§ (1) Where the value of any consideration for a transfer or lease is to be determined for the purposes of this Part of this Act, that value shall so far as the consideration consists of the payment of a capital sum be taken to be the amount of that capital sum, and so far as the consideration consists of a periodical money payment, be taken to be such sum as appears to the Commissioners to be the capital value of that payment.
§ (2) If the Commissioners are satisfied that any covenant or undertaking to discharge any incumbrance, or, in cases where a nominal rent only has been reserved, any covenant or undertaking to erect buildings, or to expend any sums upon the property, has formed part of the consideration, the Commissioners may allow such sum as they think just in respect thereof as an addition to the value of the consideration.
§ (3) Where it is necessary to apportion any consideration for the purposes of this Part of this Act as between properties included in any transfer or lease, the consideration shall be apportioned by the Commissioners in such manner as they determine.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE moved in Section (1) after the word "payment" ["so far as the consideration consists of a periodical money payment"] to insert the words "on a 5 per cent, basis."
§ You must take some interest into account in computing the capital value. It 1338 is left to the discretion of the Commissioners under the Bill, and under the present conditions I think a 5 per cent. basis is a fair one.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI do not think this is a desirable basis. I think it would depend on the value of the interest. It is in the interest of the landowner that we should take into account the character of the property before deciding upon the percentage.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI suppose that is one of the cases which will be covered by the Bill?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEYes.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe Government have attached a good deal of importance to the question of appeal. Why do they require a special reference to it in Clause 18 when they do not require it here?
§ Mr. YOUNGERIs it not the case that appeal against the assessment of duty is entirely protected in the new clause?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEassented.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. CLAVELL SALTERThere is an Amendment in my name which I must move despite the lateness of the hour. It is in Section (2), to leave out the words "in cases where a nominal rent only has been 1339 reserved." The Amendment is one that the Government will almost certainly accept, because I cannot help believing that the inclusion of these words are in the nature of a slip in drafting. In Section (2) we are dealing with cases where it is necessary for the Commissioners to ascertain the capital value of the consideration for a lease. In cases where the consideration for the lease is only a premium, and there is no rent, of course, the value is the capital value of the consideration, and in ordinary cases, where there is no premium, but merely a rent, the actual value of the consideration would be the capitalised value of the consideration. Where the consideration for the lease is a nominal rent, however, but there is a valuable covenant either to build or to spend money upon improving the property, the Bill deals with the case with a curious limitation which I, for one, do not understand. One would have thought that in cases where the consideration for the lease was a valuable covenant and some rent, the plan would be to take the two things into consideration. But the Government propose only to give power to do that in cases where a nominal rent has been reserved, and this shows that it is the intention to exclude the common case of a lease where, not a nominal rent, but a smaller rent is given in consideration of a covenant to spend money. I ask why this section should be confined only to cases where a nominal rent has been reserved. In a case where a smaller rent is being paid and there is a valuable covenant under this Bill the Commissioners would be bound to ignore that covenant and capitalise only the small rent, with the result that they would arrive at an untrue and unreal valuation. I think if this provision is retained it will operate arbitrarily and unreasonably so as to prevent the Commissioners from taking the real facts into consideration. I therefore submit that the words should come out.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThese words were intended to cover cases of increment. I do not think a covenant to build ought to be taken into account as part of the consideration in order to diminish the value of the subject matter for which the ten per cent. is charged. I can understand that there may be cases where for increment purposes it might be fair either to leave those words out or to modify 1340 them, but I should like it to be perfectly clear in that case that I should have to distinguish between the case of reversion and the case of increment. I could not omit the words at the present moment, because if I did so I could not put them back in any form on the Report stage. I can promise the hon. and learned Gentleman, however, that I will see words are put in to safeguard the particular case he has brought forward.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI am not quite certain whether I have understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer correctly. If I have, he draws for the purpose of these words a distinction between Increment Tax and a Reversion Tax. He is prepared to do without the words for Increment Tax, but he insists on keeping in the words for Reversion Tax. That appears to me to be wholly wrong. I am not at all certain what ought to be done in the case of increment, but it certainly seems wrong to keep the words in for the purpose of Reversion Tax. Just consider the facts. Reversion Duty is to be paid on the difference between the value of the lease at the beginning as compared with the value at the end, and the value at the beginning is to be measured by the consideration the man gets for the lease. A covenant to put up buildings is in an enormous number of leases not only part of the consideration, but a very serious part of the consideration, to both parties to the bargain. I cannot conceive, therefore, on what ground the Chancellor of the Exchequer distinguishes in the way he has done, and I think he ought to admit all these covenants to the full. In any case what argument can you adduce for allowing this to be taken into account where a peppercorn rent is reserved with a heavy expenditure on buildings, and not allow expenditure on buildings to be taken into account where that expenditure is only half as much, but the rent is proportionately increased? Surely you ought not to insist that there should be a purely nominal rent, a peppercorn rent, before you allow these covenants to count. It might be possible to find an argument to support you in saying that you would not allow them to count under any circumstances, though I confess I cannot see one. But surely there can be no argument to support the proposal which the Government have embodied in the Bill, because clearly when a landlord and a tenant are making a bargain the tenant will be to some extent guided in the amount of rent 1341 he can pay and the landlord will be guided in the amount of rent he can ask by what are the other obligations of the tenant.
§ 8 A.M.
Mr. LYULPH STANLEYMay I point out that where there is the option of having a 999 years' lease instead of a 99 years' lease, the rent is considerably higher in some cases than the rent reserved in a 99 years' lease. I know cases, where £25 is reserved for 99 years and £30 is reserved for 999 years. I wish to bring to the attention of the Chancellor a case which seems to me to be one of the things which should be met. Take the case of the owner of a house which is valued at £200 annual rent and is let on a yearly tenancy before the passing of this Act. The lessee of this house, or the tenant of the house, goes to the owner and offers him two alternatives, either that he will spend £500 on improving the house on consideration of getting a lower rent and a lease, or asking the lessor to spend that money and offering to pay a higher rent. The offer, therefore, to the lessee is, "Either you spend £500 and I will pay you £200 a year rent, or I will spend the money myself and you will reduce my rent to £180." The lessor accepts the latter, reduces the rent to £180, and gives the lessee a lease. If this Bill passes I understand a valuation will be made upon the rent reserved, namely, the capitalised value of that £180 reserved when the lease falls in. The value of the house will be the original £200, together with the added value in consequence of the building covenant which has been carried out by the lessee. That will be approximately £200. There will be an apparent increment in the value of this house from £180 to £220, on which I presume Reversion Duty will be charged. But, as a matter of fact, there will be no real increment in the value of the house, because really the reduction of the rent granted by the lessor will be in a sense a sinking fund which repays the tenant for the money he has expended. I put that forward as a case which needs meeting, and I understand the Chancellor has premised to consider it.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThat is a case I have promised to consider. I draw a very broad distinction between that and the other case I have indicated.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINDoes the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean to protect that apparent increase against Reversion Duty as well as increment?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEAt this hour I do not want to raise any very controversial issue, but I will frankly tell the Committee the case I want to exclude is the case where a building lease is granted with a covenant to build. In that case the covenant to build is taken as part of the consideration. Then you get your 10 per cent, on the total value, and I think we ought to get that 10 per cent. The buildings will be taken out of your consideration altogether. The second is the case—a very ordinary case, I am sorry to say, in London and in several other large towns—where on the termination of a lease the landowner takes advantage of the fact that there is a man who has got a big business and insists upon the heaviest possible terms in cash, and in addition says to that man: "You must spend £20,000, £30,000, or £50,000 in erecting buildings in a way in which I shall indicate." Is it to be demanded that no-Reversion Duty should be paid upon the reversion of those buildings? I think Reversion Duty ought to be paid.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible as a Minister for enforcing the system he considers an unfair one, and he is continuing to enforce it daily. He has now been responsible for some little time, and he might have stopped it at any time if he thought it an unfair system. But he has permitted it to go on. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer ever wants to exercise influence upon the Woods and Forests he will be able to discover that there are ways and means which will have considerable effect upon their powers of leasing. The leases made by the Woods and Forests must be submitted to the Treasury, and the Treasury can refuse to sanction them. Take such a case as the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, the case of a lease falling in, and where the landlord makes his stipulation that a big fine shall be made and so much money spent either on entirely new buildings or on improvements to the existing buildings, and at the same time raises the rent. The right hon. Gentleman says that if these words proposed to be omitted were omitted there would be no Reversion Duty, but surely he is mistaken. All this would be part of a consideration for the new lease. They would be part of the value which it was shown the property had at that time. They would be factors in estimating the value of the reversion, and the reversion would be on the difference between that value and the 1343 consideration given originally. You would therefore, get the full advantage by levying your duty at the moment the lease falls in. Take the case of a lease which was entered into 98 or 99 years ago, and which expires the day after the passing of the Act. Then, no doubt, whatever the buildings, and what-ever money the tenant had to spend on it as part of the consideration for his lease 99 years ago, will be excluded from the taxable subject at the moment when that lease falls in, and all the new money which he is ordered to pay will be treated is part of the value as it is to-day, and the owner will be charged on the difference between those two. I am submitting to the Chancellor that he is going to get all he ought to have in taxation on the difference between the value at the beginning of the lease and the value at the end of the lease. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing to do is really grossly unfair. He is taxing something more than the reversion. He means to tax the difference between the value of a reversion which falls in and what the man had at the beginning of the lease.
§ Mr. G. L. COURTHOPESurely the very cases which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave in resisting this Amendment has destroyed his whole case for resisting it. The second time he spoke he said he wished to exclude those who exacted the heaviest amount in cash they could get, in addition to very stringent covenants with regard to the spending of
| Division No. 476.] | AYES. | [8.15 a.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Hodge, John |
| Armitage, R. | Duckworth, Sir James | Hooper, A. G. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Barnard, E. B. | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Hudson, Walter |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Elibank, Master of | Jackson, R. S. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Essex, R. W. | Jenkins, J. |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Evans, Sir S. T. | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Fenwick, Charles | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Brace, William | Ferens, T. R. | Jowett, F. W. |
| Branch, James | Fuller, John Michael F. | Lambert, George |
| Brooke, Stopford | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Lamont, Norman |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Glover, Thomas | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hancock, J. G. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Maclean, Donald |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Macnamara, Dr Thomas J. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Macpherson, J. T. |
| Cleland, J. W. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Clough, William | Haworth, Arthur A. | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Helme, Nerval Watson | Marnham, F. J. |
| Cooper, G. J. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Henry, Charles S. | Middlebrook, William |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Crossley, William J. | Higham, John Sharp | Morrell, Philip |
§ large sums of money on building. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware that there are two or three willing parties to transactions of this kind, and that the heaviest amount in cash which the lessor will extract, or try to extract, depends in the main upon the stringency of the covenant — upon the amount which the lessee will be required to spend. In the other case the Chancellor of the Exchequer took as an instance a building site where a lease for 99 years had a ground rent of only £5 or £10, and he said it was all that it was possible to get with the covenant to build. That is the whole of our case. It is the covenant to build which is the material part of the consideration in addition to the money value already reserved. Why does a building site get only £5 or £10? Because of the stringent nature of the covenant. The one is quite as much part of the consideration and ought to be taken into account. It does really seem as if resistance to this Amendment was inspired not by a desire to arrive at an equitable and just amount for consideration, but merely by a desire to get the tax in as many cases as possible. I think under these circumstances we are more than justified in doing our very best to get this Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the words 'in cases where' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 43.
| Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Toulmin, George |
| Myer, Horatio | Rowlands, J. | Verney, F. W. |
| Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Walsh, Stephen |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Partington, Oswald | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Seely, Colonel | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Pointer, J. | Shackleton, David James | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Simon, John Allsebrook | Wilkle, Alexander |
| Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Strachey, Sir Edward | Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Strata, E. A. (Abingdon) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Radford, G. H. | Summerbell, T. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Raphael, Herbert H. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | |
| Richardson, A. | Thomasson, Franklin | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Tomkinson, James |
| NOES. | ||
| Baldwin, Stanley | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds.) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hill, Sir element | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Stanier, Beville |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Hunt, Rowland | Starkey, John R. |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Joynson-Hicks, William | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morpeth, Viscount | Younger, George |
| Forster, Henry William | Morrison-Bell, Captain | |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Salter and Mr. Courthope. |
| Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | |
| Gordon, J. |
§ Mr. CLAVELL SALTER moved in Section (2) to leave out the word "may" ["the Commissioners may allow such sum as they think just in respect thereof as an addition to the value of the consideration "] and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
§ I cannot anticipate that the Government will do anything but accept the Amendment. In the case to which the section applies, the Commissioners are given power to take this covenant into consideration. This matter must be compulsory; there can be no option.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIf the hon. Gentleman presses his Amendment I do not object to it. We have the word "may" in other parts of the Bill; it really means "shall." I simply urge him to consider that point; it makes no difference so far as we are concerned. I am only afraid it will weaken the word "may" in other parts of the Bill with regard to deductions, etc.
§ Mr. CLAVELL SALTERThe risk seems to me to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer's risk more than mine.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWhat will be the effect of these words on the right of appeal? Suppose the words "may allow such sum as they think just," 1346 would it be possible to take any appeal against that? The Commissioners will say that this is what is considered just and there will be no ground for relief in the matter.
§ Sir H. CRAIKThere is no doubt that the word would prevent the Appeal Court from deciding against whatever the rule laid down by the Commissioners might be. They would say that the appeal cannot be as to what is just, but what they think just. The Amendment I should like to have seen brought in is that in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) proposing to omit the words "they think" ["allow such sum as 'they think' just"] to insert the words "they determine." I am told that in that case the Court of Appeal would criticise the action of the Commissioners.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI think it is perfectly clear that there is an appeal. In the very next clause there is an appeal against the first determination by the Commissioners of the total value or site value of any land, and against the refusal of the Commissioners to make any allowance. But the words here are, "may allow such sum." There is the right of appeal wherever there is the question of allowance.
§ Amendment agreed to.
1347§ Sir HENRY CRAIK moved in Section (2) to leave out the words "think just" ["the Commissioners may allow such sum as they think just"] and to insert instead thereof the words "determine to be just."
§ If you leave in the words "think just" the Appeal Court will hold that they have no right to act against the decision of the Commissioners. If you put in the words, "determine to be just," I am told that according to precedent the Appeal Court will hold that the determination is a matter for appeal.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSNo question at all arises between the two phrases. The determination ought to be a determination of what the Commissioners think just, whether you have "think just" or "determine to be just."
§ Sir H. CRAIKI ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON moved in Section (3), after the word "determine" ["the consideration shall be apportioned by the Commissioners in such manner as they determine"], to insert the words "after giving to every person interested in the land notice of the apportionment proposed to be made and an opportunity of objecting thereto."
§ We had a similar question in regard to valuation, and we came to an agreement
| Division No. 477.] | AYES. | [8.35 a. m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Elibank, Master of | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Armitage, R. | Essex, R. W. | Jowett, F. W. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Evans, Sir S. T. | Lambert, George |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Fenwick, Charles | Lamont, Norman |
| Barnard, E. B. | Ferens, T. R. | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Barren, Sir John Nicholson | Fuller, John Michael F. | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Glover, Thomas | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Maclean, Donald |
| Brace, William | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Branch, James | Hancock, J. G. | Macpherson, J. T. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Marnham, F. J. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Middlebrook, William |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Helme, Norval Watson | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Cleland, J. W. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Morrell, Philip |
| Clough, William | Henry, Charles S. | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Myer, Horatio |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Higham, John Sharp | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Hodge, John | Partington, Oswald |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Hooper, A. G. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Crossley, William J. | Horniman, Emslle John | Pointer, J. |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Hudson, Walter | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Jackson, R. S. | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Burness) | Jenkins, J. | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
§ that any person interested should be allowed to enter a Standing Order with the Commissioners by which he had any valuation of the land served upon him. He must have it if he is to object, and it ought to be inserted here.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI propose to move similar words here to give the persons interested the right to apply to the Commissioners for a copy of the apportionment of the land before it is finally settled, and the same right of lodging objections and appealing as the owner. If the hon. Member will withdraw this Amendment I will move them.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to insert at the end of the clause the words "Any person interested in the land, not being an owner, may apply to the Commissioners for a copy of the proposed apportionment 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."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 42.
| Radford, G. H. | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Raphael, Herbert H. | Strachey, Sir Edward | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Summerbell, T. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Richardson, A. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Roberts, G H. (Norwich) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Rogers, F. E. Newman | Thomasson, Franklin | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Rowlands, J. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Tomkinson, James | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Toulmin, George | |
| Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | |
| Seely, Colonel | Verney, F. W. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton |
| Shackleton, David James | Walsh, Stephen | |
| Simon, John Allsebrook | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| NOES. | ||
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gordon, J. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester) | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Hill, Sir Clement | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Stanler, Beville |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Hunt, Rowland | Starkey, John R. |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Joynson-Hicks, William | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Younger, George |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Morrison-Bell, Captain | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Lord Talbot. |
| Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Motion agreed to; Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.
§ ADJOURNMENT.—Besolved, "That the House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
§ Adjourned at Nineteen minutes before Nine o'clock a.m. (Wednesday, 18th August, 1909).