Mr. JAMES HOPE

On grounds which I will very shortly state I move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." The grounds are these: The Government had a number of Amendments on the paper to the latter part of the last sub-section, which dealt with points of great importance and still greater public interest, especially as concerned the exemption of recreation grounds. By the action of the Government themselves we are now precluded from debating several of the Amendments which the Government had put down. We do not know what the attitude of the Government is on these matters, and their action throws a somewhat sinister light on other Amendments they have put down. The Committee and the public assume that they intend to carry those Amendments. But how do we know that on a future occasion when the same kind of action is taken, the Government will persevere with the Amendments they have put down, should they find it con- venient to closure out other Amendments by such a Motion as that which has just been carried.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I must get Clause 11 to-night. The hon. Member has commented on the closuring of our own Amendments, but I would remind the Committee that they are in the nature of concessions, or, at any rate, most of them. When I came into the Chamber I found that a concession we had made was in a very close state of examination, and there was a prospect of it taking hours to dispose of. I felt that if every concession moved by the Government was to be treated in the same spirit it was not encouraging for us to proceed with our Amendments. Most of them were Amendments which we indicated in reply to criticisms from the Opposition side of the House we should be prepared to move, and, therefore, were in the nature of concessions. Therefore, I did not think the Opposition were justified in keeping the Com mittee here until this hour of the morning in order to discuss these Amendments. I shall consider whether it will be desirable to put them down again at a later stage of the Bill.

Mr. WALTER LONG

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is entitled to make any demand which he thinks right on the Committee in regard to business. The only part we have to discharge is to do our best to criticise the work the Government offer us. I am bound to say that I have never heard a more remarkable statement than that which has fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night. We have been discussing this clause in his absence—an absence both understood and regretted for every reason—not only under the impression but under constant assurances from those who have represented him in his absence that these Amendments were to be introduced, not by any means as concessions, but as admissions frankly made that the clause, as further illuminated by the light of criticism, demanded several of these alterations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now tells us that he comes down and finds one of these Amendments too closely examined, as he thinks. Thereupon he suddenly moves the closure on all the Amendments the Government themselves had proposed, not, as I say, as concessions merely to criticism, but as concessions to argument which has convinced those who have represented the right hon. Gentleman while he has been away of the need of alteration. This action throws, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Hope) has said, a very sinister light on the way in which the Bill is being conducted, and gives altogether a new meaning to the words "freedom of Debate," which I understand the Government claim they are giving, notwithstanding the very extraordinary procedure they have adopted.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I have never heard a more astounding speech than that which we have just listened to from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Government appear to consider legislation as a kind of game in which the Opposition scores so much and the Government scores so much. When we have convinced the right hon. Gentleman of the wisdom of certain Amendments he regards that as a concession, not to justice, but to the Opposition. We assume that the Government do their duty—I am not sure that we shall be able to assume that very much longer— and if they do their duty they do their duty not to their own party but to the House at large, and they only propose to the House Amendments which they think just to the country. They are not concessions at all. The Government have no right to consider them as concessions. They are what they think ought to form part of the Finance Bill of the year, and it is only on those grounds that they have any right to propose these Amendments to the House of Commons. Therefore, to say that because we venture to criticise the suggestions of the Government, and venture to think that Amendments which they have put down can be improved—to say that that is a ground for withdrawing their Amendments is trifling with the House. For my part I shall not hesitate to protest on every occasion against this kind of legislation. It is an absolute farce and mistake to pretend that the legislation carried on under these conditions is worthy of the House of Commons, or worthy of the country. We are told this is the only alternative to the guillotine. It is not an alternative to the guillotine. It is another form of the guillotine. The whole object of all these conditions, whether sitting up all night or closure by compartments, is to avoid the fair consideration and discussion of the Government. That is the only object the Government have. They have produced a Bill which they are perfectly confident cannot be defended in sober argument, either in the hours of the day or night, when the House is able to give it impartial consideration, and therefore they hope to force it through at three, four, or five o'clock in the morning, when it is perfectly evident that hon. Members are not in a condition—all hon. Members where-ever they may sit—fairly to transact the business of this House. I venture to protest in the strongest way against the proceeding. In the earlier part of this Parliament there was no stronger advocate of early rising than the Prime Minister himself. Over and over again he told the House that he regarded sitting all night as the worst of all expedients for legislation. Yet it is this Government, presided over by the Prime Minister, which is indulging in a debauch of late sittings which has never been equalled in the history of our House of Commons. I venture to say that you will never find a measure of first-rate importance being discussed in the middle of August night after night right into the morning. I protest altogether against this system, and I think the Opposition will be ill discharging its duty if it did not do its utmost to resist the destruction, not only of the Opposition—that is a small matter—but the destruction of the House of Commons, which is proceeding apace. Under the leadership of the present Government the House of Commons is becoming the laughing-stock of the country, and everybody in this House knows it, and the people who are responsible for it, the people who cannot escape that responsibility, are the Government at the head of one of the most powerful majorities this country has ever had. They are proceeding without any attempt to heal the evils from which Parliament is suffering, and are driven to these elemental brutalities in order to proceed with the legislation of which they have the grace, I believe, to be thoroughly ashamed.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I am bound to say that I think the most serious aspect of this matter is that the methods the right hon. Gentleman has adopted must have a very serious effect upon the future conduct of this Bill, for the reason that we can no longer rely upon the Government giving effect to Amendments which they have put on the Paper in fulfilment of promises. These particular Amendments are not Amendments inserted in the ordinary way, but Amendments which were specially circulated on a White Paper and circulated as embodying the intentions of the Government. These Amendments have been constantly referred to, and other points in Debate have been dropped in view of the Government Amendments of which we are now deprived. And what is the right hon. Gentleman's excuse? The right hon. Gentleman is, through circumstances which we most deeply regret, unable to hear the earlier parts of the Debate. He comes here only a few minutes after the Secretary of State for War, who has been in charge of the Bill in his absence, has complimented the Committee on the businesslike and amicable character of the discussion through this night's sitting. I venture to say that the time which has been spent over to-day's Debates has mostly been occupied by the haggling of the Government in the right hon. Gentleman's absence on minor points, which, had he been here, he would have accepted. The right hon. Gentleman comes to the House, and because he finds the discussion on one Amendment taking a few minutes longer than he thinks de- sirable, he takes upon himself to refuse to move and to closure out important Amendments to which he and the Government are pledged. It will be absolutely impossible for us in the future to accept even written pledges embodied in Amendments on the Paper, because if the course of discussion does not please the Government, those Amendments can be removed by they themselves moving the Closure in this form. It places the Committee in an impossible position, and if these methods are to be continued it will be impossible that we can any longer have that confidence in the faith of the Government which will enable us to conduct the discussions on the same lines as we have discussed them hitherto.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I should like to say one word in reply to the hon. and gallant Member. I acted on the information I had as to the progress being made and as to the general lines on which the Debate was conducted. I understand that last night there was a discussion of four hours upon this clause, and that only three lines were carried. When I came in I found a concession which had been put down by the Government on the Order Paper being discussed, and that a long series of manuscript Amendments had been put in.

Mr. PRETYMAN

May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? It will be within the recollection of the Chairman that these Amendments really represented Amendments already on the Paper? It was purely a question of order.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I also venture to say, after an examination of these Amendments, that some of them were ridiculous. One that was moved was a thoroughly absurd Amendment, and I have no hesitation in saying so. I felt that if every Amendment put down by the Government—Amendments I do not say put down to please the Opposition, but in the nature of concessions, were to be discussed in the same way, it would take us till two or three o'clock. The Clause itself is a concession on the part of the Government, and I was perfectly entitled to exercise my discretion by not moving my Amendment at this stage. This is not the last stage of the Bill, and if these Amendments were to be discussed now, and again discussed on the Report stage, the, concessions would actually retard the progress of the Bill. As to the Noble Lord, he has generally criticised the House of Commons. He has made the observation before; in fact it is one of his stock comments. He made the same observation on a guillotine Motion, and I had a good deal of sympathy with his comment then. But there is one thing I should like to say. This is an attempt, a bonâ-fide attempt, to get legislation through without the guillotine.

An HON. MEMBER

It is a rotten one.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I daresay the hon. Member feels that the guillotine would have been much better. But I rather expected the noble Lord's assistance in this effort to get legislation through without the guillotine, and I do not think he is giving it. I am perfectly certain that if any legislation is to go through at all without the guillotine it can only be by forbearance, not only on the part of the Government, but on the part of the Opposition, and I appeal to him in the interests of Parliament as a whole that we should go back to the old times when we discussed things without the guillotine. The Opposition have now made their protest and I trust we may go on with the Bill.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I may point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he did not give us any pledge before that he would re-introduce these Amendments. Do we understand now that he will re-introduce them at a later stage?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

Well, I think the Government ought to preserve their discretion about that. I will tell the hon. Member why. Their are some Amendments that I regard as absolutely necessary. They are concessions I make because I feel convinced of the justice of the case they are designed to meet. On the other hand, notwithstanding what the Noble Lord said, there are other concessions which a Government makes to an Opposition. He calls that a game, but I call it a necessary part of Parliamentary institutions. I was in Opposition much longer than the Noble Lord has been, and I think it is necessary that the Government should occasionally make concessions to the Opposition, even although, on the whole, they may not consider such concessions necessary as improvements of the Bill. In regard to concessions of that character, I think the Government ought to have some regard to the way in which they are received by the Opposition, and as to whether the Opposition are playing the game in regard to them. I therefore think I am entitled to say that I must exercise my discretion as to which of these concessions I shall proceed with.

Mr. CAVE

I do not think any of us would willingly have an acrimonious discussion with the Chancellor of the Exchequer at this moment. But I feel bound to say that partly, I think, through ignorance of what had happened during the evening, and partly through haste, he has exercised his power in a manner that struck all of us as tyrannical, and as interfering unduly with the liberty of the House. Before he came we had had a business-like discussion—and it was so described by the Minister in charge. When the right hon. Gentleman happened to come into the House a discussion was proceeding on one of his own Amendments. He came to the conclusion that the Amendments to that Amendment were not such as he desired to discuss, and he closured the Debate on the particular Amendment under discussion. But then he proceeded to a further step. He moved out a whole series of Amendments, dealing with a different subject matter altogether—the question of grounds used for games and recreations, a question that had not been discussed at all this evening. And among the Amendments moved out were Amendments which had been put down by the right hon. Gentleman himself in fulfilment of promises given to the House, Amendments to which reference had been made in earlier Debates in order to induce us to withdraw ours.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I must correct one statement. None of these Amendments were in fulfilment of any pledge I had given. If the hon. and learned Member looks at the Paper he will see that.

Mr. CAVE

I will not discuss it now, but I think I am right. I have one Amendment in mind in particular. In his haste the right hon. Gentleman dropped the whole series of Amendments. I think he will regret it. I think he has acted in a manner very unusual for him and very unusual to this House. He has cut out five pages of Amendments to this clause, many of them Amendments of substance, and many of which I think he would have accepted if they had been moved. I do not think he had sufficient reason to act in that manner, and, therefore, I feel bound to join in the protest made by the Noble Lord behind me and others. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have a little more regard for the freedom of Debate in future, and that we shall be allowed to discuss matters of substance without this kind of very rough interference with a businesslike procedure.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place,

and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 55.

Division No. 432.]	AYES.	[4.30 a.m.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Hancock, J. G.	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	Pirie, Duncan V.
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Armitage, R.	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Rainy, A. Rolland
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)
Barnard, E. B.	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)
Barnes, G. N.	Haworth, Arthur A.	Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.	Richardson, A.
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Hedges, A. Paget	Ridsdale, E. A.
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Helme, Norval Watson	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Berridge, T. H. D.	Henry, Charles S.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Bowerman, C. W.	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)	Robinson, S.
Brace, William	Higham, John Sharp	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Hobart, Sir Robert	Rowlands, J.
Brooke, Stopford	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Holt, Richard Durning	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Illingworth, Percy H.	Seely, Colonel
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles	Jenkins, J.	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Byles, William Pollard	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Simon, John Allsebrook
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Soares, Ernest J.
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Stanger, H. Y.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Jowett, F. W.	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Clough, William	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Lambert, George	Strachey, Sir Edward
Cooper, G. J.	Lamont, Norman	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Lehmann, R. C.	Summerbell, T.
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Levy, Sir Maurice	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Cowan, W. H.	Lewis, John Herbert	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Vivian, Henry
Duckworth, Sir James	Maclean, Donald	Walsh, Stephen
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Macpherson, J. T.	Wardle, George J.
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Maddison, Frederick	Waterlow, D. S.
Elibank, Master of	Markham, Arthur Basil	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Evans, Sir S. T.	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Falconer, James	Masterman, C. F. G.	Whitehead, Rowland
Ferens, T. R.	Menzies, Sir Walter	Wilkie, Alexander
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Micklem, Nathaniel	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Fuller, John Michael F.	Mond, A.	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Morse, L. L.	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Glover, Thomas	Myer, Horatio	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Norman, Sir Henry	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Griffith, Ellis J.	Partington, Oswald
Gulland, John W.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.
Hall, Frederick	Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.	Forster, Henry William	Morpeth, Viscount
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Morrison-Bell, Captain
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Baldwin, Stanley	Gordon, J.	Oddy, John James
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edmds)	Parkes, Ebenezer
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Percy, Earl
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Pretyman, E. G.
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hunt, Rowland	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Carlile, E. Hildred	Joynson-Hicks, William	Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)
Cave, George	Kerry, Earl of	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Stanier, Beville
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Starkey, John R.
Clive, Percy Archer	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Clyde, J. Avon	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col- A. R.	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Courthope, G. Loyd	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Younger, George
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Moore, WiIIiam

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 144.

Division No. 433.]	AYES.	[4.40 a.m.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Parkes, Ebenezer
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Gordon, J.	Percy, Earl
Baldwin, Stanley	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)	Pretyman, E. G.
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Hunt, Rowland	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Joynson-Hicks, William	Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Kerry, Earl of	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Bridgeman, w. Clive	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Stanier, Beville
Carlile, E. Hildred	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Starkey, John R.
Cave, George	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Clive, Percy Archer	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Clyde, J. Avon	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	Younger, George
Courthope, G. Loyd	Moore, William
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Morpeth, Viscount	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. James Hope and Mr. Leverton Harris.
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-	Morrison-Bell, Captain
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Forster, Henry William	Oddy, John James

NOES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Hancock, J. G.	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Pirie, Duncan V.
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Armitage, R.	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Rainy, A. Rolland
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)
Barnard, E. B	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)
Barnes, G. N.	Haworth, Arthur A.	Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.	Richardson, A.
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Hedges, A. Paget	Ridsdale, E. A.
Beck, A. Cecil	Helme, Norval Watson	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Henry, Charles S.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Berridge, T. H. D.	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)	Robinson, S.
Bowerman, C. W.	Higham, John Sharp	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Brace, William	Hobart, Sir Robert	Rowlands, J.
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Brooke, Stopford	Holt, Richard Durning	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Illingworth, Percy H.	Seely, Colonel
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Jenkins, J.	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Simon, John Allsebrook
Byles, William Pollard	Jones, Lelf (Appleby)	Soares, Ernest J.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Stanger, H. Y.
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Jowett, F. W.	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)
Clough, William	Lambert, George	Strachey, Sir Edward
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Lamont, Norman	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Cooper, G. J.	Lehmann, R. C.	Summerbell, T.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	Levy, Sir Maurice	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Lewis, John Herbert	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Cowan, W. H.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Vivian, Henry
Duckworth, Sir James	Maclean, Donald	Walsh, Stephen
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Macpherson, J. T.	Wardle, George J.
Dunn, A- Edward (Camborne)	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Maddison, Frederick	Waterlow, D. S.
Elibank, Master of	Markham, Arthur Basil	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Evans, Sir S. T.	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Falconer, James	Masterman, C. F. G.	Whitehead, Rowland
Ferens, T. R.	Menzles, Sir Walter	Wilkle, Alexander
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Micklem, Nathaniel	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Fuller, John Michael F.	Mond, A.	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Morse, L. L.	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Glover, Thomas	Myer, Horatio	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Norman, Sir Henry	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Griffith, Ellis J.	Partington, Oswald
Gulland, John W.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.
Hall, Frederick	Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Mr. LLOYD - GEORGE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That, In respect of the words of the Clause to the end thereof, the Chair be empowered to select the Amendments to be proposed."

Division No. 434.]	AYES.	[4.45 a.m.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)	Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Pirle, Duncan V.
Armitage, R.	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Rainy, A. Rolland
Barnard, E. B.	Haworth, Arthur A.	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)
Barnes, G. N.	Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.	Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Hedges, A. Paget	Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Helme, Norval Watson	Richardson, A.
Beck, A. Cecil	Henry, Charles S.	Ridsdale, E. A.
Benn, W. (TOWER Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Berridge, T. H. D.	Higham, John Sharp	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Bowerman, C. W.	Hobart, Sir Robert	Robinson, S
Brace, William	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Holt, Richard Durning	Rowlands, J.
Brooke, Stopford	Illingworth, Percy H.	Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Jenkins, J.	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Seely, Colonel
Byles, William Pollard	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Simon, John Allsebrook
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Jowett, F. W.	Soares, Ernest J.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Stanger, H. Y.
Clough, William	Lambert, George	Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Lamont, Norman	Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)
Cooper, G. J.	Lehmann, R. C.	Strachey, Sir Edward
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	Levy, sir Maurice	Summerbell, T.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Lewis, John Herbert	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Cowan, W. H.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Duckworth, Sir James	Maclean, Donald	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Macpherson, J. T.	Vivian, Henry
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	M'Hugh, Patrick A.	Walsh, Stephen
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Wardle, George J.
Elibank, Master of	Maddison, Frederick	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Evans, Sir S. T.	Markham, Arthur Basil	Waterlow, D. S.
Falconer, J.	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Ferens, T. R.	Masterman, C. F. G.	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Menzies, Sir Walter	Wilkie, Alexander
Fuller, John Michael F.	Micklem, Nathaniel	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Cibb, James (Harrow)	Mond, A.	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	Morse, L. L.	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Glover, Thomas	Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Griffith, Ellis J.	Myer, Horatio	Wood, T. M'Klnnon
Gulland, John W.	Norman, Sir Henry
Hall, Frederick	Partington, Oswald	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.
Hancock, J. G.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

NOES.
Arson, Sir William Reynell	Gordon, J.	Oddy, John James
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Baldwin, Stanley	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Percy, Earl
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Pretyman, E. G.
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Hunt, Rowland	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Joynson-Hicks, William	Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)
Bridgeman W. Clive	Kerry, Earl of	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Carlile, E. Hildred	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Stanier, Beville
Cave, George	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Starkey, John R.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire)
Clive, Percy Archer	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Clyde, J. Avon	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Courthope, G. Loyd	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	Younger, George
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Moore, William
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-	Morpeth, Viscount	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Morrison-Bell, Captain
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Question put, "That in respect of the words of the Clause to the end thereof the Chair be empowered to select the Amendments to be proposed."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 54.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

By virtue of the decision of the Committee, I select the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. Younger) and several other hon. Members as Amendments to be proposed to the Clause to the end.

Mr. YOUNGER

In accordance with your decision, Mr. Caldwell, I move my Amendment, which is to leave out the words, "Not exceeding an acre in extent." I do not think that I need take up very much time in argument.

Mr. PRETYMAN

On a point of order, Mr. Caldwell, would it not be for the convenience of the Committee that we should now be told which Amendments besides that of my hon. Friend you propose to select? I may point out to the Committee that it would be a great convenience if we knew which Amendments are going to be selected.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

There are two occupants of the Chair. The hon. Gentleman will find the selection made from the Chair accordingly as discussion takes place.

Mr. PRETYMAN

Can you inform me, Mr. Caldwell, by what means the Chairman, when he succeeds you, will be aware of the discussion which has taken place during his absence?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

There can be no question about that.

Mr. WALTER GUINNESS

If it is not possible to give a complete list of the Amendments, would it not be possible to give one Amendment ahead?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

It is quite sufficient to have this one ahead.

Mr. YOUNGER

My reason for moving the Amendment is that the exemption duty of an acre of undeveloped land in the case of a dwelling house without any reference to the size of the house, the amenity, the situation, or anything of that kind, is not by any means a sufficient exemption. It is neither fair nor just, nor is it even sensible. I will tell the Committee why. I know dwelling houses—country houses in my own locality—which are comparatively small, or at any rate which are without any large amount of pleasure ground around them, and yet from the necessities of their position they have very long approaches from the public road. As far as I can make out from this clause they would have to pay Undeveloped Land Duty even upon the approaches to such a house. If we are to have an exemption in favour of land, possibly land, apart from the amenity of the house, which is valued within the Schedule A valuation for Inhabitated House Duty, it surely follows that there can be no very great concession in giving an exemption to any land so valued. Such a provision would in no way exempt parks or any lands of that kind which are within walls surrounding dwelling houses, but would merely cover lands which are included in the annual valuation for the purposes of Inhabited House Duty. I think there must be some discrimination in such cases, and I hope generosity will be shown in the matter. One acre may be a sufficient allowance in the case of small villas situated in the neighbourhood of towns, but it is not reasonable in the case of country houses.

Mr. R. D. HOLT

I, too, had an Amendment on the Paper which was intended to deal with this particular Question. I will read the clause in the form in which it would have stood if my Amendment had teen accepted: "Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on any land not exceeding an acre in extent valued together with a dwelling house for the purpose of Inhabited House Duty, only in so far as the site value of that land exceeds twenty times the valuation of that land and dwelling house for the purposes of Inhabited House Duty."

5.0 A.M.

The case I want to meet is that of a house and garden used together, bringing in a rent which leaves a fair return on the capital represented by the site value. It is impossible to develop such a house and garden except by the destruction of the house, so that practically the owner of the property has nothing whatever in his possession, nothing to develop, except the site value. It is surely unfair to try and separate the house and the land for the purpose of the Undeveloped Land Duty, because as the land goes up in value the house goes down in value. I should personally be extremely grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could see his way to incorporate a part of my suggestion and to extend the limit of area.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I feel disposed; to accept the suggestion in principle. I agree that one acre is rather too narrow a restriction in certain cases, and it can hardly be said that in such cases as the hon. Gentleman has named, the land is in any sense undeveloped land, but I think you must have some kind of limit. I am rather disposed to accept the Amendment to limit it to five acres. That would be to leave out from "duty" and to insert "or on the site value of any land being garden or pleasure ground occupied with a dwelling house which does not exceed five acres in extent where the site value of the gardens or pleasure grounds, together with the site value of the dwelling house, does not exceed 20 times the annual value of the gardens or pleasure grounds or dwelling house adopted for the purposes of Income Tax in Schedule A."

Mr. YOUNGER

Would you not include the approaches? I know a case of approaches of two miles m length to a house which is only rented at £40.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

That rather alarms me. It would make an enormous difference. In the five acres the approaches, according to this Amendment, would undoubtedly be included. I will, however, consider that point, and if the hon. Gentleman will himself withdraw I shall be prepared to move the Amendment in the form I have suggested.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in Section (4), to leave out the word "duty" ["for the purpose of Inhabited House Duty"] to the end of the section, and to insert the words "or on the site value of any land being garden or pleasure ground occupied with a dwelling house which does not exceed five acres in extent where the site value of the gardens or pleasure grounds, together with the site value of the dwelling house, does not exceed 20 times the annual value of the gardens or pleasure grounds or dwelling house adopted for the purposes of Income Tax in Schedule A."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]

Mr. PRETYMAN

Is it quite clear that duty is only to be charged on the excess above the value stated?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

Yes.

Mr. PRETYMAN

That meets my point. I must say I think this Amendment is a considerable improvement. My point was this: Where the value of the land around the house exceeded twenty time the Inhabited House Duty, would a £30 house free £600 worth of site value?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

It would be exempted up to the value.

Mr. PRETYMAN

And if the site value in such a case was £700, it would be charged only on the additional £100?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I think it is so, at any rate. But if it is not clear I will undertake to make it clear. It shall be exempted quite up to the value.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I do not wish to debate the point, and I do not ask for an answer now, but when the right hon. Gentleman is considering this matter and making it clear I wish he would also consider this point. Already on this kind of property Increment Value Duty and Death Duty are paid on any development value which the land may have. In view of the comparatively small quantity of land and the desirability that houses shall have gardens even of a considerable extent, I do think that Increment Value Duty and Death Duty are ample on that kind of property, and that gardens ought to be exempted altogether from the Undeveloped Land Duty.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

Is it the amount of the valuation or the amount of the tax that is paid? Suppose it pays no tax at all, is it still to be let off? Suppose the house is not inhabited? Nine out of every ten houses in this condition are not inhabited.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

It is the Inhabited House Duty, Schedue A.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

Is it the valuation or the tax?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

The valuation.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

So it will not matter whether the house is empty or not?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

No.

Mr. CAVE

Suppose the whole property exceeds five acres in extent. Does it obtain no relief, or does it get relief up to the five acres?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I am quite clear that it ought to have relief up to the extent of five acres, and if that is not clear I will undertake to make it so.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

May I respectfully suggest, Sir, that if you put the Amendment in this form you will shut out the hon. Member for Blackpool's Amendment?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I propose to move out the whole of the words to the end of the section and to substitute my own words. I do not think there is anything to prevent the hon. Member for Blackpool from moving his Amendment.

Mr. PIKE PEASE

Suppose a house has ten acres of land attached to it—five acres in front and live behind—how will anyone know which five acres will be allowed?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

That I think must be left to the Commissioners.

Captain CLIVE

There are two classes of houses affected by the Amendment as to which I should like to ask two questions. One is the case of the private school with large playgrounds and grounds around it. In many cases these exceed five acres. Will such cases be met by Clause 10, Section 2?.Will such land be regarded as land "used bonâ-fide for any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture"? If these cases are not exempted under that provision, I should like to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of this class of institution, institutions which often tend very much to improve the amenities of the district. Then there is another class of case: private convalescent homes run for profit and private lunatic asylums. I do not know whether they are exempted under Clause 10, Section 2. If not, I suggest they are deserving of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's sympathy. One correspondent who wrote to me informed me that he was maintaining a relative in a private lunatic asylum which would be affected by this duty. It was all he could do, he said, to pay the fees now, and if this duty was imposed on the grounds attached to the asylum, and the fees had to be increased, he might have to withdraw the patient from the institution.

Mr. STEPHEN WALSH

Before the Chancellor of the Exchequer quite completes the engagement he seems about to enter into I, for one, would like to make a protest against a transaction of this character and its absolutely destructive effect on the general principle underlying the Bill. I thought that one object of this tax was to bring into existence a large amount of undeveloped land so as to prevent, or at least to mitigate, the horrible urban overcrowding that exists. But the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that at least five acres shall be allowed for amenity alone. There is a great deal of talk about amenities, but I wish a little more attention were paid to the condition of the people who possess no amenities at all. How many people can be housed, and are being housed, on five acres of land? If you take the ordinary artisan's house with a five yards' frontage and thirty yards in depth you will find that on five acres you can house 500 people under very good conditions indeed, comparatively speaking. There has been concession after concession made on this Bill until, I believe, the whole sense of the central principle has been frittered away. I do not believe there has been any case made out for five acres to be exempted or for twenty times of the Inhabited House Duty to be exempted from this tax. But it is not so much the exemption from the tax that we protest against—it is because this will enable the people who desire the amenities which they deny to others to keep a greater grip upon the land. The five acres which has been so readily given away is a very serious matter. Take my old town of Wigan. In the old borough of Wigan we have about 2,330 acres upon which 70,000 people are living. That is allowing for a good deal of land that is lying waste and derelict. You will see that on five acres of land at least 1,000 people are to-day housed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Yes, and this is the kind of thing that is going on. If you deduct the acres of land in Wigan that are waste and derelict you will find that there are 1,000 people housed on the amount of land which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is giving away to the Opposition. There have been too many concessions, and I protest against them being made.

Mr. BONAR LAW

The hon. Member seems to be under a complete misapprehension. But the point of view that he has put before the Committee is a very interesting one. His complaint is that the Government are giving away the whole principle of the Bill to the Opposition. He spoke of the Chancellor of the Exchequer giving five acres to the Opposition. That is not correct; all the Chancellor of the Exchequer does is not to collect the tax on these five acres. What the hon. Member says is that the five acres are being given away and given to other people.

Mr. WALSH

I never said anything of the kind.

Mr. BONAR LAW

The principle of the Government is not that at all.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I really do not understand the hon. Member (Mr. Walsh). I think the argument of the hon. Member is that this is a fiscal proposal, and that we are taking the basis of Schedule A, and I think if we get out of the property a very fair taxation under Schedule A, we are entitled to say that the land is fully developed for fiscal purposes, and that it is making a fair fiscal return, and that is why we are taking Schedule A as the basis. We are only taking the limit as a purely fair limit. A man who is holding up 20 or 30 acres is not making a fair return; but this Amendment is so drafted that the land used is making good fiscal return. Another hon. Member asked me to go back to Clause 10. I do not want to refuse an answer to the hon. Member, but I think he will find that most of the cases he put to me—some relating to schools and to lunatic asylums—are covered by Clause 10 and by the operation of Section (3) of the present clause.

Mr. DUNDAS WHITE

I think the proposal now made is a very important modification and will seriously affect the usefulness of the proposals of the Bill. It is not merely an extension of one acre but five acres. I would like to point out that as regards the proportion between the site value under the Bill and the Income Tax under Schedule A, I do not see why there should be a limitation to five acres at all because on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's principle, a fair payment is being made under Schedule A. The two limitations seem to be cross limitations. If these principles are adopted they lead us to a very much further length than the proposals go.

Viscount MORPETH

Anybody passing through Wigan will see that there is a great deal of land in the town which might be built upon. He will also see the garden of five or more acres. It would be far more advisable to cover waste land with dwellings for the working classes than gardens or oases of the three or four acres in a very lovely town. The hon. Member showed indignation rather soon. If any land is being held up, which I rather doubt, but which is assumed to be the case by the Government, it is much larger areas than those which have been referred to, on the outskirts of the towns and not those comparatively small districts where there are gardens. It would be one of the greatest misfortunes if, in attempts to raise not a very large amount of revenue, you succeed in destroying the amenities of the suburbs and what small beauty there is in this country.

Mr. J. M. HENDERSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)

I should like to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for this concession. I should like to give a concrete instance to show the justice of it. Take the case of a house at Sydenham-hill let under a long lease from Dulwich College, backing down to the railway. The holder is paying rates from 8s. 6d. to 10s. in the £, full taxes. How would it be just to ask him, simply because he is forbidden by his lease to build, to pay an extra tax because he has more than an acre of land?

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 29; Noes, 156.

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Pirie, Duncan V.
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Hunt, Rowland	Pretyman, E. G.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Illingworth, Percy H.	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfo'k, E.)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Rainy, A. Rolland
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)
Courthope, G. Loyd	Kerry, Earl of	Ridsdale, E. A.
Cowan, W. H.	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Lambert, George	Rowlands, J
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Lamont, Norman	Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Seely, Colonel
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Duckworth, Sir James	Lehmann, R. c.	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Simon, John Allsebrook
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Levy, Sir Maurice	Soares, Ernest J.
Elibank, Master of	Lewis, John Herbert	Stanger, H. Y.
Evans, Sir S. T.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Stanier, Beville
Falconer, J.	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)
Ferens, T. R.	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)	Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)
Forster, Henry William	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)	Starkey, John R.
Fuller, John Michael F.	Lyell, Charles Henry	Strachey, Sir Edward
Gibb, James (Harrow)	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Maclean, Donald	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	M'Laren, (H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Maddison, Frederick	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)	Markham, Arthur Basil	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Gordon, J.	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)	Masterman, C. F. G.	Vivian, Henry
Gulland, John W.	Micklem, Nathaniel	Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire)
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)	Mond, A.	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Moore, William	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)	Morpeth, Viscount	Waterlow, D. S.
Harris, Frederick Leverton	Morrison-Bell, Captain	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Morse, L. L.	Whitehead, Rowland
Haworth, Arthur A.	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Hedges, A. Paget	Myer, Horatio	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Helme, Norval Watson	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)	Oddy, John James	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Henry, Charles S.	Partington, Oswald	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Younger, George
Higham, John Sharp	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Percy, Earl	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.
Holt, Richard Durning	Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr. LANE-FOX (for Mr. Ashley) moved, in Section (4), after the word "duty" ["for the purpose of Inhabited House Duty"] to insert the words "nor upon land used or enjoyed by the occupiers of a number of dwelling houses by virtue of such occupancy, where the total number of acres of such land does not exceed the number of occupiers so using such land."

The Amendment proposes where there are a number of dwelling-houses and a certain amount of land attached to them, to allow exemptions making an allowance of one acre per house. There was considerable justification for this before, and there is even more justification now that we have put in five acres instead of one as the allowance to go with each dwelling. It is obvious that this would be an important concession in view of the development of garden cities and the desirability of providing a certain amount of open space round the houses. I do not think I need elaborate the point further, and I hope if the Government cannot grant the whole of what I ask they will at least go some way in this direction.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I could not accept the Amendment. This is one of the points I had in my mind when I framed the Amendment already added to the Bill which covers open spaces and squares. I am advised that that Amendment would certainly cover the case put by the hon. Member (Mr. Lane-Fox), and if any other cases can be brought forward I shall be glad to consider them. I do not think, however, that it would be possible to put in these words here, because they would overlap and might take away from the effect of the words already inserted. They might do a vast amount of harm, and I think it would be dangerous to insert them. If the hon. Member can tell me of any cases covered by this Amendment which are not covered by mine, I repeat that I shall be very glad to consider them.

Mr. LANE-FOX

I am obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I shall be glad to do as he suggests. In these circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. LONSDALE

I desire to move in Section (4) after the word "duty" ["for the purpose of Inhabited House Duty"] to insert the words "or if situate in Ireland for the purpose of the Poor Rate."

These words are necessary in order that the exemption may be extended to Ireland. The Clause reads: "Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on any land not exceeding an acre in extent valued together with a dwelling house for Inhabited House Duty." The reason for the Amendment is that there is no Inhabited House Duty in Ireland, and as I do not suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to deprive Ireland of the advantage of the exemption, I think he will have no difficulty in accepting my words. I do not know that it is necessary after what the right hon. Gentleman has said to argue the matter. It appears to me to be a very obvious oversight on the part of the draftsman. Should these words be inserted here it will be necessary to insert similar words in the new clause of which the right hon. Gentleman has given notice.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I quite recognise the force of the hon. Member's contention. It is quite clear that words of this character will have to be inserted, and if he will wait until the Report stage I will undertake that words shall be inserted, though perhaps not in the form he has proposed. Perhaps he will take that assurance from me.

Mr. LONSDALE

On the right hon. Gentleman's positive assurance that the matter will be dealt with on the Report stage, I will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. CAVE

I move in Section (5) to leave out the words "the term of which exceeded one year, but did not exceed twenty-one years."

I take it that the reason for the section is that when land has been let before the commencement of the Act—in fact, before the Bill was brought in—it is impossible for the freeholder to develop land let to somebody else. In that case for the freeholder to be charged Undeveloped Land Duty would obviously be unfair. I submit, however, that the argument applies with just as much force where the existing lease exceeds twenty-one years as it does where the term does not exceed twenty-one years. I do not see why the exemption should not apply where the lease was for thirty years just as much as where it was for twenty-one years.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

Does the hon. and learned Member know how many cases there are of such leases?

Mr. CAVE

Thousands of cases.

Mr. YOUNGER

In Scotland there are any number of "double nineteens"—that is 38 years.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

Two nineteens would be covered. It is expressly laid down in the Bill. I think there would be very few cases of the kind the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) has referred to, but I do not wish to press the point.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

In reference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's last concession in respect of the five acres, I can give six cases in Addison-road where there is rather more than one acre, and I should think there must be similar cases where there are more than five acres which are—

The CHAIRMAN

That does not seem relevant.

Mr. HOPE

But it is agricultural land, I presume, and—

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

But I am accepting the Amendment.

Mr. HOPE

Oh, I did not understand that. I thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asking for cases.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, in Section (5), to leave out the. words "continuance of the tenancy under" ["Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on the land during the continuance of the tenancy under that lease or agreement"] and to insert the words "original term of."

I think the Committee will realise that this is a very necessary Amendment, because occasionally there are leases of 21 years or a smaller term, but with a power to break the lease where, the land is required for building purposes. But I do not think that that is quite the same as where the landlord is bound hand and foot.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I entirely concur that where a landlord has the right to resume the holding there should not be any power of exemption. The disability should only apply to that portion of the land which can be resumed.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I do not quite like the hon. Members words. But perhaps he will agree that it should be applied to that part of the land which can be resumed.

Mr. CAVE

I suppose the exemption would continue up to the period at which the tenancy can be resumed. I would suggest words of this kind, "that this exemption shall not apply after the period at which the tenancy could be discontinued."

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

concurred.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

If it is adopted in that form I will not move any Amendment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I now move to add at the end of Section (5) ["Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on the land during the original term of that lease or agreement."] the words "while the tenancy continues there-under, but the exemption under this provision shall not apply where the tenancy of the whole or any part of the land can be discontinued at the option of the landlord."

Mr. CAVE

I would suggest that instead of the word "where" ["but exemption under this provision shall not apply where the tenancy"] the insertion of "after the period at which," and the omission of the words "the whole or any pant of" ["the tenancy of the whole or any part of the land can be discontinued at the option of the landlord"].

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I accept the principle of the hon. and learned Member's suggestion, and I will re-draft the words.

Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr. A. C. BECK moved to add at the end of the clause the words, "(6) Where the owner in possession of the rents and profits of any land on which Undeveloped Land Duty is assessed, before the amount so assessed in any financial year is paid, produces to the Commissioners a certificate from the surveyor of taxes that such owner has been allowed in that year a total exemption from Income Tax by reason of his income not exceeding one hundred and sixty pounds, the said amount of Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be collected, and if such owner pro- duces to the Commissioners a certificate from the surveyor of taxes that such owner has been allowed in that year an abatement of Income Tax by reason of his income not exceeding four hundred pounds, one-half of the said amount of Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be collected."

I think the Amendment pretty well explains my view. I do not know what the views of the Government are on this Amendment, and I do not in any way press this particular form of words; but I do think there should be some form of graduation in this tax, I think where you have Income Tax graduation, and where we have exempted various amenities which appertain to it, you ought to be very tender with the little man whose entire income is derived from this class of property, and that is why I move that a man whose total income does not exceed £160 shall not pay any tax at all, and that the man with an income of £400 shall only pay half of the duty. I think, in regard to land, such provision is particularly necessary. But I dare say there will be very many cases in which many rich men, though occupying small parcels of land, will entirely escape this tax, whereas there will be many other cases where small people will have to pay unless they are safeguarded to the extent proposed. I do not wish to keep the Committee, therefore I move the Amendment.

6 A.M.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I cannot accept this Amendment. We have already given notice of an Amendment dealing with the class of small holders, and I think that adequately meets the case.

The CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw his Amendment?

Mr. BECK

Yes, Sir. By the permission of the Committee I will withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN

Mr. Leverton Harris.

Mr. LONSDALE

May I have an opportunity of moving my Amendment exempting Ireland from the Undeveloped Land Duty?

The CHAIRMAN

That is not interfered with by the Amendment now called upon, at any rate.

Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS moved to add at the end of the Clause:—

"(6) Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged in respect of any land which has been reclaimed by the owner or his predecessors in title from the sea within fifty years prior to the passing of this Act or which shall hereafter be so reclaimed."

I will not take up the time of the Committee in explaining the Amendment, for it really explains itself. The object is to free from the tax any land which has been reclaimed from the sea by the owner or his predecessors in title. I think the Committee will see the justification. Reclamation is a very useful work, and I think we should encourage it in every possible way.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I cannot conceive of any case of reclamation which will not be covered by Clause 14 Section 4 (a). In fact, the provision goes much further than the Amendment. In the case of the particular estate I have in mind, the money was spent about 100 years ago, and after deducting the amount spent on reclamation there would be no Undeveloped Land Duty to pay. I think that is the experience of all owners who have spent money on reclamation. Under Clause 14 the owner will not only get credit for his expenditure on reclamation, but the whole value, created by reclamation, will be exempted. If we were to pass this Amendment, the inference might be drawn that reclamation was not covered by the provision I have referred to.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I agree generally with the right hon. Gentleman, but I am very doubtful whether all works of reclamation would be covered by the provision to which he has referred. I think it would be better if we put the word "reclamation" into that provision.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

It is certainly intended to cover reclamation.

Mr. PRETYMAN

Yes, but I doubt whether it does. There are so many different ways of reclaiming land.

Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS

Does Clause 14, Section 4 (a) really meet this case? That provision applies to any part of the site value of land "which is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to be directly attributable to works of a permanent nature executed bonâ fide by or on behalf of any person interested in the land for the purpose of fitting the land for use as building land or for the purpose of any business, trade or industry other than agriculture." Reclamation from the sea may be carried out for the purpose of fitting the land for agriculture, and afterwards that land may acquire a certain value as building land. I do not think such a case would be met by Clause 14. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter and see whether he can expand that provision when we come to it.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I certainly think that in the case of works of reclamation the owner is entitled to deduct the money he has spent on reclamation.

Mr. YOUNGER

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the word "reclamation" was introduced into the Scottish Land Values Bill by the Government themselves in order to protect this very case? I do not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will put it in Clause 14 when we reach that clause.

Colonel WILLIAMS

Does not Clause 14 apply only to money spent after the passing of the Act?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

Oh, no.

The CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw his Amendment?

Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS

Yes, sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day (Thursday).

Mr. JOSEPH PEASE

I beg to move "That this House do now adjourn."

Adjourned at Eight Minutes after Sis o'clock a.m. (Thursday, 12th August).