§ 2 A.M.
§ (1) The Commissioners shall cause all returns made by owners under this Act to be examined, and if no objection is taken to the return, the values declared in the return shall be adopted as the original total value and the original site value respectively for the purpose of this Part of this Act.
§ (2) If the Commissioners consider that the total or site value, as stated in any return, is not correct, they shall object to the return and communicate with the owner of the land with a view to an Amendment of the return, and if the owner amends the return in manner satisfactory to the Commissioners the total and site value as stated in the amended return shall be adopted as the original total and the original site value for the purposes of this Part of this Act.
§ (3) If no return is made in accordance with this Act in respect of any land by the owner of the land, or if an owner refuses to amend a return which is objected to by the Commissioners, or fails to amend the return in manner satisfactory to the Commissioners, the value of the land shall be determined by the Commissioners, and the total and site value so determined shall be adopted as the original total and the original site value respectively for the purposes of this Part of this Act, subject, in cases where the owner of the land has made a return, to an appeal under this Act.
§ (4) Where the value to be adopted as the original total or the original site value of any land for the purposes of this Part of this Act has not been settled at the time when any duty under this Part of this Act becomes leviable, any duty under this Part of this Act shall be assessed as if the values as declared in the return of the owner were the values adopted for the original total and site values for the purposes of this Part of this Act, and, on the values to be adopted being ultimately ascertained, if it is found that the amount which should have been paid as duty exceeds that actually paid, the excess shall be deemed to be arrears of the duty, except so far as any penalty is incurred 1262 on account of arrears, and if it is found that the amount which should have been paid as duty is less than that actually paid, the difference shall be repaid by the Commissioners.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, in Section (1) to leave out the words "all returns made by owners under this Act to be examined," and to insert instead thereof the words "a copy of their provisional valuation of any land to be served on the owner of the land."
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI want to ask the learned Attorney-General a question concerning a point which I was unable to raise on the last clause, that is, as to the service of this provisional valuation on the owner. The Attorney-General will remember that in the last clause an option was given to the owner to require the Commissioners to assess separately any land which he held, although it might be in the same occupation. What I desire to know is, will the owner have an opportunity of doing this after the provisional valuation is served upon him, or will it be necessary for him, immediately on the Bill passing, to apprise the Commissioners that he wishes them to value certain land separately? I think the Attorney-General will agree that it is desirable to have a point of such great importance cleared up at once. Another point on which I should like to have information is as to whether, if an owner wishes to exercise his option and value the land himself, he will have to give notice of his intention at the earliest possible moment, in which case I presume the Commissioners will defer their own valuation until they get his.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI will endeavour to answer the questions put by the hon. Gentleman. Clause 16 says that each piece of land which is under separate occupation shall be valued, and, if the owner requires, any part of the land shall be separately valued. That, of course, will give the owner a right to require a separate valuation before the provisional valuation is made. It may quite 1263 possibly be that he has either not thought of it, or not desired it until afterwards, and in such a case it is my impression that the Commissioners would certainly not decline to make the separate valuation. When the returns are made, however, will be, as it seems to me, the proper time for the owner to indicate his wish. Afterwards, when the provisional valuation has been made, I am not prepared to say that the Commissioners should be compelled to give effect to the owner's wish, but I certainly do not think they would refuse to do so. We must remember that in all these matters the Commissioners will be desirous to have the true value ascertained, and so to avoid appeal. Speaking without notice of the question, or very prolonged consideration, I should say that the owner's right should properly be exercised when he gets notice to send in his return.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDWill the learned Attorney-General kindly explain, arising on these words now proposed to be dealt with, how it is proposed to proceed in a case where the owner is a person who is not sui juris.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALThe word "owner" is denned in the Definition Clause as "the person entitled to the freehold of the land." A person who is not sui juris would, without any reference whatever in this Bill, be entitled, or those who are acting for him would be entitled, to perform any obligations cast on the owner by this Bill by virtue of the settled Land Act.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Question proposed, "That the words, 'a copy of their provisional valuation of any land to be served on the owner of the land,' be inserted."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThere is an Amendment to the proposed Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Lord Robert Cecil). As he is not here, perhaps I may be permitted to refer to it. It is to leave out the word "provisional," ["a copy of their provisional valuation"]. I do not quite understand why the word has been inserted. Are not all the valuations which are made provisional valuations? I will say no more about it, but will just ask the hon. and learned Gentleman why 1264 the word "provisional" is in at all, and whether the Government will not agree to knock it out.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI think the word is useful. It will be seen that the first valuation taken by the Commissioners is here referred to as provisional. After that valuation has been served upon the taxpayer, the taxpayer has to make his objections to that valuation. Those objections have to be considered by the Commissioners, and if the Commissioners are not satisfied have to be made the subject-matter of an appeal. The word provisional simply indicates that the first valuation thus served is not to be taken as the final valuation. The word does no harm, and is accurately descriptive of the first valuation.
§ Colonel R. WILLIAMS"Their valuation" rather means that it is a valuation which is provisional on the part of the Commissioners, and therefore that they may alter it on their side afterwards. If the word were "the" provisional valuation it would be a different thing, but it is "their" provisional valuation. It rather seems to indicate that if the owner wishes to alter his valuation it will not be open to him to do so. If it means the Commissioners' valuation I think it ought to be a fixed valuation, left open to the owner to object to if he wished to do so.
§ Sir W. ROBSONIt really makes no difference whether the word is "their" or "the." Although the valuation is called provisional, yet if no objection is made to it it stands good as the original total and site value. It must not be treated as a merely tentative valuation. It becomes the final valuation if there is no objection.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThen the right hon. and learned Gentleman means that the Commissioners will serve the provisional valuation on the owner, and then if the owner does not make any objection that will become the final valuation. No fresh notice will be issued by the Commissioners to say to the owner, "You not having made an objection this is now the final valuation." The owner will be left to assume that. If the matter has escaped his notice he will not again have his attention called to it, and will not be aware of what is being done. I should think it necessary that at each stage the Commissioners should communicate with the owners. That is the point I want to raise. I quite agree they must 1265 send a provisional valuation, which is the first valuation. I quite agree that it is properly called provisional, and that it is useful to have it called provisional. All I suggest is that this is not the only valuation of which the owner ought to have a copy. As soon as the Commissioners arrive at each stage they should at once commmunicate with the owner.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI think the right hon. Gentleman will find that the point is covered. If there is no objection taken to it the first valuation stands as before, the total and original site value. If there is an objection then the owner is obliged to send in his grounds of objection to the provisional valuation. Then the Commissioners may amend or not as they think right. If they amend in a way satisfactory to the owner there is an end of the matter. If they do not amend then the owner must make up his mind whether or not he will appeal. There is no occasion to serve fresh notices. If the owner finds that they refuse to amend his valuation, all he has to do is to set in motion the apparatus of appeal which is provided for by the Act.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. YOUNGERI wish to move to amend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment. I move after the word "land" ["the owner of the land"] to insert "containing full particulars of such valuation." It is obvious, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will very clearly see it, that in the kind of valuation which has to be made here, involving the value of structures of all kinds which are to be deducted for ascertaining the original site value, everything depends on the manner and fairness of the valuation of these structures. It seems to me that it would be quite absurd merely to have in such a case a net valuation of site and total value without giving any particulars at all, or without giving the owners of property any opportunity of settling for himself whether or not these valuations were reasonable and fair. In the case of drains, bends, and all those sort of things, everything depends upon the manner in which they are valued, and it seems unreasonable and quite unnecessary to put an owner in the position of having to get for himself a very expensive valuation in order to check the valuation made by the Government valuer. 1266 In a matter of this kind I think it only fair that the Government should do everything possible to let the owner see that the valuation was fair, straightforward, and above board. There is nothing to conceal in the matter, and it would tend very much to the acceptance of valuation and to the adjustment of any difficulty which might be in the mind of the owner if he knew and saw all these details. I had a farm valued for the purposes of the Scottish Land Values Bill, and the valuations were extremely interesting. They were so interesting that they left no site value to the farm at all. But there they were. One saw what the drains, fences, and so forth were put at. Some, I thought, were extreme and some were not sufficient, but it would be easy to adjust any difference if the owner saw the valuation in detail. I am not asking for anything. The valuer must himself value these things for himself. He must take them separately and individually calculate them.
§ Sir W. ROBSONIt really seems unnecessary to add so much complexity to what we hope will be a very simple matter. It does not at all follow that you are going to have the elaboration that some hon. Members apprehend with regard to all the valuations. In the case of deductions and allowances from the taxable value made under Clause 2, perhaps it is desirable that there should be a record kept, and that is already provided for. They are deductions and allowances which are personal to the owner of the land, and which he would desire to have on record and shown to him.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIf the valuation in the majority of cases is as simple as the hon. and learned Gentleman anticipates, then, of course, it is a very simple matter to give in full such particulars as my hon. Friend asks. The Attorney-General recognises that it is legitimate to ask that these particulars should be furnished in the case of a valuation under Clause 2, and he states that that is provided for. I do not know where it is provided for.
§ Sir W. ROBSONIt is one of the new sections added by me.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe Attorney-General will forgive me for not bearing in mind all the Amendments that have been made. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that it was fair to ask for the particulars to be furnished in respect 1267 of Clause 2, because there you deal with the value on which the tax is actually made, but he forgets that it is not the only tax. Clause 2 has only to do with the Increment Tax, and it is only one of two valuations by means of which the tax is settled. It is just as necessary that you should have particulars at the point from which you start to calculate your increment as at the high-water mark reached. Then, in regard to undeveloped land, it is the original site value under Clause 14 which is the taxing value, and accordingly particulars of that valuation are just as important. The Attorney-General observed that when you came to Clause 2 and had particulars which were personal to the owner of the land, it was natural that he should desire to have them placed on record and shown to him. The factors under Clause 14, include factors which are personal to the owner of the land —"any part of the site value which is proved to be due to works of a permanent character executed by or on behalf of any person interested in the land," and other details of that kind. Let us consider what is the process of valuation as we have had it explained to us. You arrive at the total value of the hereditament as it stands.
You proceed then to divest the land of all the things in Section (2) of Clause 14, after which you proceed to deduct all that you are allowed to deduct in Section 4, and the result is the site value for the purposes of this Bill. Is it not a reasonable request that the owner of the land should have particulars supplied to him of what the Commissioners have allowed for that of which they have divested the land, and for that which they must deduct from the land? How otherwise is he to criticise their valuation? He will have a lump figure thrown at his head. They will say that: "Having performed all the duties required of us by the Act, this is our valuation." Surely the owner is entitled to see what they have divested the land of, and what they have deducted, and whether sufficient has been allowed for. I really think the Attorney-General and the Government must see that unless they are going to inflict quite unnecessary hardship, and throw endless obstacles in the way of the taxpayer, this information must be given. It cannot do the Government any harm. Provided that their only object is to arrive at a fair valuation, clearly the more communicative the Commissioners are the more likely are they to come to an 1268 agreement with the person whose property they are assessing, and the less likely there is to be litigation thereafter. If you refuse the Amendment which gives the taxpayer the right to have these particulars what will then happen? He will only get them by going to law. You force him to challenge the decision of the Commissioners, and to take them into a court of law, where he can get an order of the court for the supply of these particulars, so as to ascertain whether, after all, there was anything to dispute in their calculations or not. I think that is a very unreasonable and a very unwise provision, equally injurious to the Treasury and to the taxpayer, and I urge the Attorney-General to give a more favourable consideration to my hon. Friend's Amendment.
§ Mr. CLAVELL SALTERI cannot help thinking that it would be well for the Members of the Government to realise the propriety of bringing some little pressure to bear upon the Attorney-General. All we are asking for is that this provisional valuation will appear before those concerned. The owner will have been asked for some information, and he will get the document which will assess practically on two figures—on total value and site value. All we are asking for is that there shall be added these few details and figures which come into the ordinary details of valuation. Take the total valuation. Let the valuer say there is so many feet frontage and so much across—so many yards super and so much a yard. But let him give the ordinary particulars which a valuer gives, showing how he has worked the thing out. If that is reasonable to ask as regards total value, is it not even more reasonable to ask as regards this new matter of site value? Whatever it may be, it is something which has to be dealt with by a method, and is it not almost unreasonable to say that a valuer has not to say how he arrives at the site value? Just let us consider. Do not let us deal, for the moment, with some wealthy landowner, but with an ordinary small and not very well-educated owner. He gets this very serious document. What will he do with it? He will go straight to the valuer for advice. He will say. "Here is my assessment—total value and site value—am I to submit to this?" The first thing the valuer will say is, "How did the valuer get at the figures?" If he says so much per foot, or so many years' rental, the valuer can say that that appears not 1269 unreasonable. Even when you are dealing with a Liberal Government, it is not necessary to take up an attitude of hostility against the taxpayer. The only course to be pursued without dispute is by the actual value. The Attorney-General said what was proposed might interfere with the proofs. We all hope that they may come up to a sort of accepted standard; but they would not be interfered with in the least, and the last point I want to take up is this. It has been pointed out to us by the Attorney-General that what is proposed is actually done or will be done as the Bill stands, as valuations which are to be made come under Clause 2. If it is desirable under Clause 2 is it not under this clause? The 1909 valuation is a thing that stands for ever. It is, therefore, exceedingly important to get it right, and to get it right in Clause 2 and then under this clause.
§ Earl WINTERTONI have listened with astonishment to the reply of the Attorney-General. He cannot realise the effect of the clause as it stands in so far as it relates to the case of undeveloped land, and to the case of agricultural land. I leave aside for the moment the case of the town property, and I take the case of agricultural land. Surely, the Attorney-General must realise that to present the owner with merely a piece of paper in which there are two lump sums, the original value and the site value, is absolutely absurd. The only way in which the valuation of agricultural land can be made intelligible is by putting it upon the leases, which explains the different component parts as to value, such as the value of arable land and drainage expenses, roads, fences, bridges, etc., which may be there. I am sure the Attorney-General cannot realise under this bald clause as it stands what little value it will have. To the owner in estimating the real value of the land it cannot have any value at all. So far as it helps him to realise the value of the land it might just as well not be part of the Bill at all. My hon. Friend, who moved the addition of these words, mentioned the case of drainage, and roads, and other things. I have also mentioned, as an instance, the case of a water supply. If particulars are not sent to the owner how is he to estimate what value the Commissioners attach to the water supply, or to the drainage, the roads, the bridges, etc.? The fact is the clause is quite absurd. We were told a 1270 short time ago that it was perfectly easy to get particulars; but when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was pressed he did not know what the real details were. I believe that until this Amendment was brought up the matter under discussion had never occurred to the Government, and that they had never considered the point at all. I appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman to give the matter his consideration again, and to say whether he cannot put some words in the Bill which will enable the unfortunate owner to understand what is being done.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI hope the Committee will not take undue time over this matter. If the method of valuation is thought to be unfair, the person concerned is not prevented from making it a proper subject matter of appeal. I am quite sure that those who drafted this Amendment could not have given it long consideration. Not only was the original Amendment a manuscript Amendment, but it was not proposed as handed in at the Table. Just at the last moment the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has put in words. Of course, there will be a consultation amongst the various persons concerned in the valuation. The Commissioners have all these valuers in front of them to keep them in order at each stage of the valuation. I hear someone say that is litigation. Yes; but the prospect of litigation has a very wholesome effect upon the parties before litigation is taken. I only mention these circumstances to show that the Commissioners would behave as reasonable men. They will not treat this valuation in a way they do not treat other valuations. We know how they treat valuation for the Death Duties. We are not putting these duties into the hands of some untried tribunal, and I ask the Committee to trust the Commissioners to carry out these duties as they have others, and I appeal to them not to spend so much time over this matter.
§ Colonel R. WILLIAMSI must ask the learned Attorney-General to give a little more consideration to this question. He cited the instance of the valuation of a farm. There is only one factor in that case. Everyone knows when he sees a valuation on the church door the figures by which the assessment has been arrived at and he knows what to do. In this case, in order to arrive at site value, you have to deduct certain things from the total 1271 value, if only one of these factors is given the owner will know where his valuation differs from that of the valuer. It may be that the valuers do not know how long it was since the particular piece of land was drained or chalked. That is a very material factor in certain parts of the country. There may be the question of woodlands or water supply. Almost every farm in certain countries has a water supply in some way or another, and unless the owner knows the factors in the valuer's valuation he cannot set to work to correct it. If the learned Attorney-General knew the practice of valuers he would know how difficult it is to get particulars of valuation from them. A valuer will put certain figures down in his own book by rule of thumb, and he will tell you the total sum; but he is very shy about these particulars, and that makes it very hard in any question of dispute to get at the bottom of the dispute. The learned Attorney-General talked about the fear of litigation having a sobering effect. It has on the people who have to pay out of their own pockets, but not upon the
§ Commissioners, who have the State behind them. For them there is no sobering fear. Very often the Commissioners will say to the unfortunate taxpayer, "If you will not go to law we will let you off with a fine." That may have a sobering effect, and they may thereby extract more fine than they are entitled to. We are quite content to wait until the Government have given some further consideration to the words if the learned Attorney-General will leave them open on Report. That some particulars should be given in these cases is quite certain, because the owner otherwise will not know on what the valuers have proceeded. He will have to go through the whole thing himself, but if the Commissioners will give him the five or six things on which they base the value that will not be necessary.
§ 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, 158; Noes, 65.
1273| Division No. 463.] | AYES. | [2.50 a.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Evans, Sir S. T. | Macpherson, J. T. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Fenwick, Charles | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Ferens, T. R. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Armitage, R. | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Fuller, John Michael F. | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Glover, Thomas | Marnham, F. J. |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Middlebrook, William |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Hancock, J. G. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Morrell, Philip |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) |
| Brace, William | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Myer, Horatio |
| Branch, James | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Haworth, Arthur A. | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | O'Grady, J. |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Helme, Norval Watson | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Partington, Oswald |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Henry, Charles S. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Higham, John Sharp | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Cleland, J. W. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Pointer, J. |
| Clough, William | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Hodge, John | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hooper, A. G. | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Horniman, Emslie John | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Radford, G. H. |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Hudson, Walter | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Jackson, R. S. | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Crossley, William J. | Jenkins, J. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Davies, M. Vauyhan- (Cardigan) | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Richardson, A. |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Lambert, George | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Lamont, Norman | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Lewis, John Herbert | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Elibank, Master of | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Rowlands, J. |
| Erskine, David C. | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Essex, R. W. | Maclean, Donald | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Essiemont, George Birnie | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Thomasson, Franklin | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Temkinson, James | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Seely, Colonel | Toulmin, George | Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Shackleton, David James | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Simon, John Allsebrook | Verney, F. W. | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | Walsh, Stephen | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Strachey, Sir Edward | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Watt, Henry A. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Summerbell, T. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) | |
| Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Whitehead, Rowland | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) | |
| Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Wiles, Thomas | |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reyneil | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Ashley, W. W. | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Renton, Leslie |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Hill, Sir Clement | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Bridgeman, W, Clive | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cave, George | Hunt, Rowland | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Joynson-Hicks, William | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Stanler, Seville |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Starkey, John R. |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott- | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morpeth, Viscount | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Forster, Henry William | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Winterton, Earl |
| Foster, P. S. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Younger, George |
| Gardner, Ernest | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Lord E. Talbot. |
| Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. | |
| Gordon, J. | Percy, Earl |
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "land" ["a copy of their provisional valuation of any land"] to insert the words "containing full particulars of such valuation."— [Mr. Younger.]
1274§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 64; Noes, 157.
1275| Division No. 464.] | AYES. | [2.55 a.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Ed.) | Randies, Sir John Scurrah |
| Ashley, W. W. | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Remnant, Jame Farquharson |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Ronton, Leslie |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hill, Sir Clement | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Eccleshall) |
| Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hunt, Rowland | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cave, George | Joynson-Hicks, William | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley G. D. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Stanier, Seville |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Starkey, John R. |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morpeth, Viscount | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Forster, Henry William | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Winterton, Earl |
| Foster, P. S. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | |
| Gardner, Ernest | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Younger and Col. R. Williams. |
| Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. | |
| Gordon, J. | Percy, Earl | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Barnard, E. B. | Bowerman, C. W. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Brace, William |
| Armitage, R. | Beauchamp E. | Branch, James |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Beck, A. Cecil | Brooke, Stopford |
| Srunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh) | Hooper, A. G. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Horniman, Emslie John | Roberts, G H. (Norwich) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hudson, Walter | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Jackson, R. S. | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Jenkins, J. | Rowlands, J. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Cleland, J. W. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Clough, William | Jowett, F. W. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Lambert, George | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Lamont, Norman | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Collins, Sir Wn. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Lewis, John Herbert | Seely, Colonel |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Shackleton, David James |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Crossley, William J. | Maclean, Donald | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Macpherson, J. T. | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Summerbell, T. |
| Duckworth, Sir James | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Mallet, Charles E. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Ellbank, Master of | Marnham, F. J. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Essex, R. W. | Masterman, C. F. G. | Tomkinson, James |
| Esslemont, George Birnle | Middlebrook, William | Toulmin, George |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Fenwick, Charles | Morrell, Philip | Verney, F. W. |
| Ferens, T. R. | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Myer, Horatio | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Glover, Thomas | Norman, Sir Henry | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | O'Grady, J. | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Cooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Whitley, Johon Henry (Halifax) |
| Hancock, J. G. | Partington, Oswald | Miles, Thomas |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Pointer, J. | Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Henry, Charles S. | Radford, G. H. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Raphael, Herbert H. | |
| Higham, John Sharp | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | |
| Hodge, John | Richardson, A. |
Sir W. ROBSON Claimed "That the Main Question be now put." Question, "That those words be there inserted," put accordingly, and agreed to.
§ 3.0 A.M.
§ Sir W. ROBSON claimed to move, "That in respect of the words of the
1276§ Clause to the end thereof the Chair be empowered to select the Amendments to be proposed."
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 154; Noes, 65.
1277| Division No. 465.] | AYES. | [3.7 a. m. |
| Acland Francis Dyke | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Esslemont, George Birnie |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Cleland, J. W. | Evans, Sir S. T. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Clive, Percy Archer | Fenwick, Charles |
| Armitage, R. | Clough, William | Ferens, T. R. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Clynes, J. R. | Fuller, John Michael F. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John |
| Barnard, E. B. | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Glover, Thomas |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Cooper, G. J. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Beauchamp, E. | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Crosfield, A. H. | Hancock, J. G. |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Crossley, William J. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Brace, William | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Branch, James | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Duckworth, Sir James | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh) | Duncan, c. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Elibank, Master of | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Erskine, David C. | Henry, Charles S. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Essex, R. W. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) |
| Higham, John Sharp | Myer, Horatio | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Hodge, John | Partington, Oswald | Summerbell, T. |
| Hooper, A. G. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Hudson, Walter | Pointer, J. | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Jackson, R. S. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Jenkins, J. | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Tomkinson, James |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Toulmin, George |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Jowett, F. W. | Radford, G. H. | Verney, F. W. |
| Lambert, George | Raphael, Herbert H. | Walsh, Stephen |
| Lamont, Norman | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Richardson, A. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Mackarness, Frederic C. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Maclean, Donald | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Macpherson, J. T. | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Rose, Sir Charles Day | Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth) |
| M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Rowlands, J. | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Mallet, Charles E. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Marnham, F. J. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. | |
| Middlebrook, William | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | |
| Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Seely, Colonel | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Worrell, Philip | Shackleton, David James | |
| Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Simon, John Allsebrook | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds) | Renton, Leslie |
| Ashley, W. W. | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hill, Sir Clement | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Bridgeman, W. Cilve | Hunt, Rowland | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Cave, George | Joynson-Hicks, William | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Stanler, Seville |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Starkey, John R. |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Morpeth, Viscount | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Winterton, Earl |
| Foster, P. T. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Younger, George |
| Gardner, Ernest | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Mr. Pike Pease. |
| Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Percy, Earl | |
| Gordon, J. | Randies, Sir John Scurrah |
Question, "That the words 'owner considers' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Sir W. ROBSON moved, in Section (1), to leave out the words "if no" ["and if no objection is taken to the return"] and to insert the word "unless."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir W. ROBSON moved to leave out the word "return" ["and unless objection is taken to the return"] and to insert the -words "provisional valuation in manner provided by this section."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir W. ROBSON moved to leave out the words "declared in the return" ["the values declared in the return"] and to 1278 insert the words "shown in the provisional valuation."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir W. ROBSON moved, in Section (2), to leave out the words "Commissioners consider" ["If the Commissioners consider that the total or site value"].
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir W. ROBSON moved, in Section (2), to insert the words "owner considers" ["If the owner considers that the total or site value "].
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
1279§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI desire to move an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to insert after the word "owner" the words "or any person having any interest in the land."
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI cannot accept that Amendment.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThen we must raise the point on the Amendment moved by the Attorney-General for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I entirely agree it would have been much more convenient to have raised this question on Section (1). It was not our fault we did not. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) wished to raise it at a moment which you did not think convenient, and owing to action which was beyond our control we were prevented from raising the point on Section (1). It would be monstrous, if, after having been prevented from moving it on Section (1), because of the Closure moved by the Attorney-General, we were prevented from moving it on Section (2). The Government have got to meet the point involved. I say that without hesitation, not because of the justice of the case, for that would not give me so much confidence, but because of the statement made by the Government that they would meet it. Even when they are using the Closure they cannot neglect their pledge, and they will not neglect it. The learned Attorney-General pointed out just now that "owner" for the purposes of the Act was denned in the definition clause. "The expression owner means the person entitled to the freehold of the land, except that where land is let on lease for a term of which more than fifty years are unexpired, the lessee under the lease shall be deemed to be the owner instead of the person entitled to the freehold." Accordingly, in the one case the owner of the freehold is the actual owner; in the other case, the lessee is treated as the owner. Both of these people are affected by this valuation, and both these people ought to have a right to be heard as to the justice of the valuation. Let me take as an illustration the case of a lessee as the owner within the terms of the definition clause. He has unexpired lease of more than 50 years, and therefore he is treated as the owner. It is to him that the Commissioners go to inquire for particulars, and to him they send their provisional valuation when they have received the particulars they want. But the valuation once made is binding on all parties concerned, and will become 1280 binding on the actual owner—not merely on the artificial owner, but on the actual owner. Well, in the converse case, the lessee will be bound by the valuation which the owner has made, and will have to pay the taxes. It is obvious that in each case there will be persons who have not had the valuation submitted to them, and who have had no opportunity of making any comments.
§ Sir W. ROBSONBut that point is met by another Amendment on the Paper providing that (6) "where a lessee is the owner of the land within the meaning of this Act, this section shall apply as if any person entitled to the fee simple reversion or to a leasehold reversion for a term of years exceeding twenty-one were the owner as well as the lessee."
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIt applies to the case where the lessee is for the purpose of this Act the owner. In that case the owner is to be treated as owner as well as lessee; but I do not think the case of the man whose lease is just less than 50 years unexpired is met at all. The case of the owner of the long lease is met, I think, by this proposed Section (6), but the case of the man mentioned is not met, neither is that of some other people having interest in the land.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe lessee referred to has to pay no tax.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThen he pays no tax at any period of the fifty years? If that is the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, perhaps he will make it good.
§ Sir W. ROBSONWhat will he pay?
§ Mr. A. CHAMBERLAINHe will pay increment value, will he not? But, there! we cannot carry on a discussion of this matter by question and answer, interrupting one another. There is my answer to the hon. and learned Gentletleman's request. Other persons interested in the land ought to have an opportunity of seeing this valuation. For instance, where the land has a mortgage upon it, the mortgagee's representatives should be given an opportunity of seeing these valuations and of seeing how the Commissioners make them up, and how they are affected in regard to the security of the mortgage. Under your ruling, Mr. Chairman, one of my hon. Friends cannot move the Amendment which he intended to introduce. We say the words of the- 1281 Government Amendments are inadequate, and I hope you will allow the Government to amend their own Amendment.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI would point out to the learned law officer that this valuation is in fact a permanent valuation. That being so, it is very important for the Government to see that all these people who have a right to make objection have reasonable opportunity for seeing the valuation. My right hon. Friend has instanced one case—that of the lessee. I think the whole question of the lessees is somewhat difficult, and it is not made any more easy by these Amendments put down at short notice. I will put two sets of cases—the case of the mortgagee and the life renters. The life renter is dealt with in Clause 28. But, after all, for the purposes of some of the duties, particularly for the purposes of Increment Duty, the man who has a real interest is not the life renter who, for the purposes of this Bill, is the owner, but the trustees and the ultimate fiar. And they are people who ought to have an opportunity of saying whether ox not the valuation which the Commissioners have arrived at is a fair valuation. I am quite sure the Government will have to meet this point, and I am quite certain that the draftsman of the Bill had it in his mind, although it is not met in the Bill itself. If the right hon. Gentleman will look a little lower down the section he will see the Commissioners are to have regard to persons raising reasonable objections. It may be taken to presume that some other person than the owner is to have the opportunity of stating his objections. After all, if a man does not make objection under this section to the provisional valuation he loses his right of appeal altogether. If the life renter or the trustees do not object to the valuation within 30 days they cannot appeal at all. If you do not give these people any right of appeal, you are in a fair way towards committing an injustice which I do not think the Government intend to commit.
§ Mr. CAVEThis is a very serious matter indeed; so may I, before the learned Attorney-General answers, direct his attention to an Amendment which I have put down towards the end of the clause. It provides that "Before adopting or determining any sum as the total or site value of any land for the purposes of this Part of this Act, the Commissioners shall give to every person interested in the land notice of the amount 1282 proposed to be adopted or determined and an opportunity of objecting thereto, and shall consider any objection made by any such person." I submit that is a very moderate way of providing for the difficulty. It is a real difficulty. May I put a case of settled land, in which A has a life interest with remainder to B. Under the Bill A alone is consulted as to site value. He may not care anything at all about it; he has nothing but a life interest. He may be an old man, and may not think it is at all likely that he will have to pay increment duty, and he may not trouble about it. Suppose the value is put too low, and the reversioner comes in and sells at a fair price. He has not been consulted about the original site value, yet he has to pay on the difference between the original site value and that sale price. It may be a very large sum indeed, because the original site value was fixed too low. Surely it is not intended that he shall be bound by a valuation made in his absence, on which he was not consulted, to which he had no kind of right to object, and against which he cannot appeal. That is a simple case, showing that this is a real point which deserves to be dealt with seriously, and by way of Amendment to the Bill. I see the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is here now, and perhaps he will consider it. We say that before the site value is fixed notice ought to be given not only to the technical owner of the land, who may be a mortgagor, or life tenant, or a person having a partial interest, but to every person who has a real interest in the land. All these other persons ought to have a right to consider the proposal to fix the site value, and an opportunity of objecting to the amount, and of appealing against the decision.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member has an Amendment on the Paper on this point. I think he should raise the question on that Amendment. If we pass on to that I shall be quite ready to call upon him to move it.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out the word "return" ["as stated in any return"], and to insert the words "provisional valuation."
§ Amendment agreed to.
1283§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out the words "they shall object to the return, and communicate with the owner of the land with a view to the Amendment of the return," and to insert the words "he may, with a view to an Amendment of the provisional valuation, within sixty days of the date on which the copy of the provisional valuation is served, or such extended time as the Commissioners may in any special case allow, give to the Commissioners notice of objection to the provisional valuation, stating the grounds of his objection and the Amendment he desires."
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI wish to ask the learned Attorney-General with reference to the time it is proposed to insert in this section, whether it has any effect, and, if so, what effect upon the previous section. In that section there was an amendment down intended to give a limit of time within which objection might be taken. That amendment was not discussed in consequence of the procedure we have adopted. Accordingly, Section (1) says that the provisional valuation becomes the definitive valuation unless objection is taken. It does not specify the time when the objection shall be taken, or any time after which the Commissioners need not receive it. Here you say, "If the owner considers that the total or site value, as stated in any provisional valuation, is not correct, he may with a view to an amendment of the provisional valuation, within sixty days of the date on which the copy of the provisional valuation is served, or such extended time as the Commissioners may in any special case allow, give to the Commissioners notice of objection." Is that the notice contemplated in Section (1)?
§ Sir W. ROBSONYes.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThat answers my point.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI consider that the time allowed of 60 days is too short in which to lodge an objection. The last part of the Amendment proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the owner has to set out the grounds of his objection and the Amendment he desires. That really means that he has to make his own valuation of the property during this time, and 60 days may very often be a very inadequate time. These 60 days date from the service of the notice, and by a subse- 1284 quent Amendment it is proposed that posting a letter to him may be taken as service. The owner may be abroad—even at the Antipodes—and the greater part of the 60 days may expire before he gets the notice at all. In many cases it will be utterly impossible for him to make the valuation, so that he could give grounds of objections to the Commissioners within the 60 days of the service of the notice. I submit that the time ought to be extended to 90 days. The owner will have to consult his legal and professional advisers and make up his mind with the utmost accuracy as to what Amendment he desires. All this will have to be put into form, and under the proposals of the Government a great deal of the 60 days will elapse before he has a chance of doing so. I should like to move to omit the words "sixty days" in order to insert "ninety days."
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI could not accept that. The Commissioners are here given power in any special case to give such extended time as they think fit.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN moved to leave out from the proposed Amendment the words "the grounds of his objection and" ["stating the grounds of his objection and the Amendment he desires"]. The Amendment will then provide that the owner may state the Amendment he desires.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSHe must give the grounds of his objection.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWhy should he? The Commissioners are not bound to give the owner particulars of their valuation. We asked that the Commissioners should be bound to give sufficient particulars to the person who is assessed to enable him to judge whether the valuation was fairly arrived at or not. The Government absolutely refused to place any obligation on the Commissioners to give any such information to the taxpayer. Thus it is now in the power of the Commissioners simply to say, "This is the total value of your estate, or of this plot of land, and we assess it at so much. This is the site value as we assessed it provisionally. If you do not like it say so." And the taxpayer, who does not know how the Commissioners have arrived at their value, is then to state his objections. Surely if he is to give the grounds of his objection he must know on what grounds the Commissioners have arrived at the valuation He may 1285 say, "My objection is that you have not deducted that which ought to be deducted." But, as it is, if he wants to know what the Commissioners have allowed for the land to be divested, or any other particulars, he can only arrive at the information he desires to get when he takes the Commissioners before a Referee or a court and is able to administer interrogatories to them. If you refuse that information as from the Commissioners to the taxpayer, I contend that you have not a shadow of right to claim that similar information should be given by the taxpayer to the Commissioners. If the Commissioners are not bound to disclose any part of their case to the taxpayer, it is not right that the taxpayer should have to disclose any part of his case to the Commissioners. It is only fair that the two should be placed on a similar footing. The taxpayer should not be asked to do more than he has a right to require from the Commissioners. I beg to move to leave out ''the grounds of his objection and."
§ Sir S. EVANSThis Amendment of my right hon. Friend has been on the Paper for some days, and there is not on the Paper any Amendment to the Amendment such as has now been moved by the right hon. Gentleman. The procedure is exactly an analogy of that pursued by the assessment committees in the case of rating, and if a rating assessment is objected to the person objecting has always, in addition to the objection he makes, to state the ground of his objection.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI do not think there is the slightest analogy between the two. I have drawn up hundreds of notices
§ of objection to rating assessments, and I can tell the Committee that rating assessments are quite a different matter from this. Here the valuation is entirely different; it is a much more complex matter. There is a site value, total value, cost of divestment, and so on. Really if the Commissioners are not going to give the unfortunate subject any details, I should like to know how he is to make up his mind. How is he to state the ground of his objection? The Commissioners may assess the site value at, say, £1,000, and the only ground of objection the unfortunate man can put forward is that the amount is too high. If, on the other hand, the Commissioners were to communicate to him the mode by which they arrived at the £1,000, then he would be able to say such and such a point is wrong. Thus he would be able to formulate some grounds of objection. But it is utterly impossible for him to formulate any grounds unless he knows the principles on which the Commissioners have arrived at the amount. The Solicitor-General gave no reason for the pursuance of the proposed course, except that the clause followed out the line of assessment in ordinary house rating. That is no analogy whatever, and the learned Gentleman has not met the contention raised by my right hon. friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). He has not shown us how the subject could give grounds of objection unless he knows the lines on which the Commissioners have made up the figures of site value.
§ Question put, "That the words 'the grounds of his objection and' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 59.
1287| Division No. 466.] | AYES. | [3.45 a. m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Clynes, J. R. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) |
| Armitage, R. | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Hancock, J. G. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Cooper, G. J. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Barnard, E. B, | Crosfield, A. H. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Crossley, William J. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. George) | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Brace, William | Duckworth, Sir James | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Branch, James | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Henry, Charles S. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh) | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Brunner, Rt.- Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Essex, R. W. | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Esslemont, George Birnle | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Evans, Sir S. T. | Hodge, John |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Fenwick, Charles | Hooper, A. G. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Ferens, T. R. | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Cleland, J. W. | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Hudson, Walter |
| Clough, William | Glover, Thomas | Jackson, R. S. |
| Jenkins, J. | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Summerbell, T. |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Pointer, J. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Jowett, F. W. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Lambert, George | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Lamont, Norman | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Radford, G. H. | Tomkinson, James |
| Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Rainy, A. Rolland | Toulmin, George |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Raphael, Herbert H. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Maclean, Donald | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Verney, F. W. |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Macpherson, J. T. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Richardson, A. | Watt, Henry A. |
| M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Mallet, Charles E. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Wiles, Thomas |
| Marnham, F. J. | Rose, Sir Charles Day | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Middlebrook, William | Rowlands, J. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Morrell, Philip | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Myer, Horatio | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Norman, Sir Henry | Seely, Colonel | |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Shackleton, David James | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Partington, Oswald | Simon, John Allsebrook | |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Ashley, W. W. | Gordon, J. | Percy, Earl |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Randies, Sir John Scurrah |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cave, George | Hill, Sir Clement | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Hunt, Rowland | Stanier, Beville |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Joynson-Hicks, William | Starkey, John R. |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Younger, George |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | |
| Forster, Henry William | Morpeth, Viscount | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joynson-Hicks and Mr. Mitchell Thomson. |
| Foster, P. S. | Morrison-Bell, Captain | |
| Gardner, Ernest | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSMay I ask whether it would be sufficient to comply with the provisions of this section if the subject states as the ground of his objection—the only one I think it possible to state—that the assessment is too high? Is that sufficient compliance with the term-s of this section?
§ Sir S. EVANSThat ground might certainly be stated as one of the grounds.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSCan you suggest any other?
§ Sir S. EVANSThere are plenty of others. Take the case of rating. In the first place, if the objection is made simply upon the Amendment, that is the only ground they can go into. Another ground might be that he is not in occupation. Another ground might be that in comparison with the assessment of other people 1288 in the same valuation list his assessment is either too high or too low, as the case might be.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMay I ask whether the supposed objector would have access to the assessments made by the Commissioners of other properties? The Solicitor-General suggests as one ground of objection which the taxpayer could take, the fact that his assessment is unduly high compared with neighbouring properties. This is a very pertinent question, and I raised it once before and had no definite answer. If he may not have access to these other valuations as they are made, wall it not be out of his power to take such an objection as that? The Solicitor-General himself introduced this as one of the grounds of objection which the man might take. I sub- 1289 mit that he clearly cannot take it unless he has access to the other valuations as they are made. If he is the first one clearly he cannot make that objection, but the Solicitor-General is considering the process as having gone some way. He takes the case of a man, some of whose neighbours have already been assessed, and says a proper ground of objection would be that this man's assessment is too high in comparison with those of his neighbours. I ask the Solicitor-General to give me an answer to my question. Will such a man have access to the valuations of his neighbours so as to judge whether a due proportion is being observed or whether he is being unreasonably treated as compared with them? I ask the question because I do not know of any provision in the Bill as it originally stood that would have given him that information, and I have not observed any Amendment that would give him such access.
§ Sir S. EVANSI only said that this case might be regarded as analogous to the case of rating because various grounds of objection might be made. I do not know that every ground would stand in this case, because I do not know that there would be access to any of the other valuations. I will not say he would have access to the various rate-books. If anything appears on the register, then, of course, he would have access, but not necessarily to anything else.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSThe Solicitor-General has withdrawn from the position he took up a few minutes ago. He told us an owner could either say the valuation was too high, or that it was too high compared with other people. Is there any other ground whatever that he can suggest as a ground of objection except that the valuation is too high?
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI understood it was an essential part of the Government's scheme that there were to be local land registries which would be open to the inspection of anyone. Am I not right in supposing that once a valuation had
§ been accepted an owner would be able to have access to any valuation that had been set out in the local land registry?
§ 4.0 A.M.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMy hon. Friend behind me pointed out that the problem of valuation for rating purposes is about the simplest problem of the kind you can have. The problem of valuation under this Bill is about the most complicated problem of valuation you can have. The possible causes of error in regard to rating are reduced almost to one—that of assuming that too high a rate can be got from the land. The possible causes of error here are numberless. That goes far to destroy the Solicitor-General's analogy.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEOn a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends are now discussing the very issue upon which we had not merely a Debate, but a Division.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSWhat we did on the last Amendment was to move the omission of the words "grounds of his objection." Now we are trying to find out what those grounds of objection are.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell)The hon. Member must remember that the discussion took place on the very point raised just now, and the discussion cannot be reopened.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe Solicitor-General has told us that whereas in the case of an appeal for rates the ratepayer has access to all the other valuations made in the district, and can therefore see at a glance whether he has been treated in the same way as his neighbours in a similar position. Here he will have access to no such information, and that matter, the Committee will see, has an enormous bearing upon the amount of litigation which will be necessitated under this Bill.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 54.
1291| Division No. 467.] | AYES. | [4.5 a.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Burns, Rt. Hon. John |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Bowerman, C. W. | Carr-Gomm, H. W. |
| Armitage, R. | Brace, William | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Branch, James | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Brooke, Stopford | Cleland, J. W. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes, Leigh) | Clough, William |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Clynes, J. R. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Cooper, G J. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead | Jewett, F. W. | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Lambert, George | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Crossley, William J. | Lamont, Norman | Rowlands, J. |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Lewis, John Herbert | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Maclean, Donald | Seely, Colonel |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Shackleton, David James |
| Essex, R. W. | Macpherson, J. T. | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Esslemont, George Birnle | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Mallet, Charles E. | Summerbell, T. |
| Ferens, T. R. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Taylor, John W (Durham) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Marnham, F. J. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Glover, Thomas | Middlebrook, William | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Worrell, Philip | Tomkinson, James |
| Hancock, J. G. | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Toulmin, George |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Roseendale) | Myer, Horatio | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Verney, F. W. |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Norman, Sir Henry | Walsh, Stephen |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Partington, Oswald | Watt, Henry A. |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | White, J Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Henry, Charles S. | Pointer, J. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Higham, John Sharp | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Kobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Hodge, John | Radford, G. H. | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull) |
| Hooper, A. G | Raphael, Herbert H. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Herniman, Emslie John | Res, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | |
| Hudson Walter | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Jackson, R. S. | Richardson, A. | |
| Jenkins, J. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Gordon, J. | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds) | Percy, Earl |
| Bridgeman, W. Cilve | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Cave, George | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hill, Sir Clement | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Hunt, Rowland | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Stanier, Beville |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Starkey, John R. |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Forster, Henry William | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Younger, George |
| Foster, P. S. | Morpeth Viscount | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joynson-Hicks and Mr. Mitchell-Thomson. |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Morrison-Bell, Captain | |
| Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to insert out the words "owner amends the return in manner" ["If the Commissioners consider that the total or site value, as stated in any return is not correct, they shall object to the return and communicate with the owner of the land with a view to an amendment of the return, and if the 'owner amends the return in manner' satisfactory to the Commissioners"] and to insert instead thereof the words "Commissioners amend the provisional valuation so as to be."
1292§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out the words "the Commissioners" ["and if the owner amends the return in manner satisfactory to 'the Commissioners'"] and to insert the words "all persons making objections."
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI should like to know who these persons are. I notice that more than one person can make objections. But what number? Does the number include mortgagees?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThat is the very point that is raised in another Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out the word "return" ["the total and site value as stated in the amended return"] and to insert +he word "valuation."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved in Section (3) after the word "If" to leave out the words "no return is made in accordance with this Act in respect of any land by the owner of the land, or if an owner refuses to amend a return which is objected to by the Commissioners, or fails to amend the return in manner satisfactory to the Commissioners, the value of the land shall be determined by the Commissioners,' and to insert instead thereof the words "the provisional valuation is not amended by the Commissioners so as to be satisfactory to any objector, that objector may give a notice of reference under this Act with respect to the valuation, but if no such notice is given—"
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (for Lord Robert Cecil) moved to substitute the word "appeal" for "reference" ["reference under this Act"].
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIt is an appeal by reference.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIf the right hon. Gentleman will turn to the appeal clauses he will see that the side leading is "Appeals to Referees." The word there is not "reference" but "appeal."
Further Amendment made to leave out from the proposed Amendment the word "reference" and to insert instead thereof the word "appeal."
Question, "That the Amendment, as amended, stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out the words "so determined" ["the total and site value 'so determined' by the Commissioners"] and to insert "as stated in the provisional valuation, subject to such Amendments as may be made by the Commissioners in order to meet objections."
§ Amendment agreed to.
1294§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to omit the words "subject, in cases where the owner of the land has made a return, to an appeal under this Act,"
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. G. CAVE moved to insert a new section: "(4) Before adopting or determining any sum as the total or site value of any land for the purposes of thi3 part of this Act, the Commissioners shall give to every person known to them to be interested in the land notice of the amount proposed to be adopted or determined and an opportunity of objecting thereto, and shall consider any objection made by any such person."
§ I think provision is made for hearing owners' objections and for giving them the right of appeal. But besides the owner, there are a number of other persons who have just as great an interest in settling the value as the owner. There is the case of the mortgagee. Then, as the valuation will be binding upon the reversioner, he should be heard. And then there is the case of the lessee for a term under 50 years. As the Bill stands he will not be heard. I am quite sure that if you look at this point you will think that the actual framer of the Bill looked forward to some provision of this kind. It has been, contemplated that objections could be made by all sorts of persons entertaining objections. Clause 22 provides that any person aggrieved may appeal. He stands to lose by the valuation if it is too high or too low, or otherwise inaccurate. How can a person aggrieved appeal unless he has a chance of taking part in the valuation? If you look at Clause 22, Section (1) (a) you will see that an appeal shall not lie against the valuation except on the part of a person who has made an objection to the provisional valuation. If that provision remains as it is the other persons—the mortgagee, the lessee, and reversioner—will neither have the right to be heard on the original determination of the site value nor the right to appeal to the Referee against the decision of the Commissioners. That is putting them into a position of such grave injustice, that the result produced by the Bill cannot have been intended. It may be said, of course, that there may be persons interested whom the Commissioners do not know, and that, therefore, you cannot expect them to give notice to those whom they do not know. No doubt that is a reasonable point to take. I suggest that it would be met by 1295 providing that they should give notice to every person known to them to be interested. They will know if they have had proper particulars from the owners of all the persons interested.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI should be inclined to agree if we had a register of all persons interested in the land. I feel very much difficulty in accepting the Amendment as it stands. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cave) says that the point is purely a technical one, but it is a very serious one Supposing the words were passed as originally put on the Paper it would mean that if the Commissioners left a single person out it would vitiate the whole valuation. That is a prospect we could not contemplate with equanimity. Even in the modified form, although it is open to less objection, there is still considerable ambiguity about it. I am not sure on whom the burden of proof will rest as to whether the Commissioners did or did not know. There is always that element of doubt about the valuation. I am disposed, however, to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman's objection to the clause as it stands, and go so far as I possibly can, compatible with the safety of the valuation, to meet him. I agree that the mortgagee may have a real interest in the matter and that he ought to have an opportunity of stating his views. Is it to depend upon notice being given to the mortgagee whether the Commissioners did or did not know? There may be no end of mortgagees. The first mortgagee may not be a person who is interested. There may be a second, third, or no end of mortgagees. Are all of these to have notice? Subject, of course, to revision on Report, the words I am prepared to accept at this stage are "any person interested in the land, not being an owner, may apply to the Commissioners for a copy of the provisional valuation of the land before it is finally settled and shall then have the same right of giving notice of objection and of appealing as the owner." That will cast upon them the burden of seeking out the Commissioners and demanding the valuation. Everyone will know that a valuation will be made.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEDoes the hon. and learned Member doubt that everyone will know it?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGENot if he sells the land?
§ Mr. CAVEWhen he sells the land the site value comes into consideration. Supposing the first valuation is made early next year, can it be said that the mortgagee, necessarily knows anything about it?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEBut surely this turns on the original valuation of land—the general valuation. Everybody who is a mortgagor and mortgagee knows that the moment the Bill is through the Government will proceed to value the land. The mortgagee is to give notice to the Commissioners that he is a party interested and to demand a copy of the valuation. He gets it and then he has the same rights under the appeal section as the mortgagor. What more can be required than that? If this proceeding went on in the dark it would be quite a different matter, but it is well known to everybody. I am rather surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not see that. I am going as far to meet him as I possibly can. Under the words I suggest the moment a man has any doubt as to valuation all he has to do is to give notice to the Commissioners, and the moment the valuation is made a copy is supplied to him and he has the full right of making any objection as if he were the owner. If the hon. and learned Gentleman were my legal adviser he would not advise me to go beyond this.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone a long way to meet us, and I hope my hon. Friend will accept the offer which the right hon. Gentleman has made. I think what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has offered to do will have this effect, that any one of the parties interested, not being the owner, will find it open to him to give notice at once to the Commissioners, after the passing of the Bill, if he wants to see the valuation as it affects him. That will inform the Commissioners who the parties interested are, and the result no doubt will be to lead to a very large amount of correspondence, which my hon. Friend's original proposal would have avoided. Nevertheless I think we should accept what the right hon. Gentleman proposes.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONIs it quite clear that the notice that you want a copy of the valuation must be given beforehand?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGECertainly.
§ Mr. CAVEI agree that the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes a very long way, though not quite so far as I should like it to go. Under the circumstances, however, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI move to add at the end of Section (3), "Any person interested in the land, not being an owner, may apply to the Commissioners for a copy of the provisional valuation of the land before it is finally settled, and shall then have the same right of giving notice of objection and of appealing as the owner."
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved in Section (4) after "been" ["this Act has not been"] to insert "finally."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved in Section (4) to leave out "declared" ["as if the values as declared"] and to insert "shown."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved in Section (4) to leave out "return of the owner" "in the return of the owner"] and to insert "provisional valuation, or, if the provisional valuation has been amended by the Commissioners, as shown in the valuation as so amended."
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some explanation of the wording of this section, and I think this would probably be the most convenient time to do it. The section is, as I understand, intended to deal with a temporary situation during the time while the valuation is in. progress, but has not been completed. During that time there will be three possibilities. There will be some land during those three or four years within which it is calculated the whole work can be done on which the final valuation will have been made, and some land also on which the provisional valuation will have been made. I think those two cases have been provided for by the Government; but what 1298 about the cases where no valuation at all has been made? I do not think those cases are provided for. I am unaware whether the matter has escaped the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but as I read the Bill, if no valuation has been made there will be no tax. I am sure that was not the Chancellor of the Exchequer's intention. I will read the section as it would stand if the Amendment were inserted: (4) "Where the value to be adopted as the original total or the original site value of any land for the purposes of this part of this Act has not been finally settled at the time when any duty under this part of this Act becomes leviable, any duty under this part of this Act shall be assessed as if the values as shown in the provisional valuation, or, if the provisional valuation has been amended by the Commissioners, as shown in the valuation as so amended," etc. What happens when there is no provisional valuation? I need not labour the point, but I should like to get an answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI have a distinct recollection of having discussed this-question at an early hour of the morning when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) was present. We discussed it on an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for West Derby (Mr. Watson Rutherford), who, I believe, raised the point as to whether we might not collect arrears for twenty years. I agreed that that was obviously not the intention of the Government, and we decided to limit the period to three years. As I say, I have a full recollection of this circumstance and the right hon. Gentleman will find that all these matters are provided for in Clause 13.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINOn reflection I think that is so.
Question "That the words 'return of the owner' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
Question "That the words 'provisional valuation, or, if the provisional valuation has been amended by the Commissioners, as shown in the valuation as so amended' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved in Section (4) to leave out the word "for" ["were the values adopted for"] and to insert the word "as."
§ Amendment agreed to.
1299§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out "ultimately ascertained" ["on the values to be adopted being ultimately ascertained"] and to insert "finally settled."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to add after Section (4):—
§ (5) A copy of a provisional valuation under this section shall be sufficiently served if served by post at the address of the owner furnished to the Commissioners under the powers given to them to require a person who pays rent to furnish the address of the person to whom he pays rent, or if that address cannot be ascertained, by leaving a copy addressed to the owner, with some occupier of the land, or if there is no occupier, by causing it to be put up in some conspicuous place on the land.
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI hope the Committee will not accept this new Section (5) or, at all events, that certain matters should be strengthened very much. At the present moment it is perfectly possible that the owner, the person really interested in the land, may never get hold of a copy of the original valuation. It may be served by some Tom, Dick or Harry who may be a tenant four or five times removed from the owner with several lessors one after the other over him—some tenant, perhaps, in a slum in the East End of London. One knows how difficult it is in such cases to get at the owner. They often have not the least idea who the owner is. I could take the right hon. Gentleman to many a slum property in our large towns, particularly in London, where the tenant, the person actually in possession, has not the remotest idea who is the owner of the land. All he knows is that a man in a blue hat comes round on Monday morning and collects the rent. He does not even know in many cases the name of the man who collects the rent. I venture to suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman goes to our smaller house properties he would not find 25 per cent, of the actual tenants who know the name of the owner of the property.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEWhat is the alternative suggestion?
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSThat is not quite so easy to say, but it is not my 1300 duty to provide alternatives for the right hon. Gentleman. I think possibly that if these valuation lists were put on all the church doors something might be done. All the valuations of house property assessments are put in printed valuation lists which are accessible. There is no such provision so far as I can see in this Bill. If I want to know whether my property is assessed for ordinary rates I go to the proper place and see a valuation list. There is no such provision, in so far as I know, in this Bill. That is one suggestion. A valuation list might be got out of capital values just as at present is done in regard to rating. As the clause stands it is not sufficient to make it reasonably certain that the owner, the man who is vitally interested in getting the thing correct, in getting a proper valuation of his land, ever has had valuation sent to him.
§ Mr. JAMES MASONIf possible, the provision of this sub-section should in some way be widened so as to give to a considerable class of people who are certainly liable to this tax the right to have their valuation sent to their addresses. I have an Amendment suggesting that the copy of the valuation should be sent also to the address of any mortgagee, owner of a rentcharge, or other person entitled to an interest in the land. I see, however, that a difficulty might arise as to whether those addresses could necessarily be discovered by the Commissioners.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThis is much more an imaginary difficulty than a real one. It will be thoroughly well known that there is a valuation of all these values throughout the country. It will be the business of the owner to see that the Commissioners are furnished with his name and address. I have not the faintest doubt that the Commissioners will be able to get at the real amount, and the owners will themselves supply the information. I notice an Amendment that there should be an intimation in the "London Gazette," I should say that owners of this kind of property would know just as much about the "London Gazette" as they would about the church door. The only effective way in which you can do it is for the owners themselves to supply the necessary information.
§ Mr. JOHN GORDONIf the right hon. Gentleman would inquire from the Commissioners of Valuation in Ireland he would get valuable information on this point. When valuations are made there 1301 is a list sent round either to the boards of guardians, or to the urban authority or to the county councils, as the case may be, but, chiefly, in the urban district to the town councils, and in other districts to the boards of guardians. Everyone knows that, and when a change is made in rates, any man who owns property under the rating authority can at once go and find out what change has been made. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman ask the Commissioners of Valuation in Ireland for the valuable information which they would be able to give him as to how the change is made and communicated to the owners. No difficulty arises there. It is not dependent upon either an inaccurate or an incomplete account given by a person who is in possession actually of the premises, but it depends upon the regular, well-recognised, long established system by which everyone finds out what changes are made in the rates.
Mr. SCOTT-DICKSONSo far as Scotland is concerned the valuation roll shows the owner and occupier and the owner's address, and the difference in our system may make it quite easy to overcome the difficulties. I put in a caveat now because I propose to raise the question when we come to deal with the Scotch law.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI think there is a great deal to be said so far as Scotland is concerned. There you have owners registered on as good a valuation roll as there is in the whole of the United Kingdom. I will consider that, and if u is the general view taken by the Scottish Members there ought to be no difficulty about it.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONIf the valuation may be made at any time within the four years and the man has only got 60 days in which to enter his objections it becomes very necessary that he should be advised as to the precise moment the valuation is going to be made. The church door serves the purpose very well in Scotland, though I do not know about the rest of the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEIf these words remain, it is certain that a considerable number of owners will not get the notice. Either the occupiers will not forward it, or, if it is left in some conspicuous public place the nearest street boy will tear it down. This is a case that ought to be 1302 met. There are owners of vacant plots which have no occupiers. The owners are waiting to sell the plots and there is really nobody on the spot at all responsible to the owner, who will not probably give a thought to the land for months at a time. I do ask the Government to look at the Amendment I have put down: "Provided that should the owner subsequently prove that through no fault of his own he has never received or been apprised of the notice, that notice shall be deemed not to have been served." That will cover the case of a man coming back from abroad, for example, and finding that he had received no notice, and that his agent had never had any. Unless some such precaution is taken very great hardship will be inflicted on a considerable number of people.
§ Colonel R. WILLIAMSSome place is needed where the owner can find this valuation list, and then it would become the natural duty of the owner to see it. If no place is fixed, the owner can plead that he knows nothing about the list. It does not matter whether it is the church door or somewhere else so long as a place is fixed.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI venture to suggest that in order to get the Government out of a difficulty that information should be sent to the clerk of the assessment committee. It is done already in Ireland.
§ Mr. CLYDEIs not the right hon. Gentleman exaggerating his difficulties here? The difficulty suggested apparently is that of getting either the names or addresses or both of some owners, and that, therefore, the Commissioners are, if possible, to be spared the trouble of finding that information out for themselves. In order to recover the duty both the name and address of the owner must get into the hands of the Crown before the duty can be recovered, and if there is no insuperable difficulty in getting the name and address at that stage, what are the circumstances which make the difficulty insuperable when it is a question of valuation? I do ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has not himself provided for a difficulty here which is largely imaginary.
§ Question put, "That those words be there added."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 48.
1303| Division No. 468.] | AYES. | [5.0 a.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Radford, G. H. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Helme, Norval Watson | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Armitage, R. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Henry, Charles S. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Richardson, A. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Higham, John Sharp | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Hobart, Sir Robert | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. George) | Hodge, John | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hooper, A. G. | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Brace, William | Horniman, Emslie John | Rowlands, J. |
| Branch, James | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Hudson, Walter | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Jackson, R. S. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Jenkins, J. | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Seely, Colonel |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Shackleton, David James |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Jowett, F. W. | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Lambert, George | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Lamont, Norman | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Cleland, J. W. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Clough, William | Lewis, John Herbert | Summerbell, T. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Maclean, Donald | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Macpherson, J. T. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Crossley, William J. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Tomkinson, James |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Toulmin, George |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Mallet, Charles E. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Markham, Arthur Basil | Verney, F. W. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Marnham, F. J. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Masterman, C. F. G. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Elibank, Master of | Middlebrook, William | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Essex, R. W. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Morrell, Philip | Wiles, Thomas |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Fenwick, Charles | Myer, Horatio | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Norman, Sir Henry | Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Glover, Thomas | Partington, Oswald | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Hancock, J. G. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Pointer, J. | |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| NOES. | ||
| Baldwin, Stanley | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hill, Sir Clement | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cave, George | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hunt, Rowland | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Joynson-Hicks, William | Stanier, Beville |
| Clive, Percy Archer | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Starkey, John R. |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craik, Sir Henry | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Younger, George |
| Forster, Henry William | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Morrison-Bell, Captain | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Remnant and Mr. G. A. Gibbs. |
| Gordon, J. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to insert the following new section, "(6) Where a lessee is the owner of the land within the meaning of this Act, this section shall apply as if any person entitled to the fee simple reversion or to a leasehold rever- 1304 sion for a term of years exceeding twenty-one were the owner as well as the lessee."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
1305§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI wish to make one observation about the clause before the Committee passes it. This is a clause which deals with the ascertaining of the original total and the original site value, and under the concessions announced by the Government, the latter profess to be under the impression and would wish this Committee and the country to believe that the cost of the valuation will now be borne by the State, and that if any expense is inflicted upon the owners of property it will be very slight indeed. Consider that proposition in the light of this clause. What will happen? The Commissioners will make a valuation and will inform the owner of any particular parcel of land that they have arrived at a conclusion that the proper total value of the land is so much, and that the proper site value of the land is such and such a sum. They will give him no further information, and he is there and then given a limited time in which to make up his mind whether or not he will accept those two valuations or appeal against them. Not only will the owner have to make up his mind, but, in addition, the other parties interested, to whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given the right of objection and appeal, will also have to make up their minds. What will be the position of "the owner in such circumstances? If he had full paticulars of the valuation and the methods by which it was arrived at it might be possible for him, in many cases, without recourse to
§ skilled assistance, to say whether or not he would accept that valuation. But he will have no particulars as to how the result was arrived at. He will know nothing but the final figure on which the Commissioners have settled. He will not know what they have allowed for, or how much they have allowed for each matter for which they have allowed a deduction or reduction in the amount of the valuation. In these circumstances it will be absolutely necessary for every man, except in the simplest cases we can possibly imagine, to have recourse to skilled assistance in order to test the equity of the valuation which the Commissioners have made. While it is true that you have removed from the taxpayer—he may not always be a taxpayer—the primary obligation of supplying the Commissioners with a valuation, you leave him under an obligation which is stronger than law, to go to the expense of separate advice in order to ascertain how on earth the Commissioners could arrive at their valuation and whether he ought to accept it or not. By the refusal of the Amendment we moved to this clause, for the giving of particulars to the taxpayer similar to those they will require from the taxpayer, the Government are rendering largely nugatory the concession they believe will clear the taxpayer of all expenses of valuation.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 48.
1307| Division No. 469.] | AYES. | [5.15 a.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Armitage, R. | Duckworth, Sir James | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Hodge, John |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Hooper, A. G. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Elibank, Master of | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Seek, A. Cecil | Essex, R. W. | Hudson, Walter |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Esslemont, George Birnie | Jackson, R. S. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Jenkins, J. |
| Brace, William | Fenwick, Charles | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Branch, James | Ferens, T. R. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Fuller, John Michael F. | Jowett, F. W. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Lambert, George |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Glover, Thomas | Lamont, Norman |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hancock, J. G. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Maclean, Donald |
| Cleland, J. W. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Clough, William | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Macpherson, J. T. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Haworth, Arthur A. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Helme, Norval Watson | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Henry, Charles S. | Marnham, F. J. |
| Crossley, William J. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon, S.) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Middlebrook, William | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Tomkinson, James |
| Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Toulmin, George |
| Morrell, Philip | Rose, Sir Charles Day | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Rowlands, J. | Verney, F. W. |
| Myer, Horatio | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Walsh, Stephen |
| Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Partington, Oswald | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Seely, Colonel | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Shackleton, David James | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Simon, John Allsebrook | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Pointer, J. | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Strachey, Sir Edward | Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Summerbell, T. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras S.) |
| Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Radford, G. H. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Raphael, Herbert H. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Thomasson, Franklin | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Richardson, A. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Baldwin, Stanley | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hill, Sir Clement | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cave, George | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hunt, Rowland | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Joynson-Hicks, William | Stanier, Beville |
| Clyde, J. Avon | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Starkey, John R. |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| 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 |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Younger, George |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Morrison-Bell, Captain | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Lord E. Talbot. |
| Gordon, J. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI rise to move "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again." I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself must feel that we have now reached a time in the morning's proceedings when we might reasonably be allowed to go to bed. I think that is not an unreasonable claim on the part of those who have been in the House for the last fifteen hours or so. I would suggest that even those Cabinet Ministers who have favoured us with their presence must need rest, though at intervals throughout the night they have had an advantage over us, inasmuch as they have not only private rooms to which they can retire, but they can arrange themselves into "guards" to watch the proceedings in turn, which enables them to benefit by short periods of relaxation when they are off duty. It is, I must confess, difficult to think of any arguments likely to move the stony heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I would suggest to him that even Members of Parliament are creatures of habit, and that if we are to have these frequent all-night sittings some scheme should be arranged whereby a limit would be fixed for our proceedings. I would suggest that the limit should be reached when the lights 1308 go out and the daylight comes in. That would have an advantage for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the nearer we get to Christmas the longer the lights will be burning and the more tardy will be the appearance of daylight. I do not in the least know what is the idea of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the length of time he intends to keep us here, but I am sure, however zealous hon. Gentlemen opposite may be, however ready they may be to show the Government that they are willing to sit up all night to carry the Budget through, yet there is a limit to their endurance, as there is to ours. Moreover, there is an even greater limit to the amount of intelligence which Members in all parts of the House can bring to bear on the. Bill at this time of the morning, and our discussions must suffer on that account. I cannot help but think that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer must feel it is unreasonable to keep the proceedings of the Committee going on without affording us any idea when they are likely to come to an end. The Committee should realise that this is not legislating, but it is forcing a Bill—the most important Bill for a long while past—through the House of Commons by a procedure which, in my 1309 opinion, is more grotesque when employed night after night than any guillotine could possibly be.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe hon. Member has offered me various suggestions as to the way in which this Bill may be conducted, and we may get on with the work that is before us. Perhaps he will allow me to make a counter suggestion. It is that, I think, we should get on a little better if there were fewer Motions to report Progress. We consumed—I will not say wasted—about three-quarters of an hour on a motion of this kind about half-past one this morning, and I suppose we shall take some time over this one. I cannot help feeling that it would be far better were that time devoted to examination of the clauses of the Bill. I am not going to follow the hon. Gentleman into an examination of the comparative advantages of this method of procedure, and of the guillotine. I have been in the House longer than the hon. Gentleman. I have been here for nearly 20 years, most of which time has been spent in Opposition; and I have no hesitation in saying that in connection with Bills in which I took a keen interest I would far rather have had this procedure than the guillotine at any stage. The hon. Gentleman has spent most of his time as a Member of a Ministry, and I agree that from the point of view of the Ministry the guillotine is a much easier path. It means that at half-past ten at night the guillotine falls and snuts out for ever all the Amendments to a particular part of the Bill save those of the Government. That is all right for the Government, but from the point of view of the Opposition I say, without hesitation, that if I were concerned to secure any improvement in a Bill I would infinitely rather have this procedure, with all its inconvenience, than the guillotine. I think the Opposition must realise from the concessions which have been made that what I am saying is true. Naturally I feel that it would be much easier to carry things through by the aid of the guillotine than it is by this kind of work. I agree that it is not a pleasant thing to sit up night after night, as we have to do to make the progress that is necessary. Let me point out this also. Whatever the responsibility of the Opposition may be, it is as nothing compared to the responsibility of conducting a measure like this through the House, for the Minister who has 1310 charge of it has to examine every criticism of the Bill, and has to stand or fall by the measure as it finally emerges from the House. Therefore I repeat that it is not a pleasant duty to have to undertake this work throughout prolonged sittings. It is infinitely better that we should proceed in this way than that we should proceed by the guillotine. I do not say they are pleasant alternatives, but they are the only alternatives. The late Government were driven to the guillotine. I am very glad to be making the experiment of getting on without it, but I am sure that if we did not have this succession of all-night sittings the guillotine would be the only alternative. If the Opposition are really concerned in having their thumb-marks upon this Budget, they will find this the best way of making the impression. I think it will be admitted that some of the discussions that we have had at three, four, and five o'clock in the morning had been the most business-like discussions we have had at all. I hope that in the interests of progress the right hon. Gentleman will now allow us to-proceed with the Bill.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI think the Chancellor's speech really shows how amidst the charms of office we forget the attitude we assumed when in Opposition. When the Chancellor stated that when in Opposition he always preferred to sit up all night on a Bill in which he was interested and in which he was taking an active part rather than have the discussions threatened by any summary procedure, I carried my mind back, not merely to scenes in this House, but to scenes which must, even to this day, be painful reminiscences to the Chancellor, in a Committee room upstairs, when Mr. Gladstone eventually intervened to rescue the Committee from the position of impotence to which the Chancellor and one or two of his friends had reduced him, and he relieved the Chancellor from cutting short a promising; career owing to overstrain and brain breakdown which might have been caused by his proceedings in the Committee. I am under the impression that Mr. Gladstone adopted novel procedure and put an end to the proceedings of the Commitee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests that my hon. Friend was moved, in the suggestions he made, by considerations of what might happen at some subsequent time. Every precedent that a Government sets in time becomes a 1311 weapon for their opponents to use if they think it desirable to do so but I confess that of all the methods which have been devised for securing the passage of legislation upon which the heart of the Government is set there is none I should be more reluctant myself to adopt than that which the Government is now following. I admit that in these early hours we have had some very useful discussions, and I think it reflects great credit on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and on those on that side of the House who are defending the Bill, and some credit also on those who on this side of the House are offering their objections to the Bill. We have tried throughout these discussions not to raise frivolous Amendments, not to raise points which were obstructive, and to make our speeches worthy of the Committee. If we have succeeded to some extent in that it is not to say that this procedure does not place a very undue strain upon Members, nor is it to say that whatever has been accomplished on one side or the other is as well done at these hours as it would be done in the normal hours of the day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that under the guillotine it is not even necessary for Ministers in charge of a Bill to make concessions. Time and again during these all-night sittings Amendments have been moved disclosing so good a case that if the House had been normally full, and normally interested, and normally awake, as it would have been in the early hours of sitting, the Government would have been bound to give way, and they have only avoided making any concessions on those points because the House was so fagged that Members were no longer following the discussion.
§ Mr. REMNANTThat we should have been able to get through these long night sittings with such little bitterness is due
§ entirely to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's cheerfulness, courtesy, and thorough good temper, but the right hon. Gentleman is human like the rest of us and gets over-tired, and I do not think the harmony of the all-night Debates is likely to last much longer. If we adjourn now it will only be for a few hours. We understood that the Government would be content if they got Clause 17 at this sitting.
§ Mr. MARKHAMTwenty-two.
§ Mr. REMNANTWill the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us with what he will be content? Is he going to take the Bill to the end of Part I.? If so, it would be a convenience to us to know when we shall see our homes again. I am quite content to remain here, though, surely, the country deserves better work than can be done at this hour. I do hope, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow us to adjourn for a few hours before the House meets again.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe hon. Gentleman wants to know what progress we propose to make. We have made various suggestions to the Opposition, and not only have they been rejected, but we have had no counter suggestions on the part of the Opposition, and under these circumstances we are bound to get Part I. this week in order to proceed next week with the Irish Land Bill and go on with the licensing clauses at intervals. If the Opposition had made reasonable counter suggestions I should have been ready to consider them, but under the circumstances we must go on.
§ Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 140.
1313| Division No. 470.] | AYES. | [5.50 a. m. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Cave, George | Hill, Sir Clement | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Alton Manor) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) | Hunt, Rowland | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Joynson-Hicks, William | Stanier, Beville |
| Clyde, J. Avon | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Starkey, John R. |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Levisham) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| 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 |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Mildmay, Francis Bingham) | Younger, George |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Morrison-Bell, Captain | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Lord E. Talbot. |
| Gordon, J. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Ainswerth, John Stirling | Haworth, Arthur A. | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Armitage, R. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Radford, G. H. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Helme, Norval Watson | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Henry, Charles S. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Richardson, A. |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Hilgham, John Sharp | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Brace, William | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Branch, James | Hodge, John | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Brooke, Stopford | Hooper, A. G. | Rowlands, J. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Horniman, Emslie John | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Hudson, Walter | Scarlsbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Jackson, R. S. | Seely, Colonel |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Jenkins, J. | Shackleton, David James |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Cleland, J. W. | Lambert, George | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Clough, William | Lamont, Norman | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Summerbell, T. |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Lewis, John Herbert | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Maclean, Donald | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Crossley, William J. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Macpherson, J. T. | Tomkinson, James |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Toulmin, George |
| Duckworth, Sir James | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Mallet, Charles E. | Verney, F. W. |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Walsh, Stephen |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Marnham, F. J. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Elibank, Master of | Masterman, C. F. G. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Essex, R. W. | Middlebrook, William | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Merrell, Philip | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Fenwick, Charles | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. c. (Kincard.) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Myer, Horatio | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Glover, Thomas | Partington, Oswald | Wilson, p. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Hancock, J. G. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Pointer, J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |