§ (1)For the purposes of this part of this Act the increment value of any land shall be deemed to be the amount (if any) by which the site value of the land, on the occasion on which Increment Value Duty becomes due, exceeds the original site value of the land.
§ (2)The site value of the land on the occasion on which Increment Value Duty becomes due shall be taken to be:—
- (a) Where the occasion is a transfer on sale of the fee simple of the land, the value of the consideration for the transfer; and
- (b) where the occasion is the grant of any lease of the land, or the transfer on sale of any interest in the land, the value of the fee simple of the land calculated on the basis of the value of the consideration for the grant of the lease or the transfer of the interest; and
- (c) where the occasion is the death of any person and the fee simple of the land is property passing on that death, the principal value of the land as ascertained for the purposes of Part I. of the Finance Act, 1894, and where any interest in the land is property passing on that death the value of the fee simple of the land calculated on the basis of the principal value of the interest as so ascertained; and
- (d) where the occasion is a periodical occasion on which the duty is due in respect of land held by a body corporate or unincorporate, the value of the fee simple of the land is ascertained for the purposes of the assessment of duty under this Act;
§ (3) Where, on any occasion on which Increment Value Duty is due in respect of any land, it becomes necessary, for the purpose of ascertaining the original site value of the land on which the duty is to be assessed, to apportion any original site value as first adopted for the purposes of this part of this Act, that value shall be apportioned between that part of the land on which duty is to be assessed and the remaining part of the land in such proportions as the Commissioners think just, and the value attributed on any such apportionment to each part of the land shall for 818 the purposes of this part of this Act, be treated as the original site value of that part of the land.
§ (4) Where the owner of any land proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that he, or any of his predecessors in title, has purchased the land within twenty years before the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, and that the amount then paid by him for the purchase of the land exceeds the total value of the land as first adopted for the purposes of this part of this Act, such sum shall be substituted for the purposes of Increment Value Duty for the original site value of the land as the Commissioners consider, having regard to the amount so paid for the purchase of the land, was at the time of the purchase the site value of the land.
§ Mr. E. A. RIDSDALEmoved at the end of section (1), after the word "land," insert the words, "or that of the highest subsequent valuation on which Increment Duty has been paid, whichever value may be the greater."
The Amendment is to provide that the Increment Value Duty shall only be taken on what is truly increment and not on what is merely a fluctuation. I believe that the Government by the last words in Clause 1 give this effect to the Bill, and it was only after reading Clause 2, and finding that the matter does not there seem absolutely clear, that I drew up this Amendment. It is quite certain that as the principle of this Bill is that land, as distinct from other commodities, being subject to increment which has been defined as "steady, normal, and continuous." should be taxed specially, yet that should only apply to that increment which is the result of the efforts of the community. Take a concrete case. Suppose a piece of land is sold for £5,000. At the next valuation, or the next sale, its value has increased, say, to £6,000. That is true increment, and I presume the whole of it will be liable to the duty. But suppose an alteration takes place, and through a difference in supply or demand, or something the community itself does, the land is worth only £5,500. Again, later the property resumes its value of £6,000. Fluctuations may continue till the Government takes the whole of the increment, and by instalments make the nationalisation of the land a matter of practical politics. In any event it cannot in any degree be fair to take the effects of the fluctuations, and represent them as being new increment.
819 I regard this principle as most vital. Because, if the Government are going to extend this principle from what is true increment to what are merely fluctuations, then the application of the principle might as well go forward to anything or everything else, for other commodities are liable to fluctuations in value. Once you admit the principle that you can tax, not merely the true increment derived from the efforts of the community, but also fluctuations, there is no logical reason why you should not extend the principle to stocks and shares, and so on. And though that is what the Socialist Members of the House may desire, I cannot think that this is what a responsible Government would wish to bring about. The right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Leverton Harris), and I ask him to accept mine. To take another instance. Suppose a man has a piece of land of the original value of £1,000. It goes up 14 per cent. and then back again to its original value. But it has been registered at 14 per cent. increment value, to be taken whenever the increment value arrives at 15 per cent. It now fluctuates by 1 per cent., and is sold again by the previous proprietor, say for £1,010, and 15 per cent. becomes due. Twenty per cent. on that £150 becomes due from the man who only got £1,010. He has only got a profit of £10 on the transaction, but he is liable for duty to the State, unless you accept this Amendment, of £30. That obviously would be unfair and iniquitous. I do not want to labour the argument, but I think it is abundantly clear, from the point of view of equity and the working of the Act, that it is incumbent on the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment or something like it.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. C. F. G. Masterman)The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it quite clear in several previous speeches what has been the intention of the Government in regard to this matter. The whole object and scope of the Bill, which we think has been carried out by reading Clause 2 and Clause 3, is that minor fluctuations, after increment value is taken shall not count against the owner as further increment. Take a concrete case, as my hon. Friend has done. Supposing land is valued at £1,000 and goes up to £1,600, the increment value is paid to the Government on 820 the difference between the £1,000 and the £1,600, and that land is franked for all future time by that amount, and in no case does that particular piece of land pay more until it goes up beyond £1,600. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the definition clause, sub-section 2 (1), he will see where increment value shall be demanded, and if he compares that with Clause 3 he will find that (1) "on each occasion on which Increment Value Duty is collected on the increment value of any land, such an amount of duty shall be deemed to be due as the Commissioners determine, having regard to the amount of duty paid on previous occasions." That deducts the amount of increment value already paid for the amount due on a further subsequent occasion. If it does not do so the Government are quite prepared to see that the clause is made to carry out that view. But there is a further objection which my hon. Friend has not completely realised against the acceptance of his Amendment as it stands, or anything of a similar kind. In connection with a case on which increment is taken when there is a transfer of the fee simple, sub-section (a), section 2, of Clause 2, I agree it might not make very much difference in substance, though even then those who are responsible for the collection of this tax very strongly plead for the reference in each case back to the initial standard value as a mere matter of simplicity in comparison. When dealing with other matters, my hon. Friend's Amendment would make a complete difference, which I do not think he intended. Take a concrete case: Supposing land valued at £1,000; that that land is let on lease, and on the occasion of being let on lease the valuation proved to be £1,200. The original owner would have to pay the amount of the Increment Duty proportionate either as a lump sum or by annual payments. Then, supposing the lessee of a long lease sold the interest in the land, and that at that time the total valuation comes up to £1,400. He pays a proportion of that amount under sub-section 2 of Clause 3. Then, suppose the original owner sells his portion of the land, and that then the whole valuation of the land is up to £1,500. If my hon. Friend's Amendment is accepted, he would only pay the difference between £1,400 and £1,500, whereas he ought to pay the difference between £1,000 and the increased value, because he has had nothing to do with the lessee or his interest in the land or whether the lessee has sub-let or not. The only result would be, if the Amend- 821 ment is accepted, to prejudice the State. You ought not to say that the original owner ought to be advantaged or disadvantaged, because the lessee has let the land on a sub-lease; that would be the case if the Amendment was carried, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman who moved it means that. Let him withdraw his Amendment, and if he is not satisfied that his point is met, we can discuss the matter subsequently in its proper place.
§ Mr. E. G. PRETYMANI think the statement of what the condition of things will be, which has been made by the hon. Gentleman opposite, sound sufficiently complicated, but I do not think it anything near so complicated as it will be found to be when it comes to be dealt with in fact. It is perfectly obvious, if what the right hon. Gentleman intends is done, the duty will be collected twice over. I am quite aware the answer would be that they are two separate interests and that duty in the one case is charged upon the one and in the other case upon the other, but that is not so. In these two interests one may be taken as the case of the primary interest in the long lease and the other the secondary interest, which is the tenants' interest. Let them both be running together and assume there is a lease that has 50 years to run, because, if there is more, the tenants' interests would be treated as the whole. You have a lease with less than 50 years to run. The primary interest is a waxing interest. The secondary interest is a waning interest, and at the beginning of the 50 years the whole of the interest rests with the owner of the secondary interest, but at the end of the lease the whole of the interest rests with the primary, and during the time they are running from the whole to nothing, and from nothing to the whole. Therefore, at a given period in that lease the interest which the one has paid will have meantime passed to the other; and, therefore, if the interest is charged while in the possession of the secondary owner, it will be charged again in the terms of the hon. Gentleman. You have two properties let upon lease on similar terms of similar character. In one case the secondary interest remains unchanged during the whole of the fifty years. The owner of that lease will have to pay the whole of the increment value which has accrued on the whole of the interest, and there will have been no relief to him at all, because he will have the whole interest at the end, and he will have started 822 at its original site value. In the other case the ownership of the secondary interest may have been transferred three or four times. During those transfers, and on account of them certain instalments will have been paid. When you get to the end of the list if the owner of the first transfer is going to be charged for the whole increment then the State will get the increment twice over. If the deduction is made of the duties which have been paid on the second interest it follows that the good landlord whose property remains under the same tenant will have to pay the whole Increment Value Duty, whereas if the property is in such a condition as to change three or four times there will be considerable relief. That is an impossible position. The right hon. Gentleman sent me on Saturday a statement of the way these taxes are levied in Frankfort, and I am very thankful to him because that is his model. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman had been fully acquainted with all the conditions attaching to English land he would never have attempted to impose these conditions. It is impossible for me to go into a detail comparison at this stage with the German system, but on the face of the statement which has been issued it is obvious that there are no leaseholds in Germany, and all transfers are freehold. In his reply to this Amendment the hon. Member opposite stated that it might have been accepted had all transfers been transfers of freehold, thereby indicating the comparative simplicity of dealing with freehold cases. I think this Amendment would have simplified the whole thing, and the tax would have been a possible one from that point of view if all our ownerships were freehold, and if the mere transfer of land did not also include what the Government call an interest in land. When you come to differentiate between the different interests, waxing and waning, and when you attempt to do justice to the owners of each, and to the State, you will find you are getting into a Serbonian bog of difficulty from which you will never extricate yourself. I take it that it is proposed in all cases in the future to go back to the original site value now being fixed. That is a perfectly clear question, and I cannot argue until I know the answer. Is that the intention of the Government? Do the Government intend and desire that in all future valuations for the purpose of comparison and the levying of the Increment Duty the comparison is to be with the original site 823 value fixed on 30th April last or do they propose to throw it back to some subsequent valuation. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me now which it is?
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George)I will answer the hon. and gallant Member's question later on.
§ Mr. PRETYMANIt would be a great convenience if we could be told which it was now.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe hon. and gallant Member is rather in. the habit of putting questions to me in the Old Bailey style of "Give me an answer, 'yes' or 'no.'" It is impossible to conduct the proceedings in Committee in that way. The moment the hon. and gallant Member sits down I will get up and reply to the points he has put.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThis is a matter of much importance. If we are to be thrown back to the original site value does the Committee realise what that means? It means that for all future time, it may be 100 years hence, the owner will have to go back to 30th April, 1909, and he will have to show what has been spent by anybody who ever was interested not in the particular piece of land which is being sold in 1959, but in the particular piece of land of which that formed a part. The land may have been sub-divided into 20 different pieces of land, and you may have a sub-division of land in 50 years entirely different to what it is to-day. Are you to take any piece of land after 50 years' time and find out the unit of valuation and compare it with the many units made in 1909, tracing it through all its different ownerships? Are you going to trace all the im-provements which have been effected by any individual and compare them with any unit of which that particular unit might have formed a part during the last 50 years? The onus is thrown upon the subject of proving his right to these deductions. The claim is that the State is entitled to take that part of the increment which is clue to the action of the State. Under this proposal the owner of land in the future will have to prove for any number of years back under what conditions any expenditure has been made which will entitle that particular land to a deduction. The thing is impossible.
I will put the case the other way. If you take a fresh departure on every new 824 valuation, how are you going to be fixed then? Take the very ordinary case of the development of building land at which this Bill particularly aims. Take a piece of land sold for £1,000 by the owner of a considerable estate for development purposes. A man buys it, and sells it five years afterwards for £2,000, as is quite a common case, and is the fact in thousands of cases. He will be able to prove all the deductions to which he is entitled amounting to £1,200, money which has been spent for the purpose of developing the land. But the site value of the land has fallen to £800. What departure is the right hon. Gentleman going to take in that case? If £2,000 is taken as the new site value no duty will be payable, and it would not be a fair point of departure, because there is £200 increment on that in addition. These things are most complicated, but they are practical issues. There are thousands of acres of building land in this country upon which perhaps £100,000 have been spent, and which are not worth today the purchase money plus the interest and the outlay spent upon development. In all such cases there is an apparent increment but a real decrement, and if you then fix as a point of departure for the next valuation the total figure which will be an apparent increment, and then deduct from that, or compare with it, the next valuation which will occur on the second occasion when Increment Value Duty is chargeable, you are going to have an unfair basis of comparison. How are the Government going to get away from that? We already understand that the point of departure to be taken is not to be the subsequent valuation, but I gather the Government want to do it on the Increment Value Duty paid, and we desire to do it on the valuation, which certainly seems a more fair basis of departure.
I come back the Germany parallel, which is very pertinent. The whole basis of the Frankfort case, as stated in the document which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has circulated, is that there has been for a hundred years in Germany a complete record of every transaction in land, and the tax has been raised upon the sale price since the year 1801. In that case you have a record of every transaction in land, of all the improvements upon land, and the price at which the land has been sold for 100 years back. You have all that in existence to-day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not going to produce that state of things here, because it is too late. If you had in the past allowed our social 825 system and taxation of property and of interest in property to be upon the capital value instead of upon the annual value, we should have accommodated ourselves to it, as in Germany. Instead of that, however, you have a most complicated system, under which the leasehold system has arisen and many other systems of tenure, and owners have been obliged to adapt themselves to the conditions under which they live. You are now deciding to uproot this system. You look across the water and see conditions which you think are better, but which have grown up under a totally different system. Without taking the precaution to see what are the real conditions of ownership here you suddenly propose to cut off everything that exists to-day and graft a totally different system. I say that is impossible. I know that any injustice can be permitted if you are determined to do it, but it is only right and fair to consider carefully what are going to be the real consequences of a Bill before it passes into law. Considered from that point of view, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we are entitled to have a real explanation, and it must be understood by the Committee what are going to be the actual consequences to owners of land and to owners of interest in land by the passing of this clause. What valuations are going to be taken? What is going to be the point of departure, and how is the increment going to be distributed between the different ownerships, and by what means? How are the Government going to secure that this burden is going to be divided without injustice to the owner or the occupier?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIf the general operation of the Increment Duty was so obscure as the hon. and gallant Member has tried to make out, I agree that this would be a very difficult and complicated provision, but the point raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Ridsdale) is a very simple one. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Mr. Pretyman) managed to travel over the whole of Clause 2, and he introduced all kinds of matters which are quite irrelevant to the issue raised by the very simple Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton. What is the real point raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Ridsdale)? It really is not so obscure as the hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Pretyman) seems to suppose. His point is that, given an original site value at £5,000 and a second transaction at £6,000, there is an increment of £1,000. There is a third 826 transaction at £5,500, and down goes the value, and there is a fourth transaction at £7,000. That looks like an increment of £1,500, but my hon. Friend says there iS really only an increment of £1,000. He says that if you are going to charge in reference to the last transaction you would be getting £2,500 increment, whereas the real increment is only £2,000. That is the whole point as I understand it. I accept that. It would not be fair to charge that property £2,500, when the real increment is only £2,000. There is, therefore, no dispute there. What is the second point? How are you best to meet the point raised by my hon. Friend? Those are the only two points. We need not enter into complicated considerations in order to meet that one simple issue. How are you going to meet it? We say it is better met by Clause 2, sub-section I. There is an increment of £2,000, and on that transaction the State is only entitled in justice and fairness to £400. We say the way to do that is by dealing with it in reference to the stamp.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINOn which transaction does the right hon. Gentleman say the State is entitled to £400?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEOn the whole.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI understand the right hon. Gentleman to put a series of transactions.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI was putting a series, and I am going to follow them up. But that is on the whole. All the State is entitled to in the aggregate, my hon. Friend will agree, is £400. I will now follow out the transactions. The first transaction is one where £5,000 is converted into £6,000. The State gets on that £200. On the next transaction the property goes down to £5,50Q, and the State gets nothing. The third transaction is one where £5,500 is converted into £7,000. What does the State do under Clause 3? The State says you are only entitled in reference to the original site value to £400. You have already received £200; therefore the balance is £200. The hon. and gallant Member says Clause 3 does not say so, but if, when we come to Clause 3, he is still of opinion that it does not carry out our intention, then I agree it Would be grossly unfair that you should not take into account the fact that there has been a drop of £500, and should charge an increment of £1,500, whereas the real increment is only £1,000. We are agreed upon 827 the principle; it is purely a question of the best way of carrying it out. I agree this is a perfectly fair Amendment, and I have considered whether it could not be accepted here, but I am advised this would be the very worst place to put it, because here it would introduce a complication with reference to leaseholds. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman, however, is still of opinion that Clause 3 does not carry out this intention, and does not make it quite clear, then I would accept at once any Amendment which makes it absolutely clear. That is the position. We are in agreement upon the principle, and I think my hon. Friend will find it is better to carry it out under Clause 3, but, if he is still of opinion it does not carry out his wishes, I will say at once he is right in principle, and we are perfectly prepared to accept any Amendment to give effect to it.
§ Mr. RIDSDALEI am thoroughly satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not think Clause 3 does carry it out. After his statement, I would like to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINBefore we have the Amendment withdrawn, we must ask for some further explanation as to the important question of leaseholds to which my hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Pretyman) referred.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI do not mind answering the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He said we charged twice over, but he will find, by looking at Clause 3, that we do not. Let us take the transaction given by my hon. Friend (Mr. Ridsdale), a transaction of an increase upon the site value from £1,000 to £1,500. The first two transactions would enable you to discover that, and they are leasehold transactions, and the third from £1,400 to £1,500 is a transaction in reference to the reversion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says we are charging twice over. I say we should be doing so by introducing it here, but, under Clause 3, we do not, The real increase is £500, and you only want to distribute the tax between leaseholder and reversioner so as to cover the Increment Duty of £100. If you charge more than £100 on all those transactions you would be charging somebody twice over. Under Clause 3, when you deal with it in reference to the stamp and not the valuation, you make it absolutely sure that 828 the State should not get more than £100. That is the intention of Clause 3. The draftsman has done it in a much more practical form, and ensures the object of the hon. and gallant Member better than the Amendment would. It is the object of Clause 3 that the reversioner should not be charged for something the leaseholder has paid, or that the leaseholder should be charged for what the reversioner has paid, but that it should be distributed, and that the aggregate should not be greater than £100, which should frank the whole transaction.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThe explanation is perfectly clear, but it follows from it that what I suggested will arise. Where there are two interests and there has been a transfer, there will be a deduction; but where no transfer has taken place there will be no deduction.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe whole thing is set up in sub-section (1), Clause 3. I quite agree it would be impossible within the compass of an Act of Parliament to lay down all the general rules and principles and figures upon which we base a transaction of that kind, but that is the object of Clause 3, sub-section (1). I must apologise to the Chair, but I am being drawn into a discussion of Clause 3, sub-section (1). I would rather not be drawn into it, but, if the hon. and gallant Member points out to me that it does not meet the case, I should be perfectly prepared to consider it.
§ Mr. PRETYMANYou have a total of £100 to be paid within the currency of the lease. If the leaseholder during that currency has paid nothing, the whole of that £100 will fall to be paid at the expiration of the lease by the owner. You have a lease running and £100 Increment Duty to accrue at the end of the lease on £500. If there has been no transfer of the leasehold interest, the whole of that £100 will fall to be paid at the expiration of the lease by the owner. If there has been a transfer, some portion will have been paid by the leaseholder. There will thus be a direct penalty upon the owner if there has not been a transfer. I accept absolutely that it will not be paid twice over if this proviso is made effective.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEOn a point of order, I grant the answer I have given would justify the hon. and gallant Gentleman going further, hut that point has been argued, and we have got to argue it again on Clause 3, sub-section (1), and I do not think we are really in order, upon a very 829 limited and clear proposition raised by my hon. Friend, in discussing the whole matter under Clause 3 in reference to leaseholds.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILSurely this point is really essential. We cannot possibly dispose of this Amendment, which raises the exact point upon which the value is to be taken, unless we are to discuss the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, which really does deal with the very question as to how much duty will be paid by the various persons interested in the land. After all, the matter is a very simple one.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEOn a point of order, the whole point is to insert at the end of line 20, "or that of the highest subsequent valuation on which Increment Duty has been paid, whichever value may be the greater." That is the whole point, so it is a very limited point. We really cannot discuss these things three or four times over.
§ Mr. PRETYMANOur votes will really depend upon this point. The defence raised by the hon. Member who first of all spoke on behalf of the Government (Mr. Masterman) was that in the case of a freehold interest it was a simple matter, but that in the case of a leasehold interest the matter was extremely complicated, and the Government preferred to deal with it in their own way. It is on that point of how the Government will deal with leaseholds that our vote will depend.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell)It seems to me this is a point which would be more properly dealt with under Clause 3. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has definitely stated that he is quite at one with the Mover of the Amendment, but that the proper place to carry out his object is Clause 3. It is not proper now to discuss Clause 3, and I think, having got the assurance of the Government that the principle contained in the Amendment is accepted, it is much better that the discussion should be taken on Clause 3.
§ Mr. ELLIS J. GRIFFITHUpon the limited point before the Committee I desire to make one observation to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd-George). I hope he has not committed himself irrevocably to this Amendment, because I consider, for my own part, it is a dangerous position to commit ourselves to. I think there is a fallacy underlying this proposition. You do not tax property, you tax persons. If 830 we tax property I could quite understand the right hon. Gentleman accepting the Amendment. We do not tax property, but the owner of the property. The case he has put to us is this: A man who buys a property for £5,000 sells it for £6,000, and a grateful or ungrateful country, as the case may be, takes one-fifth of that increased value. The land goes down £500 at the next sale to £5,500, but at a subsequent sale it goes up another £1,500. Is it to be said that when there is a rise in the value of the commodity on the occasion of the sixth or seventh purchase, £500 of the £1,500 increment is to escape payment of the tax? I hope to the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this point.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI should like to point to one or two of the difficulties into which the Government will get themselves if they persist with the clause as now worded. I will take the case used in illustration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Where the value of the property was £5,000 it sold for £6,000, then fell to £5,500, and finally changed hands at £7,000. I desire to point out that there is no fixed period of time during which the calculations are to be taken into account. The site value, according to the Bill, is to be fixed on 30th April, in the present year. Suppose that by the year 1920, owing to public developments or to the energy and enterprise of the owner, a property worth £2,000 this year reaches a value of £20,000. It is possible, in the course of the next 50 years, it may again sink to £2,000. I gather that in future advertisements regarding the sale of property there will be words introduced to the effect that the property started with a site value under the increment land clauses of the Finance Act, 1909, of £5,000, and that it has reached the value of £20,000, upon which the Increment Duty has been paid. Therefore, any person then buying it at any figure between £2,000 and £20,000 will know that he is practically free from Increment Duty for all time to come. The vital point about that is that the great advantage which results to property from the expenditure of municipalities, and which hon. Members have always declared should go to the municipalities is taken away from them. I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say he is going to put that right in Clause 3.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI say it is already provided for in Clause 3.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI cannot see that it is. What is the result? The Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to be on the horns of a dilemma; either he must do injustice to one owner of the property after another, or he must give an absolute advantage to successive owners of the property accordingly as the property happens to jump up or down in value. Surely the Government are not putting before people who have studied this question the proposition that at any time over a period of years the amount of the tax shall be paid not on the amount of the increment that has happened within the memory of man, but upon some figures taken in the year 1909.
§ Mr. P. SNOWDENI think it must be obvious to most Members of the Committee, and I am surprised it should have escaped the intellect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Amendment on the Paper, although apparently very just and desirable, is not so when one comes to analyse its actual meaning. Take the case which the Chancellor of the Exchequer used in illustration. A sells a piece for which he had given £5,000 to B for £6,000. B subsequently sells it for £5,500 to C, who eventually sells it to D for £7,000. Now there is a clear increment of £1,500 on the last sale. The Chancellor of the Exchequer only proposes to tax £],000 of that increment, and I suggest that, as a result C escapes paying a just contribution on £500. I hope that before Clause 3 is reached the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give more attention to this case. I can assure him that if he retains the position which he has just explained to the Committee he will meet with stern opposition from these benches.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI confess I have listened without surprise to the protests raised by the enthusiastic supporters of the Government against the announcement of policy to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has definitely committed himself. It is quite true he has committed himself to one solution, and that protests come from those who object to that solution, and it is equally true if he had committed himself to the other solution he would have been in no less difficulty than he is at present though the difficulty might have proceeded from a different quarter of the House. The fact of the matter is that these difficulties, inconsistencies and inequalities are inseparable from the Bill as at present framed, and, as we proceed with the dis- 832 cussions, we shall be able to show how inherent they are in the proposals of the Government, and how they will make those proposals absolutely unworkable, if regard is to be had to fairness and equity. I do not propose to comment on the right hon. Gentleman's declaration that the object aimed at by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Ridsdale) and by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) is secured already by the terms of Clause 3. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 3 he will observe that it is entirely within the discretion of the Commissioners whether that which he declares ought to be done shall or shall not be done. The right hon. Gentleman will have no power while in office to direct the Commissioners to do this thing, and he will have still less power when the unpopularity of the tax has driven his colleagues and himself out of office to secure that it is done. I can only say, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's meaning is as he has described it to the House, it will have to be put in Clause 3 in such a form as to make it obligatory for the Commissioners to take action in the sense indicated, even in disregard of any Parliamentary pledges he may have given. What is the result to land transfer and sale in this country generally of the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? It will add a new terror to the difficulties which already prevail in regard to any sale of land. It will add a new difficulty in regard to the search for title, because it will become necessary to inquire into the sale price on every occasion on which land has passed from one owner to another, subsequent to the fixing of the site value on the 30th April this year. It will also be necessary to ascertain the site value obtained at any subsequent period to that at which the tax has been paid on added value, and it will also necessitate from the 30th April onwards an alternative valuation of the sums expended at any time by any one who has had an interest in the land on the permanent improvement of that land. Is it conceivable that such a record could be properly kept? Yet, what will be the consequences if it is not kept? Every individual citizen will be fined. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will impose a tax of this kind, I suggest the State should make the valuation itself at its own expense, and should keep a record of all material facts open to the inspection of anyone who may desire to see it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided, in order to evade a 833 grosser injustice and a greater inequality, that the high-water mark of any valuation on which Increment Duty may be charged shall free that land for all time until it reaches a still higher point. He said that if the land has once paid Increment Duty on £8,000, no matter if it has fallen £1,000 and rises again to £6,000; no fresh increment will become due. That is to apply to the future; but, if it is proper for the future, why is it not equally proper for the past? Why should the benefit be confined to the higher prices to be obtained in the future? If a higher price once paid is henceforth to frank the land for all time until that price is exceeded, why should not the higher price paid in the past also frank the land until it has been exceeded? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer make this concession retrospective as well as prospective? If not, will he tell us why he draws this distinction?
§ Mr. HART-DAVIESThe Prime Minister, in a speech the other day, said that this Increment Tax was a tax not upon the land but upon the windfall of profit which an individual made on the transfer of the land. In the case mentioned, where land originally sold for £6,000 fell to £5,500 and then went up to £7,000, surely the windfall to the seller on the third occasion is £1,500? Why, then, should he only pay upon £1,000? It makes the whole thing absurd. This is an Increment Tax. It is a tax not upon the land but upon individuals who deal in the land. If you are to go back to former transactions, I do not see why you should not go back to those which may have taken place before the Act was passed. It makes the whole thing absolutely absurd. I hope the Chancellor will, when we come to Clause 3, see if it cannot be brought in there, which I very much doubt. Still, if it could be brought in there, I hope before he brings it in he will see that this is not in accordance with the principle of this tax, which has been laid down by the Government and makes the whole tax incomprehensible. I can only say that this is one of the numerous questions and complications which will go on increasing in numbers as we go forward. There will be numerous complications, because we have not gone straight on and put a universal tax upon the actual value of the land.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILIt seems to me that the hon. Gentleman who last spoke has not really mastered the central idea upon which these clauses are founded. I do not complain of that very much, how- 834 ever, because the idea is very elusive. It has been briefly explained to be a wind fall. That is, by the Prime Minister, who seems to have clutched at a straw held out to him by a Cambridge professor without considering what the effect on the Bill was which he was discussing. As to this particular Amendment and the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is not only in accordance with Clause 3, but with the whole scope and purpose of Clause 2 and Clause 14. The idea, bad or good, is undoubtedly a comparison between the original site value and the increment value. You cannot possibly work that idea out, whether the idea is a good one or a bad one, except in some such way as the Chancellor suggests, without some gross injustice. Otherwise you will always be going back to 1909 and charging the whole duty over and over again, even if the land has changed hands five minutes before and the duty has been paid upon it. Take the case stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, where the original value was £5,000; it rises to £6,000, falls to £5,500, and then goes up to £6,900, and then to £7,000. It would be grotesque to pay on the last transaction the difference between the £7,000 and the £5,000, and that is the only alternative, if you take the framework of this Bill, unless you adopt some such plan as the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests. I fully agree with the criticism of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), that the result of it is manifestly to create an absurdity, which injures and destroys finally and for ever the continuance of this tax on the basis of windfall. I think that is part of the loss which the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be content to suffer, but I also agree that, unless he adopts this plan or something like it, he must recast and remodel the whole of this clause.
§ Mr. J. WEDGWOODI hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not go any further and will stick to Clause 3 as it is at the present moment. I am quite satisfied with Clause 3, and we do not want to have it elucidated on the lines suggested by the Member for Brighton. I think that Clause 3 deals with the point admirably which has been raised by the Noble Lord opposite about subsequent increment. It says in each case you shall consider the price for which the land was bought in considering the increment. That is the way I read it first, and I still think it bears that interpretation. I think that is the common-sense view to put upon it that 835 you are not to measure in every ease from the present value in considering your increment, but from the valuation which the land had at the time of the last transaction, at the time of the last sale or purchase entered into the books, and that would meet the difficulty raised by him, but would not, of course, meet the difficulty raised by the hon. Member for Brighton, a difficulty which, I think, ought not to be met. May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bear in mind that all Amendments of this character moved from this side of the House are intended to wreck the Bill, and it is essential that we should take up a firm stand and do what we can to neutralise the efforts of hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House. What we want to do is to keep Clause 3 in its present form without any further modification, and I do trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to carry that out.
§ Mr. PRETYMANBecause it would not do what the Chancellor of the Exchequer contends it does.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDI think the apparent difficulty is a very simple one, and the way out of it is for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us when he comes to Clause 3 which of two theories of taxation he is going to approve. It is exceedingly simple. The Bill apparently is consistently drafted upon one theory— I mean so far as the land clauses are concerned—is drafted upon one theory that you tax certain things. Given a certain constant acre of land, you get the value put upon that land in 1909. Then the process of taxation is going to follow the fortunes of that acre. If the value of that acre goes up you tax; if the value of it goes down you do not tax. If the value of the acre goes up you tax, and then goes down and then goes up beyond your first i high-water mark you only tax between the first high-water mark and the new registered high-water mark. That is a very consistent theory, though I am bound to say it is not the orthodox theory, and I am not so sure that so very much can be said for the orthodox theory as has been contended. ["What is it?"] The assumption of the orthodox theory is to tax persons, not things, the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day and the Bill taking the view that it is the thing you tax. The concession that he has made makes that assumption, 836 Clause 3 makes that assumption. The opposition to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as developed to-day, is the opposition of those who say you should not tax things, you should tax persons. There is the division in the Committee. If you are going to tax persons, suppose that A sells the land to B with an increment. A pays the tax and B sells the land to C with a decrement upon it. B pays no tax, but if C sells the land to D with an increment, it does not matter whether it is up to the £6,000 or above the £6,000 on the present theory, C must pay the Increment Tax, quite irrespective of how far the increment has gone, whether it has gone beyond the first high-water mark or below the first high-water mark. We had better not assume that the new increment has gone from £5,500 to £7,000, but from £5,500 to £5,700, still within the first high-water mark. I do not think it matters much how it is done, but I think the State will get more out of the theory of taxing persons and less out of taxing things, and I might suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might make up his mind as to which theory he is is going to adopt.
§ Mr. CLAVELL SALTERIt certainly is surprising at this stage of the discussion that the Committee should be found to be in very considerable doubt as to what are the actual provisions of this Bill on matters of this fundamental importance, and it is surely desirable that there should be no question as to what the actual provisions are. I venture to say that there is no question as to what the actual provisions low this Bill as it stands. You will take your site value in 1909; you will take your site value on the occasion; you will compare the two to see if there is any increment value; but I am not speaking of Increment Value Duty, because it does not follow that duty is to be paid merely because there is an increment value. The duty which will be paid is the payment on that value unless it has been previously paid on some previous occasion by some other person, and only so far as it has not been paid will Increment Duty be payable at all. That which will be paid is the last difference or margin between the previously recorded high-water mark. I hope we are clear that that is what is intended, rightly or wrongly, and whether it pleases this or that section of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters, and is what the Bill contains and really what it is intended by the Bill to do. I am not going to comment upon this Amendment, except 837 to say that it appears to me to be superfluous, because it seems to me declaratory of what the Bill has already said, and is, therefore, unnecessary. There are two consequences which will follow from the Bill, and the first is that this is not a taxation of the profits which an individual makes. Any amount of profit may be made on purchase and sale of land without the payment of Increment Duty at all. If land falls and then rises no Increment Duty will be paid upon that profit so made. The second observation I desire to make is as to the extraordinary way in which this utterly novel proposal will work in practice. If I correctly follow the Frankfort proceeding, it differs from this in being taxation on the profit made by an individual. What will happen here is this: In some parts of the country land is rising, and in other portions undoubtedly land is falling. If this great normal value is taken this year there will immediately be areas in this country, neither few nor small, in which the valuation will fall at once and go, so to speak, out of sight, below the 1909 normal. There are large areas of that sort from which no return will be made, because the seller is under no obligation to send a return to Somerset House unless duty is paid. These will be blank areas—terra incognita —because no Increment Duty is paid. What will happen to those which are rising? They will inevitably, sooner or later, if not in the first instance, sink in value. The moment that happens that area will join the class of terra incognita, and no duty will be paid, and no further information will come to Somerset House. Any amount of transactions will go on after that below the high-water mark, but without any record or any payment, and it is surely plain that the number of areas, which are rising higher than they have ever risen before, must continually decrease as time goes on, and there must come a time when there will be very few places in this country in which land at the moment will be higher than it ever has been in the history of the country, and it is only those areas which will pay, and it appears to me, therefore, that this proposal is to raise a constantly diminishing revenue from a constantly diminishing area of land.
Mr. ARNOLD HERBERTI, too, think the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Ridsdale) is really unnecessary, because, I believe, it carries out the intention which the Government, at any rate, think they have expressed in the Bill 838 and they have told us that if there is any doubt about it they will certainly carry it out later on. For myself, I find it difficult to follow why the Government should accept that Amendment on the principle which they have enunciated in defence of the Bill, because if a purchaser some way down in the line of purchasers makes a profit not due to anything he has done himself but entirely to social causes, I fail to see, on the theory which we are accepting, why he should not be taxed. I rise, however, for the purpose of asking information on a practical point. I want to be told whether it will be open to future purchasers to examine the register which states what the original site value is. A purchaser is only entitled to ask for a 40 years' title.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is in the Bill, but it must come later. It is not involved in the question before the Committee.
Mr. ARNOLD HERBERTThe point we are discussing now is whether we are to start from the original site value or whether the point of departure is to be the last sale, and my point is that if you take the original site value, when we have got more than 40 years from now the purchaser will never know, unless all the documents are open to public inspection, what was the original datum from which he starts. This is a point of considerable importance to conveyancers.
Mr. BALFOUREveryone must feel that this discussion, though very illuminating as to the defects of the Bill, has thrown very little light on the principles which are animating the Government in bringing it forward. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald),with unanswerable lucidity, put this point to the Government. He said the actual issue before us is simple enough. What has never been made plain is which of two alternatives and mutually exclusive principles of taxation is the one which the Government as a whole mean to adopt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been perfectly explicit as to which of these mutually exclusive principles he means to adopt. His view is that land should pay on any rise which occurs from 13th April, 1909, down to the Day of Judgment. It is perfectly clear and lucid. To add that it is perfectly unworkable and extraordinarily inconvenient would perhaps not be so applicable to this particular Amend- 839 ment as to some which will come later. At all events, the theory is quite plain. But though that is the theory of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it is not the theory of the Prime Minister, and when we are dealing with anything so novel and so important as the series of clauses dealing with increment value it is most inconvenient and most improper that one theory of taxation should be advanced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and a wholly different and wholly inconsistent theory advanced by the Prime Minister, whose facility on the platform is only equalled by his silence in the House in defence of the Budget. I am not complaining of that. I think it is most fortunate, at any rate for the Government, that he is absent, because if he was going to advance his theory of increment value immediately after his colleague advanced an inconsistent alternative theory, we should be in greater confusion as to the views of the Government, and the general embarrassments in which we stand would be even greater than they are or are likely to be in the immediate future. But we are bound to take note of these external announcements of policy by the Prime Minister. We cannot ignore the justification for the Bill which he puts forward outside the House, and his principles are quite as clear as those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but they are inconsistent with them.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer says we mean to tax the additional value of every acre of land from 13th April, 1909, for all time. The Prime Minister says, on the contrary, we mean to tax windfalls. That is quite a different proposition. There may be innumerable windfalls to the owners of land in time to come which never will be taxed under these proposals. There may be land speculation, and growth in values, in consequence of the action of the community, may come into full play, but those who benefit by it will not pay a shilling to the Exchequer. The tax will have been paid indeed by persons, but by the first person. If the land falls in value, and then goes on oscillating at a lower plane of value than that which it occupied in 1909, the owner may speculate, and may fill his pockets with unearned increment, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have nothing to say, and Somerset House will have no information on the subject. They may exercise their power of disin- 840 terested investigation, but they will get no money out of it. This is really not a question of a remote and abstract difference between two Ministers of State upon some recondite subject of political economy. It is a practical issue. I suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to adhere to his views in the House, and if so I think, in common decency, the Prime Minister ought not to defend the Bill in public as if it carried out his views. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says it would be grossly unjust if it did carry out the views of the Prime Minister, and that it would be monstrous if the State were to get more than the 20 per cent. of the actual increment value from 1909 onwards, but that monstrous thing is what the Prime Minister wants. That is the windfall he wishes to tax.
If you start with this kind of taxation at all there is a great deal to be said for the Prime Minister's views, only it becomes more than ever ludicrous to confine your windfalls to land. Where there is a transaction in stocks you ought to see whether there is an increment in value. Stocks may go up and down, and on each fall someone will lose, and at each rise the State will gain 20 per cent. It is quite simple and intelligible and worthy of the financial genius of the Prime Minister, but it differs from the Government proposition in two particulars. In the first place it extends the tax, as it ought to be extended on every rational principle, from land to other subjects of property, and in the second place it does not take a particular corpus of property, and say henceforth every rise on that from a given date is to be taxed. On the contrary, it says the price may fall below that, and on the Government theory no oscillation should be taxed. We ought to have it made quite clear which is the view of the Government. We are now face to face with a practical cleavage of opinion. Which is the principle on which hon. Gentleman opposite mean to appeal, not merely to this House but to the country at large? Is it the Chancellor of the Exchequer's theory or the Prime Minister's theory? Is it the theory of the Mover of the Amendment or the theory of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith)? Is it the theory of the Under-Secretary of the Local Government Board (Mr. Masterman) or of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), or the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Philip Snowden)? These are two quite opposite views which have 841 the utmost bearing not only on the Amendment but on every Amendment which is going to be moved, and we ought to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer does or does not adhere to the declaration of his chief.
Another point of less general character is worthy of the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he should decide to stand by the principle which he has laid down in such unmistakable terms. Let us go back to his illustration of the man who, having land worth £5,000, has to pay the duty when it reaches £6,000. The land then falls back to £5,500, and ultimately rises to £7,000. Now let us take another plot of land precisely similar to the first, and of precisely the same value, and going through precisely the same oscillations and variations in value. Let us say that they both rise to £6,000, and that £6,000 only comes under the cognisance of Somerset House in the case of one of the plots of land, because there is no death, no transfer, no lease, nor any other transaction on the other at all. One is registered as being at a certain date of the value of £6,000. The other has gone up, but the fact is unrecorded. Both again fall in value to £5,500, and at that value they are both sold. Their intrinsic value is exactly the same, but clearly their market value is not the same 6wing to the peculiar fiscal arrangements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the first plot is for the first £500 of any increment value franked from any duty. The second plot of land is only registered as being of the value of £5,500, and only when it rises to £6,000 you will step in, and the man will pay the whole of that increment value. Therefore, these two plots of land are being differently taxed, although their fortunes are precisely the same, and although the effect on the community of the rise or fall in the value is absolutely identical. These two plots of land will, owing to the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have a different value in the market. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say, "Although the one is paying a tax and the other is not, I am going to allow compound interest in that case." Suppose a very long period elapses between the second transaction and the third transaction, in the case of the land which has paid up to £6,000 are you going to allow compound interest on that? There is no provision in the Bill for allowing compound interest on these transactions. It you do not, you are treating these two plots on a wholly different system, and out 842 of somebody's pocket you are taking money which ought to be left there, or you are leaving money in somebody's pocket which ought to be taken. A and B cannot both have justice done to them, because, having plots of land which are similar, they are differently treated. That is not a question which ought wholly to escape the attention of the Government. But, on the first point, I would seriously ask—I do not want to raise any question as to a Minister saying one thing on Tuesday and another Minister saying another thing on Wednesday unless it has a material bearing on our Debate—I seriously ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepts the Prime Minister's views that these provisions as to increment value are not provisions dealing with increment in the value of land, but that they are a tax of one-fifth on everybody who happens to own land from which he gets an increment that has been described as a windfall.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe right hon. Gentleman has very successfully managed to introduce a second reading speech on the general principles of the Bill. I do not think there has been any difference of opinion between Ministers and their supporters. The Bill generally as to the principle on which it has been drafted is perfectly clear. You value the land of the country as from April of this year. On any increment from the date of that value you charge 20 per cent. That is the principle on which the Bill has been consistently drafted throughout for better or for worse. I have read most of the Prime Minister's speeches, and I do not think he has said anything which is inconsistent with that principle. I know it is very easy to take a sentence here and there from anybody's speech and say that it is absolutely inconsistent with the principle on which you are defending your measure. I take the general defence made by the Prime Minister of the principle of this Bill. He said:—
What the State is doing is this: it is saying to the landowner tile owners of certain classes or categories of land, 'When your land acquires through causes for which you are not responsible, and to which you have not contributed, but which result from the growth of the community and the action of the community— when your land under these conditions, and these conditions only acquires an increment of value either actually realised or conveniently realisable, the State will step in and exact a toll.'
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI am sorry that I have not got it here. That is to say, it is simply a proposal to tax certain categories of land. That is perfectly consistent with what has been said throughout. The principle of the tax is consistent with the principle of the Bill which has been laid down as the dominating principle, and that is why I am unable to accept the view of my hon. Friend (Mr. Bidsdale). Our view is that we are taxing increment. We say that we value the land at a certain date, and that on anything over and above that we claim we ought to charge the Increment Tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Hart-Davies) says, "Why do you not go back?" I agree that if you were to go back fifty or sixty years certainly the revenue this year or next year would be a very considerable one. I do not think hon. Members opposite will echo that appeal at any rate. If we followed the principle which has been adopted in Frankfort, and assumed that all land that had not been sold for 20 years should be charged 2, 3, 4, or 5 per cent. on the actual value, we would get considerable revenue, but that is a different principle. That is not the principle on which we are proceeding here. We start with the present value at a particular date, and then from that date we claim to charge on the increment. I will not follow a principle when it brings money into the State and refuse to follow it when it does not bring money in. I think our proposals are perfectly consistent with the principle on which we are acting. It is in the Bill already, but if it is not in the Bill it is clearly the intention of the Government that it should be there. When we come to Clause 3 I am prepared to defend that principle out and out. I think it is perfectly fair and just. I do not see how I could defend a Bill founded on this principle unless I was prepared, I will not say to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, but unless I was prepared to make our intention perfectly clear.
Mr. BALFOURI may be allowed in my own defence to read a sentence from the Prime Minister's speech. He said:—
In the first place, let me repeat an observation which I made a week ago at the Holborn Restaurant—that these taxes, though popularly and conveniently described as taxes upon land, are not in the strict sense of the term taxes upon land at all. What are they? A very distinguished economist, a professor of political economy of Cambridge, writing in the 'The Times' today, says that the proper description of them would be taxes upon windfalls, and that is really what they are.
§ Sir PHILIP MAGNUSI think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the 844 idea underlying the tax perfectly clear if it was not so to those who had previously read the Bill. On the other hand, I think it is very difficult indeed to reconcile the views underlying the Bill with the views stated by the Prime Minister. I understand from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that no tax is to be put upon land unless there is an increment upon the original site value. The consequence is that if the site value orginally was, say, £5,000, the Increment Duty will be payable in the case of the value of the land rising to £6,000, and only in the case of an increase in value. I want the right hon. Gentleman to consider the justice of this. If the value of the land decreases to £4,000 or £5,000, then the tax on the fluctuations in the value of the land will cease to be subject to any duty in respect of increment value. If one man buys land at £6,000 and it rises in value to £6,500 he charged the Increment Tax. If another man buys a piece of land which falls in value from £5,000 to £4,000 and then rises again to £1,500, in that case he will not be required to pay any Increment Duty whatever. I am sure it will be generally admitted that the underlying principle of ail Imperial taxation is that the tax should be levied according to a man's ability to pay. There can be no question of the ability to' pay in the one ease and the other. All the arguments in favour of this tax support the view that this is a case in which the State has the right to levy toll for the benefit of the country. Where is the difference between the case of a man who buys land below its normal value and sells at a profit and a man who buys land above the normal value and sells at a profit? Surely it is an injustice to impose the tax on one and not on the other. Everyone who has anything to do with land will see that instead of this tax falling equally it will fall unequally on different classes.
§ Mr. RIDSDALEWith the leave of the House I should like to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Leave to withdraw Amendment withheld.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place, and claimed to move that "the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 79.
847| Division No. 230.] | AYES. | [5.30 p.m. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Glover, Thomas | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) |
| Alden, Percy | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Gulland, John W. | Radford, G. H. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Hart-Davies, T. | Rees, J. D. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Hedges, A. Paget | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Henry, Charles S. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maidon) | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Higham, John Sharp | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Black, Arthur w. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Rowlands, J. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hodge, John | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Holland, Sir William Henry | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Brodie, H. C | Holt, Richard Durning | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Horniman, Emslie John | Sears, J. E. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hudson, Walter | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Shackleton, David James |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Byles, William Pollard | Jowett, F. W. | Snowden, p. |
| Cameron, Robert | Laidlaw, Robert | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Lambert, George | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Chance, Frederick William | Lament, Norman | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Steadman, W. C. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Lehmann, R. C. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Cleland, J. W. | Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Clough, William | Levy, Sir Maurice | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Sutherland, J. E |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Taylor, Austin (East Texteth) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Lyell, Charles Henry | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Lynch, H. B. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Tomkinson, James |
| Cox, Harold | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Toulmin, George |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Crooks, William | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Walters, John Tudor |
| Crosfield, A. H. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Walton, Joseph |
| Cross, Alexander | Maddison, Frederick | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Mallet, Charles E. | Wardle, George J. |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Marnham, F. J | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Massie, J. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) | Master man, C. F. G. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Menzies, Sir Walter | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Micklem, Nathaniel | Weir, James Galloway |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Molteno, Percy Alport | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Mond, A. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Morgan, G Hay (Cornwall) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Morrell, Philip | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Essex, R. W. | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Napier, T. B. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Nicholls, George | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Faber, G. H (Boston) | Norman, Sir Henry | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Norton, Captain Cecil William | Winfrey, R. |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Nuttall, Harry | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | O'Grady, J. | |
| Fullerton, Hugh | O'Malley, William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis. |
| Gibb, James Harrow | Parker, James (Halifax) | |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Bridgeman, W. Clive |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Butcher, Samuel Henry |
| Ashley, W. W. | Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Bertram, Julius | Carlile, E. Hildred |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Bignold, Sir Arthur | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Bowles, G. Stewart | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Heaton, John Henniker | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hill, Sir Clement | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Renton, Leslie |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Kerry, Earl of | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Kimber, Sir Henry | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Rt.-Col. A. R. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Stanier, Beville |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Fell, Arthur | Magnus, Sir Philip | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Foster, P. S. | Morpeth, Viscount | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Gardner, Ernest | Newdegate, F. A. | Younger, George |
| Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | |
| Gordon, J. | Oddy, John James | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | A. Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. |
| Harris, Frederick Leverton | Percy, Earl | Forster. |
| Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
§ Question pat, "That those words be there added."
848§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 77, Noes, 248.
849| Division No. 231.] | AYES. | [5.36 p.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W. ) | Newdegate, F A. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Fardell, Sir T. George | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Fell, Arthur | Oddy, John James |
| Ashley, W. W. | Fletcher, J. S. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Forster, Henry William | Percy, Earl |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Foster, P. S. | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Gardner, Ernest | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Gordon, J. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Renton, Leslie |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Rutherford, W. W (Liverpcol) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Heaton, John Henniker | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Butcher, Samuel, Henry | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hill, Sir Clement | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Kerry, Earl of | Stanier, Beville |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C B. Stuart. |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Younger, George |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Lyttelton, Rt Hon. Alfred | |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Magnus, Sir Philip | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr C. D. Faber and Mr. Evelyn Cecil. |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers. | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) | Boland, John | Cooper, G. J. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Boulton, A. C. F. | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) |
| Alden, Percy | Bowerman, C. W. | Cotton, Sir H. J S. |
| Ambrose, Robert | Brocklehurst, W. B. | Cox, Harold |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Brodie, H. C. | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Brooke, Stopford | Crooks, William |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Bryce, J. Annan | Crosfield, A. H. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.J | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Cross, Alexander |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Dalziel, Sir James Henry |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Byles, William Pollard | Davies, M Vaughan- (Cardigan) |
| Batlow, Percy (Bedford) | Cameron, Robert | Dewar, Arthur (Edinbugh, S.) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Chance, Frederick William | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Cheetham, John Frederick | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Bennett, E. N. | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Dobson, Thomas W. |
| Bertram, Julius | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Cleland, J. W. | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Clough, William | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward |
| Black, Arthur W. | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Essex, R. W. |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Roch, Walter f. (Pembroke) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Mackarness, Frederic C | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Faber, G H. (Boston) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Ferens, T. R. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Rowlands, J. |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | M'Kean, John | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Foster, Rt. Hon Sir Walter | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Maddison, Frederick | Sears, J. E. |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Mallet, Charles E. | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Marnham, F. J. | Shackleton, David James |
| Ginnell, L | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Massie, J. | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Glover, Thomas | Masterman, C. F G. | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Meagher, Michael | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Menzies, Sir Walter | Snowden, P. |
| Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Micklem, Nathaniel | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Gulland, John W. | Molteno, Percy Alport | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Mond, A. | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Steadman, W. C. |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Worrell, Philip | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Hart-Davies, T. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Murphy, John (Kerry, East) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. c. (Kincard.) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Sutherland, J E. |
| Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Nannetti, Joseph p | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Henry, Charles S. | Napier, T. B. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Nicholls, George | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Nolan, Joseph | Tomkinson, James |
| Higham, John Sharp | Norman, Sir Henry | Toulmin, George |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Norton, Captain Cecil William | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Nuttall, Harry | Walters, John Tudor |
| Hedge, John | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) | Walton, Joseph |
| Hogan, Michael | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | O'Doherty, Philip | Wardle, George J. |
| Holt, Richard Durning | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | O'Grady, J. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Horniman, Emslie John | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Hudson, Walter | O'Malley, William | Watt, Henry A. |
| Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Weir, James Galloway |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Jowett, F. W. | Philipps, Col Ivor (Southampton) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Joyce, Michael | Philips, John (Longford, S.) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Kavanagh, Walter M | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Kilbride, Denis | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Power, Patrick Joseph | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Lambert, George | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Lamont, Norman | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Radford, G. H. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Rainy, A. Holland | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Raphael, Herbert H. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) | Redmond, William (Clare) | Winfrey, R. |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Roes, J. D. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Ridsdale, E. A. | |
| Lundon, T. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis. |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Roberts, G. H (Norwich) | |
| Lynch, H. B | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
§ The Earl of RONALDSHAY moved to insert at the end of section (1) the words, "subject to deduction of the amount of any decrement during the same period in the value of any other land in the same ownership."
The object of my Amendment is to find the unit on which the Increment Value Duty is to be charged. I have endeavoured on various occasions, not very successfully I am afraid, to find out from the Government exactly what is the unit upon which this Increment Value Duty is to be charged. I notice that the Lord Advocate was good enough to address an assembly on the
850
borders of my Constituency a few days ago, and he put this question to his audience:—
Why do the Tories rage so furiously together? Why do they foam at the mouth over the land tax? I can answer that question. The truth is that to name taxes to a Tory is like displaying a red rag to a bull. They don't understand them, will not understand them seemingly. They cannot understand what the meaning of land taxes is.
If we do not understand these taxes I do not think we are altogether to blame ourselves. I think the Lord Advocate was on rather slippery ground when he made that assertion, because apparently neither he nor any of his colleagues thoroughly understand these taxes. At any rate, if
851
they do understand them, they are not very successful in answering questions which are put to them in reference to those taxes. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford on the 23rd of last month asked a specified question with regard to the particular unit of land on which this Increment Value Duty was to be charged. The learned Attorney-General (Sir W. Robson) said in reply:—
If it turns out that the particular land is being sold at some price below the standard value of course there is then a loss and the owner bears that loss. I do not think I can quite make it plainer. He bears the loss; he pays the increment when he gets it, and he does not pay when he does not get it.
The learned Attorney-General let in that flood of light upon the point, and made this rather astonishing declaration with as much solemnity as if he had been announcing the discovery of the law of gravity or enunciating some startling theory as to the real function in the cosmos of imponderable matter. I think the Attorney-General was wrong. I believe that under the provisions of the Bill as it now stands it is possible that the owner of the land may pay the Increment Value Duty, when, as a matter of fact, he receives no increase of value at all. Supposing a man has a plot of land in the centre of some city. Supposing, owing to the action of the community, that plot of land falls in value. That may occur owing to the fact that the locality in which his land is situated ceases to be a desirable one from a residential point of view. There may be omnibuses or tramcars passing along the streets on which his land abuts, and which make the value of his land for residential purposes a very much depreciated value, so that on selling it he sustains an actual loss. But supposing that he recoups his loss by selling land which happens to be in the outskirts of the same city, and which has increased in value due to the same causes which have been responsible for the decrease of the other land. Supposing he sells a part of his land which has increased in value to make good the loss sustained on the land which has fallen in value, then what does the Attorney-General say? He shuts his eyes to the whole of that part of the transaction on which there is a loss, and opens his eyes to that part on which there is an apparent gain. In his own words, in the case where there is a decrement the owner of the land bears the loss, but in the case where there is an increment then the State steps in and takes 20 per cent. of the increased value. Land in itself is not
852
capable of paying taxes; it is only the measure by which we endeavour to estimate the ability of its owner to pay taxes, and to charge the Increment Value Duty in such a case as I have put before the Committee would be grossly unfair. You would really be taking away from that man a part of his actual property. It would not be the case of a windfall, as described by the Prime Minister; it would actually be taking for the needs of the State a part of the property which the man possesses at the time. The Prime Minister, speaking not in this House but outside, a few days ago, dealt with what he considered to be one of two serious arguments brought against this Increment Value Duty. He said:—
The second argument is that if for national purposes you take in the shape of taxation that part, or some part at any rate, of increment which is due to social causes, you ought as a matter of justice, when such a case arises, to compensate the owner of the property for decrement in like circumstances… It is a childish argument. There is no basis of any kind either in reason or in experience for that.
With great respect, I would suggest that the Prime Minister was indulging in rather sweeping and rash declamation in describing as childish an argument which has been advanced by other professors of political economy quite as orthodox in their views as either the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The late Professor Fawcett, a political economist of distinctly orthodox views, on page 286 of the sixth edition of his "Manual of Political Economy," dealt with the very argument which was described by the Prime Minister as childish. He says:—
It seems to us that it can neither be defended on grounds of justice nor expediency. If the State appropriated this unearned increment would it not be bound to give compensation if land became depreciated through no fault of its owner, but in consequence of a general change in the circumstances of the country?…. If the State in prosperous times appropriates an increase in value, and if in adverse times the falling off in value has to be borne by the owner, land would at once have a disability attached to it which belongs to no other property.
The analogy which was taken by the Prime Minister in the course of the same speech dealing with the same point can be made to support my Amendment, I think, with very great force and cogency. The Prime Minister went on to say:—
Take Income Tax, you tax a man on his profits: if he does not make any profit there is nothing for yon to tax.
Yes, but I venture to suggest that if you apply the principle which you have embodied in this Bill to the collection of the Income Tax you would indeed, in many cases, be taxing men upon profits which
853
they have never made. Take the ease of a man who deals in different commodities, such as tea, sugar, and rubber, for instance. He may find in the case of tea and sugar that he has made a net profit of £2,000. On the other hand, he finds, as far as his dealings in rubber are concerned, he has made a net loss of £1,000. Does the Prime Minister seriously suggest that he should pay Income Tax upon £2,000 where he has made a profit, and that where he has made a loss that is no concern of the State? Surely the tradesman should take the loss made on one part of his business from the profits which he has made on the other, and pay Income Tax on the net profit derived from the whole of these transactions. Why cannot that principle be applied to the collection of the Increment Value Duty on land? It is precisely the same. I think anybody who says that this principle cannot be applied in connection with this increment value on land must be obsessed with the idea, as indeed is the Prime Minister, in common with Mr. Henry George, and, I think, Mr. John Stuart Mill, namely, that the increment value in the case of land is—I quote the words of the Prime Minister himself— "normal, regular, continuous, progressive." Surely it must be well known to the Committee that it is nothing of the sort. If you take the whole of the land of the United Kingdom during the last ten years, with which the report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue deal, you will find that the profits from land have not only not increased, but have decreased. The total value that came under the cognisance of the Commissioners in 1897–98, amounted to fifty-four millions sterling, whereas in 1906–7 it amounted to only a little more than fifty-two millions, so that there has been an actual decrement of 1¾ or 2 millions sterling. Under those circumstances I hope the Government will give their most favourable consideration to the Amendment. I think they must see that it is an eminently just Amendment, and that it is only fair that a man should only have to pay upon the actual increase he may have. Under the provisions of the Bill as it stands individuals would probably be called on to pay Increment Value Duty where, as a matter of fact, they had received no increment value at all. The same thing applies to bodies corporate and unincorporate. There was an instance mentioned last week of a bank with several branches, some of which show an increment value and others a decrement value.
854
Would it be fair to take the amount of increment in those parts where it was shown and not allow the decrement before they were called upon to pay?
§ The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir William Robson)The Noble Lord has certainly expounded a principle of somewhat startling novelty. The Committee will, of course, appreciate exactly what this Amendment is. It is to the effect that if a land-owner should be taxed upon some increment, say in Cornwall, he should be permitted to set against that some decrement, say in Caithness, a principle which the Committee will see would make this tax difficult and almost futile in collection in a very great number of cases. That would work out in favour of the large owner, who would be able to average his lands. The Noble Lord defended his principle by illustrations put in all sincerity. He instanced the case of a man holding land in the centre of a city and also in the suburbs, and that, owing to a movement of the population, there was depreciation in the land in the central portion of the city, and, on the other hand, appreciation in the land in the suburbs. He argued that in fiscal ethics there ought to be compensation in the case of the decrement. In the case of any Property Tax whatever you have happening exactly what the Noble Lord described in the case of sites of land. You have a house in the centre part, with the land depreciating, and on that a lower rate has to be paid; and you have a greater Property Tax being paid in the suburbs. In other words, you have appreciation and depreciation valued, undoubtedly, by just this difference, that in taxation you pay less where you get less, and you pay more where you get more. That is exactly the same principle here. In the case of depreciation you pay no increment. In the case of appreciation there is increment, and you pay upon it. Chancellors of the Exchequer right down from the days of Elizabeth have been obliged, especially in dealing with property, to tax where the profit is made, and certainly without ever allowing any compensation for any case in which there was a loss. Such a thing could not be carried out. When the coal export duty was being proposed by hon. Members opposite I remember, during the discussion on that tax, a great many persons connected with the export of coal pointed out that there were many collieries, especially in the North-East, which made a profit on export coal and a loss on the home trade. Lord St. Aldwyn— 855 or Sir Michael Hicks-Beach as he then was—never suggested, and I do not think hon. Members opposite suggested, that there should be any balance or compensation allowed to the coal-owner in those circumstances. In the history of taxation I cannot find or conceive a case where on taxes on property you are going to pay such compensation. There is one case very different from this, that of municipal betterment, where, for instance, you cut a road through a man's property, putting one part into the front and the other into the back, and where you are allowed to put one against the other. That is nothing like a tax of this kind. It does not seem to us even just, and certainly is wholly impracticable. A tax on property applies only where there is profit. There is no reason why the State should lose that profit because owing to circumstances with which the State is not concerned the taxpayer has, to his misfortune, had a loss in some other.
§ Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTONI venture to think the Attorney-General did not really fully understand the weight of the case which was put in the admirable speech by the Noble Lord (Earl of Ronaldshay). So far as I could gather, the Attorney-General, in defending the Government upon this question, began by alleging in the first place that it would benefit the rich man, in the second that it was a question of compensation, and thirdly that the Amendment was a novelty. I think I can show that none of those three propositions are correct. As to the first, I dispute that large owners alone would benefit. Take the case of a small man who has put his savings into ten acres of land. Suppose that he utilises two or three acres of that in a way that is advantageous to himself, or rather on the two or three acres. The very fact that he had made a profit by the improvement or development of these two or three acres might be the very cause of ensuring a decrement upon the other seven acres. If the principle is that you should tax the owner, who is the person, for the benefit he has received from the ownership of land and upon the profit he has received from the whole, then manifestly it is plain justice that you should set decrement against increment. It is not a question of compensation at all. It is a question of increment or profit. If the Attorney-General had had time to study the Prime Minister's statement, he 856 would have known that this tax is not imposed as a tax upon land. The Prime Minister says that the subject of the tax is the windfall in the hands of the owner. If that is the case, you ought to ascertain whether there really is a windfall. If a man gains £10,000 or £10 upon the sale of a portion of his estate and loses more than that sum upon the remainder of the estate, clearly he has not an increment at all. It is "childish"—to use the Prime Minister's expression—to say that it is just to tax a man upon his profit when he has no profit at all. My Noble Friend has referred to the speeches made by the Prime Minister and by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Simon), both of whom contended that when you tax a man on his profits in a good year, you do not give him compensation in the next year if he has had a bad season. That is not a parallel case. The Income Tax is a tax on the average income made in three years, with certain abatements. If I am carrying on a risky business, such as that of a colliery, where it is notorious that one year I may make a large profit and in another year or in a succession of years I may incur heavy losses, will the Attorney-General contend that, if I make a profit of £10,000 in one year and in the next two years a loss of £5,000 a year, I am not entitled to set off those losses in taking the average of the three years? I can see that the difficulties of the machinery are very considerable; but if it is impossible fairly to set off the decrement against the increment, it is a condemnation of the whole proposal, and I am inclined to think that that is the real conclusion to be drawn from the premises we have been considering. If it be established that to assess decrement is impracticable, I say that that completely sweeps away the justification to this tax. The State says to a land-owner: "I am going to impose myself upon you against your will as a partner in your transactions in land, but I am going to be a partner only in those transactions in which you make a profit, and not in those in which you make a loss." The matter is not confined to large land-owners. You can easily conceive a case in which a man owning eight or ten acres may be a loser upon one part of his property and a gainer upon the other. Why should the State be a partner in the case where the man gains and not in the other? The whole proposal is based upon a fallacy which will not bear examination.
857 In regard to the novelty of the Amendment, the Attorney-General referred to municipal cases in which betterment was charged, and a set off allowed for worse-ment. The hon. and learned Gentleman was incorrect in saying that the whole of the betterment was taken from the owner. In the cases with which I am familiar only 3 per cent. per annum upon the increase was charged—a very small matter. But be that as it may, the experience of these municipalities, certainly of the London County Council, was that the whole scheme was unworkable. The London County Council which proposed the betterment tax were a very radical body. They considered the matter for a long time in a businesslike way, and arrived at the conclusion at which I think every just man must arrive, that it is dishonest to tax a man on his profit, and not ascertain whether that profit has really been made. They came to that conclusion, because they allowed the owner to set off any loss that he might have made, although at the same time he might concurrently have made a profit. In principle that is absolutely right and just. If it cannot be worked it condemns the whole tax, and that probably would be the best result which could occur in this case.
§ Mr. HAROLD COXI hope the Government will either accept this Amendment or insert other words to meet the same difficulty, because the difficulty is a very serious one, and it is not disposed of by the Attorney-General's suggestion that you cannot balance a loss in Caithness by a gain in Cornwall. Let us admit that for the sake of argument. Nevertheless, there are cases where it can be done, and where great injustice would be inflicted if it is not done. Some weeks ago there came to me a gentleman, a personal friend of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said, "I believe you understand these taxes." I had to express my fear that I did not. He said, "This proposal may be very serious to me. My business consists in buying land wholesale, and selling it retail; sometimes I make a profit, sometimes a loss. I gather that this tax will mean a 20 per cent. Income Tax on my income." I said, "No, you are under amis-apprehension. It will be not 20 per cent. on your income, but 20 per cent. on every profit you make, without compensation for any losses." "Then," he said, "it may work out at 50 per cent., or even 150 per cent., on my income"; to which I replied, "Quite likely." That is what must 858 happen to people engaged in the business of buying and selling land, which is just as legitimate a business as buying and selling cheese. The Government will have to deal with this point; otherwise they will find every builder and every land company in the country attacking them. The business of these people consists in buying land wholesale, dividing it into convenient plots, and selling it for housing purposes. It is a very useful business, but you will destroy it if you impose this penal tax. I was surprised that a gentleman with so acute a mind as the Attorney-General should compare this tax with the Income Tax. Surely he overlooked the fact that the two taxes are based on entirely different principles. The principle of the Income Tax is that the man has got the income, and, therefore, can afford to pay the tax. You do not ask him how he got it. The Increment Tax is based on a new moral principle, that a man has got something which is not his, and, therefore, you are justified in taking it from him. In the one case you tax a man according to his means, and in the other according to the origin of his property. It is the State that has created the increment, and it is the State also that has created the decrement; and if the State considers it has a moral right to take the increment, it is surely under a moral obligation to compensate for the decrement. I do not think the Government have quite appreciated the fact that the people engaged in buying and selling land already pay Income Tax on their net profits; and now the Attorney-General makes a totally new proposal—namely, that they shall wipe out all the transactions on which they make a loss, and, in addition to their Income Tax, pay an Increment Duty on every operation on which they make a profit.
§ Mr. HICKS BEACHI hope the Government will give some more adequate reason than they have yet done for resisting this Amendment. It is a curious coincidence that whenever an Amendment is moved from this side of the House the one answer put forward is that it is moved for the benefit of large land-owners. That is an absolute invention. The Attorney-General's argument with regard to a man who owns houses in different parts of London is entirely unsound. A man pays under schedule A on the actual income received from a house. If the house goes down in value, the rent goes down, and he pays Income Tax on the actual rent 859 received. On the other hand, if a house in another part goes up in value, he pays Income Tax on the actual rent received. Therefore, the two cases are not comparable. I should like to have a definite answer to that particular point. What is to happen in the case of corporate bodies throughout the country? Every 15 years there is to be a valuation of their landed property, and we should like to know on what basis they will have to pay? Will they have to pay increment value on every estimated rise in value on the various pieces of land they own throughout the country, or will they have to pay Increment Duty on all those pieces of land which in the opinion of the advisers of the Crown have gone up in value in the last 15 years, or will they be able to set-off against these those portions of their property which, also in the opinion of the Inland Revenue, have depreciated in value? It is really a very important point. It is quite conceivable that if you are going to take Increment Duty solely on the land that has gone up in value, those corporate bodies, whether they are banks or business concerns, or whatever they may be, may well have in future to pay a large additional Income Tax on an income never received. Will you possibly dare to carry out taxation of that kind upon any other industry in the country? What would the shareholders of Harrods Stores, or John Barker and Company, or of other trading concerns, say; would they appreciate the privilege of paying Income Tax on the profits they make on one part of their business and not being allowed to set-off against the profits the various losses they make on the other portions of the same business? The shareholders in these large companies would rise up in arms at once. The same thing would happen in the case of a small tradesman, say the man in charge of a small village store. He very likely makes a profit on his tea and sugar, and perhaps a loss on his boots and clothing. He is allowed to set-off the losses on the boots and clothing against the profits on the tea and sugar. On the basis of the actual income he receives he pays Income Tax. By this Increment Duty you will make him pay under an entirely new condition—why, heaven only knows. So far as I can make out, it is simply because the matter has something to do with land, and because landed pro-property is a kind of property which everybody can see, and make particularly subject to unfair and unjust taxation. The 860 right hon. Gentleman mentioned just now the Export Duty on coal. There was a great outcry when that duty was imposed, because the exporters of coal said that it materially prejudiced their trade. Supposing it did so, these coal traders, if they did make losses on their export of coal were allowed to counterbalance them against the profits they made on their other sales of coal. I entirely fail to see why the Government, in framing this very unjust taxation, should make it worse by restrictions which are obviously and grossly unfair. They would never attempt to apply these provisions to any other taxpayers throughout the country.
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSONI am a supporter of this Increment Tax, which I desire to see become a very good, useful, working tax. But it must be founded on something like justice. The Attorney-General has committed himself to the statement that there is no allowance on Income Tax for losses. That is wrong.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI did not say that.
§ Mr. HENDERSONSomebody said it on the Front Bench, and it is altogether wrong. If I make a loss of £1,000 this year and a loss of £1,000 next year, and the following year make a profit of £3,000, I pay on £1,000. That is to say, the other £i,000 are wiped out. There is no analogy between this and the land. Hitherto the Income Tax authorities have declined to have anything to do with capital, and this is the first tax which is to be put upon capital. The Attorney - General should really take this matter seriously into consideration. As I have said, I am entirely favourable to this tax, but there are cases — there must be cases — in which the greatest hardship will accrue. There is a town with which I am well acquainted where the land company owns a large quantity of land in both the north and south parts of the town. The land in the north has gone down in value, because the tide of population has swept to the south. In the south they have made a profit, but it would be clearly and manifestly wrong at the end of 15 years, or whatever the period may be, if you were to say: "We will take the land at the south and charge Increment Tax upon it, but we will not allow you to merge your losses in the land in the north." It does not seem to me to be right, and I am anxious to get this tax into a proper working way. But you will never do that if you create such a very serious inequality 861 as that when a man or a company owns two pieces of land, on one of which there is a great increment and on the other of which there is a great decrement, if you do not allow them to merge and equalise. You must find out some way to do this.
§ Mr. JAMES F. MASONIt seems to me that the whole of this question of decrement really depends upon what is the unit of area that you are going to make use of. When you are fixing upon the unit of area you cannot go into a small number of yards. If you take the smallest unit you can, which will probably be the site of a house, even there you have a variety in value between the frontage and the back of the site. That is really at the bottom of the whole difficulty. Suppose you take the case of a residence standing on the outskirts of the town in 10 acres of land. That land will have a building value on which there is increment. But it is quite evident that if the land on the outskirts has a building value, the centre portion on which the house stands loses in value. There was mentioned just now the case of a business in which it was said that a profit was made on one part and no profit made on the other. There is a business in which I am interested in which one part of the manufacture is deliberately carried on at a loss in order to enable another branch of it, which practically utilises the by-products from the first, to be carried on at a profit. Would it be possible or fair to tax the profits which are made from the profitable part of the business without taking into consideration the losses which are deliberately undertaken to enable the paying part to be carried on at all?
But there are a great many estates of which one end lies close to the town and the other end lies out in the country. It is quite evident that that part lying near to the town will probably have an accrued increment value, but it may be supposed at the same time that the agricultural end has decreased in value. It surely would not be fair to treat them as anything but one unit! The whole estate should be treated as a business is treated, and its profits taxed as a whole. But there may be cases in which this increment and the decrement alike are due to very accidental causes. I have here a really very interesting case. It concerns an estate which lies about four miles from a country town not more than 25 miles from London. The agricultural value runs at about £30 per acre. The Great Western Railway 862 Company ran a line of motor omnibuses on the two roads which run on each side of the estate. The existence of these motor omnibuses induced certain people to pay £150 for some of the land on both sides for building purposes. After a while it was found that the omnibuses did not pay, so the service on one side was stopped, while the other side service was continued. The result is that the side from which the motor omnibuses have been taken has now a decreasing building value, whilst on the other side there is more or less of a demand at a low rent. Supposing Increment Duty had been charged on the whole of that estate alike, as it might jusifiably have been when the two lines of motor 'buses were running, and at the rate on the building land worth £150 per acre, then on the next collection or adjustment of the Increment Duty—assuming that by that time the land at £150 had gone up to £250 per acre—it surely would only be just to take into consideration the loss or decrement which had happened on the side on which the omnibuses had ceased through no fault of the owner, but simply because the railway company chose to consider their own ends. There are cases, too, in which decrement is due to causes entirely beyond the power of the owner to influence, and in which it does seem very hard that there should be no set-off. In a certain case of land which was being laid out, and so gradually becoming available for villa residences, and thereby acquiring a considerable building value, the county council, without the authority and against the wish of the owner, built a lunatic asylum in the middle of the district. It immediately stopped the development of that particular part of the estate for villa residences. Here you have a case of decrement because of the action of a public authority, which seems to me should be taken into account in considering increment which might take place on any other portion of the estate. In the same way there is the case of a particular holding assessed for Income Tax for £700, and which in the last nine years has, I think, fetched on an average only £317 for rent, due to depreciation caused by the smell coming from the chemical works of Messrs. Brunner and Mond. It seems to me hard that in cases of that kind increment should be charged on some portion of an estate, but no allowance made for loss upon another portion, it seems hard that whenever a loss was made the owner should have to bear it all.
§ Mr. W. H. DICKINSONThe right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's Hanover Square, referred in the course of hi3 speech to certain proposals in the Amendment which he said had been applied by local authorities. That took place first in 1895, when proposals were brought forward which contained provisions with regard to "worsening." That was the London County Council (Tower Bridge Approach) Act, 1895, and although that subject was discussed very greatly in this House, the Bill which was introduced at the time passed through this House without the worsening clause being inserted. It was due to the action of the House of Lords that the provisions which now exist in these Acts are present in our legislation. The question was very thoroughly discussed both by this House and the House of Lords, and the House of Lords Committee, which was appointed for the express purpose of considering these proposed measures, came to the conclusion that there ought to be some system under which decrement should be compensated for; but when it came to be put into operation it was shown to the satisfaction, I believe, of the House of Lords Committee that the subject was so difficult and the proposals were so impossible to carry out, and also so absolutely illogical, that they were compelled to limit these provisions to the very narrowest compass indeed. The lines upon which they passed that legislation was this:—
"The owner or lessee of any land upon which a charge is proposed to be placed, who may be owner or lessee of other lands within the limits of deviation, may give notice that substantial and permanent decrease in the value of such other lands has been caused by the improvement… and if it be clearly shown that any substantial and permanent decrease in the value of such other lands have been caused by the improvement the arbitrator shall deduct the same in determining the charge in respect of such first-mentioned land."
They take that into consideration, and it is limited entirely to land which in the limits of deviation—that is to say, to land upon which it is proposed to include those upon which the betterment is going to be charged—land within the limit of the deviation, and lands which were effected to their detriment by improvements which were going to be carried out. The Committee at the time passed that proposal, but the proposal, so far as I am aware, has never really been effected in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. 864 George's on two or three occasions stated that the betterment views of the London County Council and Manchester Corporations and others were very unsatisfactory, and that they never resulted in anything. That is totally a mistake. There are, as a matter of fact, several schemes now in London, and those buildings are bringing in substantial advantage to the ratepayers. Those worsening clauses never have been of any advantage, and it seems to me that they proceeded altogether upon a wrong basis, and it is because they proceeded upon a wrong basis that they were not accepted in 1905 in the House of Commons, and only accepted in the House of Lords in a very narrow way indeed. This is a tax, as the discussion has shown, upon land, and is not a tax upon persons. I listened to the whole of this Debate, and I am sorry that certain hon. Members on this side of the House and below the Gangway have raised the question as to whether this ought not to be a tax upon individuals. I believe the essence of the clause is that the tax proposed to be levied is a tax upon land, and that that tax will adhere to land and that portion of the land will in due course be properly saddled with this particular tax. If that is so, it seems to me to be perfectly illogical to bring in the question of the owner of land, some of which may improve and other portions not. The Attorney-General has pointed out that if this particular Amendment was accepted, it would entitle the owner to estimate according to what he might have lost at Caithness, as compared with what he might have gained at Cornwall. It ought always to be a tax upon land, and you cannot differentiate the particular position which is occupied by individual owners and say that one particular piece of land should not be subject to this tax because it belongs to one land-owner, while another portion should pay a tax because it belongs to another. For these reasons I think the Bill is drafted upon the right lines and upon the only principle applicable to what we call betterment or increment value in land, and as such it is impossible to accept any kind of Amendment which would enable persons to claim a remission of the tax simply upon some one portion of land.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThere is no statement I have ever heard more frequently from the Benches opposite when discussing fiscal questions than that all taxes must be paid by persons, and 865 that nothing is to be paid by things. There is no statement which conies more habitually from the mouths of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite or with greater approval than that. In order to justify this particular tax the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is obliged to follow the Prime Minister in his theory that persons have nothing to do with the tax, and that things, namely, land, can be made to bear the tax without reference to persons. I do not think it is worth while to enter into that controversy with the hon. Gentleman. I only observe that after following the accounts of what took place in London as closely as I could, I gathered from a statement of the hon. Member that where it was attempted to charge an increment the set-off for worsening, if it took place as over the area in which increment could be charged, and therefore, so far from deriving any precedent for this Kill as it stands in respect to these particular Acts, that which has been quoted by the hon. Gentleman goes in an exactly opposite direction. I want now to turn to the case set up by the Attorney-General for the Government. His defence was two-fold. He contended that it was practically unknown to our taxation that where we take a tax upon profits realised we should give compensation for loss. As has already been pointed out, that is no answer to our argument. The Amendment moved by my Noble Friend does not ask for compensation for loss, it asks that before you declare a profit taxable you should ascertain that it is a profit, that you should review the whole of the transaction, strike a balance of profit and loss, and if there be a profit then let the Government tax it. But you should not exclude from a man's balance sheet every unfortunate transaction which has really resulted in a loss, and look only to find a profit, you look to see whether he has not made a profit upon the whole, and you tax that without any regard to the countervailing loss. The Attorney-General says that to do what we ask has no precedent in our taxation legislation. Really the Attorney-General's studies in our taxation laws have been rather remiss. Income Tax is not based upon the principle which the Government are laying down for this Increment Tax. We could test that in a moment. Will the Government accept for the purposes of this tax such a profit as would be declared to be income for Income Tax purposes? Of course they would not. It would turn their whole Bill upside down, and is the 866 very thing we are asking for. Let me call the Atcorney-Generais attention to what the Income Tax does. It not merely allows a man to set on his losses in a particular business against his gain, but it allows him to set off his losses in one particular business against his profits in another particular business, wholly unconnected though they may be excepting so far as he is the owner of both. Section 101 of the Income Tax Act says: "Persons carrying on one or 'more concerns can set the loss that is sustained in one against the profit acquired in the other." That is an exact parallel, and, at any rate, it is a precedent which covers the widest interpretation that can possibly be put upon the Amendment of my Noble Friend. In these cases the profit and loss in two separate businesses can be set off one against the other. Similar cases of profit and loss may occur in the neighbourhood of a town—they may occur on two contiguous portions of the same property. What does this Bill provide? It provides that every portion of land in separate occupation shall be separately valued for the purposes of this tax, and, accordingly, if you make a profit on one particular piece of land by selling it for the purposes of the gas works, and find in consequence that the neighbouring plot of land is depreciated, you cannot treat it as one transaction, but the profit made on one is to be taxed. You take no account of the loss, and there is to be no set-off. Is it possible for anybody to contend that that position is a fair one? Is it fair to say, not indeed that you will not compensate a man for decrement, but that before you assess a part of his property for increment you will not take the trouble to find out whether there has been any increment earned on the transaction as a whole. Thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am in possession of the statement published in regard to the Frankfort tax, and let me call the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention to the Hamburg case. It says:
Where land is divided up and sold in portions the tax need not necessarily be collected on the occasion of each sale, but may, if the vendor desires, be held over until the whole is sold.In such cases as those which were put by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, the hon. Member for Preston, and other Members on the Opposition side of the House, that would enable you to assess the tax on your real windfall or the real profit, and not upon an imaginary profit which may not have been made at all. I do not see how all this applies to the wider cases mentioned by some other hon. Members. 867 It may be that it is impossible so to draft your taxing law for the purposes of this tax that you shall do justice to the taxpayer, but the inference to be drawn from the conclusion urged by the Attorney-General is not that the taxpayer should suffer injustice, but that the Government should withdraw an ill-considered and unjust tax. We know how different is the tax you are asking the House to pass from the tax which the Prime Minister and his colleague have been describing on different platforms, and when that is fully recognised there will be a rude awakening in the country, and we shall come by our own.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDI have listened carefully to the speeches which have been made in favour of this Amendment, beginning with the very admirably-reasoned speech of the Mover. I should feel bound to vote for this Amendment if I could be convinced that what the Government propose to do by this Bill is to impose a form of Income Tax. If the land taxes are really in the form of an Income Tax then there is no answer to the arguments of those who have supported this Amendment. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Lyttel-ton) is absolutely unanswerable from that point of view. But is it an Income Tax? That is the whole point. I am going to vote against this Amendment, because I do not think it is an Income Tax, and I do not regard it as an Income Tax. The point is are we taxing the aggregate income of a man or are we taxing the value imposed upon a certain form of property which has not accrued by the owner's effort? I regard the land clauses as imposing a tax of the second character. Therefore, if you have a land company trading in buying land in wholesale quantities and selling it in what you might call retail quantities we must not consider how we are going to tax that company in regard to the profits made on its total transactions. We have to impose upon that company taxation in accordance with the principle whether the article it is handling in relation to its value belongs to a certain category of values created not by the company, but by the community. Hon. Members above the Gangway may disagree in regard to that principle, but there it is, and it is because we accept this theory which is the fundamental principle of these clauses that their arguments have 868 no weight with us. The question is can hon. Members who oppose this clause justify the proposition which they now make in accordance with the general assumption of the whole of this clause. If they can we should have to support the Amendment, and if they cannot we shall have to vote against it. What we are now imposing is not a tax upon income, but upon something which we say does exist, but in some cases may not exist. If it does not exist then no tax will be imposed, and if it does exist the tax will be imposed. To discover whether it exists or not we must not take the general income pocketed by a man who may own ground rents in Holborn, and agricultural land in Buckinghamshire. All we have to do is to discover whether the land owned in Holborn has a certain value upon it, and it does not matter for the purposes of this tax whether the owner of that particular land is the same person who owns land in Buckinghamshire as well. If the thing we are taxing exists in Holborn it ought to be taxed, and it does not make any difference whether it is lumped with something else or not.
Mr. J. ELLIS GRIFFITHI think the whole point of what we have been discussing for a long time is what is the area of the unit of valuation. At an earlier stage the Government said nothing about this unit of valuation, and had they done so I think this Debate might have been very much curtailed. I will give an illustration. Supposing a man possessed five acres of land and divided them, as he may do under Clause 15 of the Finance Bill. Supposing one acre of that plot is sold for the purposes of gas works at a considerable price. I want to know has the owner of the five acres to pay increment on the gas works plot and receive no allowance for the depreciation of the other four acres of land. That is really the point, and surely the Government can see its way to find some solution of this very obvious and very elementary difficulty'? The present Government is the last Government in the world to do any injustice to anybody, and I submit to the Attorney-General that he really might advise the Committee on this point at this stage. It would be really too ridiculous for the Government to say: "We will become a partner in your good bargain, but as for your bad bargain, take it away." I submit that this is such an obvious case of justice, fair play, and common-sense, that the Government ought to introduce words to meet the difficulty.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILWe have now seen the birth, life, and early death of the windfall, because it has been absolutely destroyed by the Debate this afternoon. I agree it was seriously injured by the Debate on the previous Amendment, but it has now been given its death blow. What is the theory of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald)? It is that there is something peculiar about this particular kind of property, because a particular value is conferred upon it by the? community, and therefore the Government are entitled to take that value, or a portion of it, for the State. Observe how that Works out when you come to deal with dealers in land. This point has been put With overwhelming force by the hon. Member for Preston, and no answer has been given to it or even attempted by the Government. You are going to take this particular industry of dealing in land, which we all admit is legitimate and beneficial, and you are going to tax it out of existence. It is futile to retort that this is what the Opposition did with the coal tax, because no one has suggested that we were going to tax that particular industry out of existence. Here, however, you are going to put a 50, 60, or 100 per cent. tax on the profits of dealers in land. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) said that is perfectly right, because that particular profit is derived from what has been called elsewhere the communal value of land. Just observe, there is really no distinction between that theory and the old revolutionary theory that property is a form of theft. It is the same argument absolutely. It is impossible, and, to do justice to the hon. Members below the Gangway, they do not attempt to draw distinctions between land and other forms of unearned increment. If you say it is right to tax the dealer in land out of existence, it is equally right to tax the dealer in any other commodity out of existence. Hon. Members below the Gangway admit that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] I do not see how they can deny it. I am not talking of manufactures, but the man who buys and sells— who buys at one price and sells at a higher price. The difference between the two prices has nothing whatever to do with what he has done for the article. It has Merely to do with the increased demand, or, as hon. Members below the Gangway would say, the communal effect of living in an organised and civilised state. Hon. Members must seriously consider how they are going to take away this property 870 without admitting that that property is a form of theft. That is the issue before the Committee, and I venture to hope the Government will adopt this Amendment or some amended form which will exclude the injustice they fear.
§ Mr. COURTENAY WARNERI cannot see that the arguments which have been used are much in favour of this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman quoted something which would be good, he thought out of the law of Hamburg. It was not anything which in the least favoured this Amendment. The whole point of this Amendment is that we should take decrement all over the country. A case has been put, Scotland and Cornwall, on the one hand, and the same field on the other. All through the Members of the Opposition have argued as if this was an Income Tax. I thoroughly agree with the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). It is not an Income Tax in any sense of the word, and, in supporting this tax, I cannot follow the Noble Lord who has just spoken (Lord Robert Cecil), in thinking it has anything to do with property being a form of theft, because it is only a certain kind of property, it is not landed property, it is not property in land, it is not property that exists at the present moment, that you are going to tax. The property to be taxed is a property which is to come into existence in the future. The tax is not in any way retrospective. Hon. Members always talk as if the thing was retrospective. It is not. It is a property which comes into existence in the future, which comes into existence from the efforts of the united community of the district, and it has nothing to do with the then owner, and I really cannot see that such property which is created by the State, which does not exist now, can in any way be called property which ought to belong to the man who happens to own the land or has some interest in the land which will be connected with the rise in value in the future. Let us come to another point. It is said it is always allowed in Income Tax. There are several instances where the Income Tax does not follow the principle advocated from the opposite side of the House. Take a man who has shares in two concerns. One pays him 10 per cent., and he pays Income Tax on that. The other pays him nothing, and he loses his capital. You do not take the decrement in the loss of his capital and set it against the 10 per cent. on which he is paying the tax. If they were separate 871 businesses, as they would be in speculative building transactions, then he has no right to claim a rebate on the tax in the profitable place, because he has lost somewhere else. I know it is quite true there are certain cases where businesses, industrial businesses, are run by the same man, which are quite different from this.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILWhy?
§ Mr. C. WARNERI will tell the Noble Lord what is the difference by an illustration. There are such things on the Stock Exchange as shares that have no intrinsic value, but they may have some value in the future. He could buy these, and they are called "gambling counters." This is a gambling counter. At the present time an increment value does not exist. It is something which is coming in the future, and the man who speculates in the increment in the value in the rise in the future is speculating in a gambling counter, and it is only right where this gambling counter gets its value, not from any foresight on his part, but from the efforts of the community, that it should be taxed. Surely that is totally different from an industrial business in which a man by his own effort. is endeavouring to make a profit out of a sound business by producing some thing of value instead of merely putting his money down and saying. "I think so-and-so will rise in value." It is very much the same sort of thing as betting on a horse. I should like to go a little further into the question of the tax on the actual commodity not being a personal tax. Of course, in one sense all taxes on commodities are personal taxes. A tax on tea is not paid by the pound of tea. it is paid by the dealer in tea. It is a personal tax on the consumer, but. all the same, it is a tax on the commodity, and in the same way the tax on increment falls upon the owner of the increment. or the seller of the increment. though it is not a tax upon the person; it is a tax upon the increment. It does not in any way justify the person who makes a profit upon that particular commodity claiming a rebate of taxation because he has lost on something else, or because he has even lost in selling the same commodity somewhere else, because he makes a profit on a commodity in one place, probably a large profit. and makes a mistake somewhere else and sells at a loss, doss not get back his money because of that loss, and may lose on the whole transaction. Let us take the case of the one field that is to be taxed. As far 872 as I understand the Bill, and I think it is very clear, a valuation is made now in small pieces as the owner chooses to make it. He would pay the Increment Tax on the small piece he sells at a profit, it is true, but he will have valued that piece because it is a piece he is likely to sell at a higher price. The valuation, therefore, will be very much smaller to-day on the back land of the field than it is on the front land of the field. That, of course, is taken into consideration, and there is no reason to suppose because an owner makes a large profit on the frontage of one field he will have to pay the same Increment Tax on the back land of the same field. He will not have valued it originally at the same price. All these arguments show that hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to find fault with the Bill, not taking the reasonable considerations into account at all. These instances they put forward are not instances that can be taken under the Bill; they are instances they invent for themselves. Take the case of the gasworks or the asylum. I suppose a lunatic asylum would deteriorate the value of the property so much an increment would be lost by putting an asylum there, and the owner, where he sold compulsorily for an asylum, would certainly take that into consideration and get consideration for it. The increment of the other land would be well paid for out of the increased money he would get for the land taken for the asylum, or it would not be taken compulsorily, or he would not sell it voluntarily. The increment, therefore, has really been got, not for the piece of land only on which the asylum is built. but for the other land that is deteriorated in value. Something is paid towards the loss of that in the price paid for the land on which the institution is built. Some of the arguments put forward in favour of this Amendment might be good arguments for other parts of the Bill, but I do not think there is one which in the least defends the Amendment before the House.
Mr. G. D. FABER (York)After waiting two hours to hear some answer to the argument adduced in favour of this Amendment, may I congratulate the Government at last on having found below the Gangway so able an advocate. Might I remind the hon. Member (Mr. Courtenay Warner) that no Increment Tax is taken in the case of gambling transactions on the Stock Eychange. A man may gamble to his heart's content, as I under- 873 stand the matter, and may make as much profit as ever he possibly can. The transaction may be as gambling as ever it may, but no Increment Duty arises at all. The State does not put its greedy hands on that property, nor does it in the case of immense profits upon the Turf, which, I think, exist rather more in the imagination of the hon. Gentleman, perhaps, than in the actual facts of the case. That brings us back to the great initial difficulty which has been pressing upon us all through this discussion. How and where are you to draw the line between land and all other enterprises in which the citizens of this country are concerned? The moment you try to differentiate land you break down your argument The Attorney-General has really made no answer to the case at all. The only reply he gave was that when you once begin to set off decrement against increment the task becomes impossible. To a certain extent I agree, but then it is the duty of the Government which brings forward novel proposals of this kind— proposals not hitherto heard of—to find a way out, so that justice may be done. You must allow for decrement if you are going to tax increment. Do the Committee realise the hardships which this proposal will impose on many classes of people? Take the case of persons professionally dealing with land—land companies, land jobbers, and builders. The land is the raw material; if the dealer in it does not make a profit either in buying or selling down he goes in the great struggle of life. Why should you come down upon him — land being the commodity in which he deals—and say that 20 per cent. of the increment, or in other words, the profits, shall be taken by the State? It is not sufficient answer to say to him that the commodity with which he is dealing is quite different from the commodities with which the rest of the community is dealing. That is no answer in justice. Where the Government have come to grief is in imagining that, in dealing with land increment, they are only dealing with millionaires, with immense dealers in land who go to sleep while the value rises. But you have hardly got to the beginning of the question then, so many people are concerned in the land. It is rarely the big man who goes into this; it is more often the little man who traffics in land, and who seeks to get his livelihood by it. Take the case of a small building estate. Until you come to the end of a transaction 874 you cannot tell whether he is going to make a profit or a loss; on some of the plots there may be considerable increment value, other plots of land may lie idle, and the money spent in acquiring them is bearing no interest—indeed, interest and compound interest are running against them. It is only when you are enabled to look at the whole outcome of that particular building estate that you can say whether there has been a profit. It is impossible to take the plums out of the pudding in a case of that kind. If you develop a building estate you must wait until all the plots are disposed of and dealt with. Remember that in dealing with a building estate a man is dealing with a necessity of the community. It is for the benefit of the whole community that the land is developed in that way. Take an individual case of this nature. A man owns a small agricultural estate, and happens to have a small piece of building land adjoining a town. The agricultural estate goes steadily down in value; the building land near the town rises in value. Is it fair to close your eyes to the loss on the agricultural portion of the estate on the one hand, and not only to open your eyes to the profit arising out of the piece contiguous to the town but to take a great bite out of it in the shape of of 20 per cent. of its increment value? You cannot deal with the matter in that way. If it were not for party considerations I do not think there would be a single man in this House who would stand up and say that in any transaction where there was profit on the one side and loss on the other you should take cognisance only of profit and disregard the loss. You may draw a rough analogy from the Income Tax. There a man is allowed to set off his losses against profits, and only pay the tax on the balance. I agree that where you are initiating a new system of taxation —capital taxation—you must be careful that you do not get on the wrong path, because if you start in that way you will go on. That may afford satisfaction to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, but, certainly, so far as the community at large is concerned, and I hope so far also as the large majority of Members of this House are concerned, there is a desire to see justice done, and there cannot be justice if you are only to look, to the profit on one side of the transaction, and not to be allowed to set off against it the losses which may arise out of another part.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put,"
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD (seated, and with his hat on)On a point of order, there are a number of Amendments which, although not quite in the same language, would have the same effect as attaches to
§ this Motion regarding the question of in crement and decrement. Are we to understand, as a result of the application of the closure, they are all entirely incapable of being discussed?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANWhen the Amendments come on I will deal with that point.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 97.
877| Division No. 232.] | AYES. | [7.40 p.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Dobson, Thomas W. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Agnew, George William | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Maclean, Donald |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Alden, Percy | E. Martin (Walsall) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Elibank, Master of | Maddison, Frederick |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Essex, R. W. | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Evans, Sir S. T. | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Astbury, John Meir | Everett, R. Lacey | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Ferens, T. R. | Marnham, F J. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Massie, J. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Fuller, John Michael F. | Wasterman, C. F. G. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Fullerton, Hugh | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Barker, Sir John | Furness, Sir Christopher | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Gill, A. H. | Mond, A. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Glover, Thomas | Montgomery, H. G. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Beale, W. P. | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Morrell, Philip |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Morse, L. L. |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Creenwood, Hamar (York) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Griffith, Ellis J. | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Gulland, John W. | Napier, T. B. |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendals) | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Nicholls, George |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) | Norton, Captain Cecil William |
| Black, Arthur W. | Hart-Davies, T. | Nuttall, Harry |
| Boulton, A C. F. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Branch, James | Hedges, A. Paget | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Brigg, John | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Henry, Charles S. | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Herbert Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Higham, John Sharp | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hobart, Sir Robert | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Radford, G. H. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hodge, John | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Byles, William Pollard | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Cameron, Robert | Horniman, Emslie John | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Rees, J. D. |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Hudson, Walter | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Chance, Frederick William | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Illingworth, Percy H. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford ) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Jackson, R. S. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Cleland, J. W. | Jenkins, J. | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Clough, William | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Jowett, F. W. | Rowlands, J. |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Kekewich, Sir George | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Samuel, S. M (Whitechapel) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Laidlaw, Robert | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Crooks, William | Lambert, George | Scars, J. E. |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Lamont, Norman | Seely, Colonel |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Shackleton, David James |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Lehmann, R. C. | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon David | Snowden, P. |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Lynch, H. B. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Spicer, Sir Albert | Thomason, Franklin | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | Tomkinson, James | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Steadman, W. C. | Toulmin, George | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Verney, F. W. | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Vivian, Henry | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Strachey, Sir Edward | Walton, Joseph | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Straus, A. S. (Mile End) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Wardle, George J. | Winfrey, R. |
| Summerbell, T. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Sutherland, J E. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Taylor, Austin (East Toxtith) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | |
| Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Waterlow, D. S. | |
| Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lews. |
| Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) | |
| Tennant H. J. (Berwickshire) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Oddy, John James |
| Ashley, W. W. | Cordon, J. | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Balcarres, Lord | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gretton, John | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Balfour Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Haddock, George B. | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Hamilton, Marquess of | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hill, Sir Clement | Renton, Leslie |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hills, J. W. | Renwick, George |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Houston, Robert Paterson | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H | Kerry, Earl of | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Cave, George | Keswick, William | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Starkey, john R. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Ron. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Chaplin, Rt Hon. Henry | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Talbot, Rt. hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | MacCaw, William- J. MacGeagh | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott | M'Arthur, Charles | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Fell, Arthur | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Younger, George |
| Fletcher, J S. | Morrison-Bell, Captain | |
| Forster, Henry William | Newdegate, F. A. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. |
| Foster, P. S. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
| Gardner, Ernest |
§ Question put to insert at end of section (1),"subject to deduction of the amount of any decrement during the same
878§ period in the value of any other land in the same ownership."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 103; Noes, 261.
881| Division No. 233.] | AYES. | [7.50 p.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Gordon, J. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Chance, Frederick William | Gretton, John |
| Ashley, W. W. | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Haddock, George B. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Clive, Percy Archer | Hamilton, Marquess Of |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Clyde, J. Avon | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. |
| Baring, Cat. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Courthope, G. Loyd | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Cox, Harold | Hill, Sir Clement |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Dalrymple, Viscount | Houston, Robert Paterson |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Kerry, Earl of |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Faber, George Denison (York) | Keswick, William |
| Bull, Sir William James | Fell, Arthur | Kimber, Sir Henry |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Fletcher, J. S. | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Forster, Henry William | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Foster, P. S. | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) |
| Cave, George | Gardner, Ernest | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt-Col. A. R. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) |
| Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Pretyman, E. G. | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Lowe, Sir Francis William | Randles, Sir John Scurrah | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Remnant, James Farquharson | Valentia, Viscount |
| M'Arthur, Charles | Renton, Leslie | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Magnus, Sir Philip | Renwick, George | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Ridsdale, E. A. | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Morrison-Bell, Captain | Salter, Arthur Clavell | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Newdegate, F. A. | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. | Younger, George |
| Oddy, John James | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) | |
| Parkes, Ebenezer | Starkey, John R. | |
| Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord |
| Peel, Hon. W. R. W. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Ronaldshay and Mr. J. F. Mason. |
| Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Lambert, George |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Dobson, Thomas W. | Lamont, Norman |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) |
| Agnew, George William | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Alden, Percy | Elibank, Master of | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Essex, R. W. | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Evans, Sir S. T. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Everett, R. Lacey | Lundon, T. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Ferens, T. R. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Flynn, James Christopher | Maclean, Donald |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Fuller, John Michael F. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Fullerton, Hugh | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) |
| Barker, Sir John | Furness, Sir Christopher | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Gibb, James (Harrow) | M'Kean, John |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Gill, A. H. | McKenna, Rt Hon. Reginald |
| Barnard, E. B. | Ginnell, L. | Maddison, Frederick |
| Barnes, G. N. | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Glover, Thomas | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Beale, W. P. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Marnham, F J. |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Massie, J. |
| Bennett, E. N. | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Berridge, T. H. D | Griffith, Ellis J. | Meagher, Michael |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Gulland, John W. | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Black, Arthur W. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Boland, John | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcaster) | Mond, A. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Branch, James | Hart-Davies, T. | Montgomery, H. G. |
| Brigg, John | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Morrell, Philip |
| Brooke, Stopford | Hedges, A. Paget | Morse, L. L. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Henry, Charles S. | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon, S.) | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Napier, T. B. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Higham, John Sharp | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Hobart, Sir Robert | Nicholls, George |
| Cameron, Robert | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Hodge, John | Nolan, Joseph |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Hogan, Michael | Norton, Captain Cecil William |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Nuttall, Harry |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Horniman, Emslie John | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) |
| Cleland, J. W. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Clough, William | Hudson, Walter | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Hyde, Clarendon G. | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Illingworth, Percy H. | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | O'Malley, William |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Jackson, R. S. | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Jenkins, J. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Jones, Leif (Apoleby) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Jowett, F. W. | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) |
| Crooks, William | Joyce, Michael | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Kavanagh, Walter M. | Philips, John (Longford. S.) |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Kekewich, Sir George | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Kilbride, Denis | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Laidlaw, Robert | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Dickins R. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Radford, G. H. |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Wardie, George J. |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Snowden, P. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Redmond, William (Clare) | Soares, Ernest J. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Spicer, Sir Albert | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Steadman, W. C. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Strachey, Sir Edward | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Rogers, F. E. Newman | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Rose, Sir Charles Day | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Rowlands, J. | Summerbell, T. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Sutherland, J. E. | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Sears, J. E. | Thomasson, Franklin | Winfrey, R. |
| Seely, Colonel | Tomkinson, James | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Shackleton, David James | Toulmin, George | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Sheehan, Daniel Daniel | Verney, F. W. | |
| Silcock, Thomas Ball | Vivian, Henry | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Hebert Lewis. |
| Simon, John Allsebrook | Walton, Joseph |
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Wandsworth (Sir Henry Kimber), is to be provided for and covered by a new clause: "Clause 2, at end of section (1), insert 'exclusive of any increment of value in respect of which any improvement rate or charge has been imposed under any statute.'"
§ Sir HENRY KIMBERI understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepts the principle of the Amendment.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. W. W. Ashley) withdrew his Amendment on that understanding—to put down a new clause. I will put it down to-day.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEmoved to insert at the end of Section (1)"after deducting the difference, if any, by which the sum to which the net income of the land if invested at compound interest at four pounds per cent. per annum in each year since the original site value was determined falls short of the sum which would have been produced at compound interest by the investment in each of the same years of a sum equal to four pounds per cent. per annum on the amount of the original site value."
This Amendment appears somewhat formidable, but it really affirms a simple principle that the real increment, and not the nominal, shall be taken count of for the computation of this tax. It has been necessary to put it in rather an involved way, for a reason which I shall shortly refer to, but the basis of the proposal is that in estimating the price of land which is likely to increase in value during the period it is absolutely necessary for any 882 purchaser or any valuer to take into account the rate at which it will increase, and to deduct the loss of income which is inevitable, and the Amendment is, I am told, not only clear in principle, but actually adopted by surveyors when they have to advise any possible purchaser of land as to what its price will be. The method they work upon is this: They take its value when fully developed, then they take into account how long the process of development will last, and then they arrive at its present value by the deduction of compound interest from the time of its actual value in hand to the time it may be expected to be fully developed.
To make this concrete I will quote the instance of an actual valuation made on a building estate of 20 acres on the outside of London. It is estimated that when fully developed this estate will be worth £22,000, The actual expenses of road making and the like were deducted in order to arrive at the full capital value when developed. Then, in estimating the present value.—the value it was worth any man's while to pay—they had to take into account the length of time in which the value would accrue, and calculate the necessary loss of income which anyone would have to suffer who was obliged to wait for this improvement to take place. In this case it was calculated that it would take 20 years to cover the estate, and compound interest at 5 per cent. off the capital price of the present value was allowed, and the result was that £13*500 was arrived at as the present value. But, of course, there was an increment on the land in the meantime. It was let for grazing purposes at a very low figure. Of course it was not worth anyone's while to im-prove this land for agricultural purposes, 883 as it was estimated that it would certainly come in for building value, and it was only let at some 15s. an acre. But, still, there was some immediate income, and that ought to be set off against the loss through the loss of income. It is that consideration which makes my Amendment somewhat complicated in form. You have to take the actual rent received as against the loss of income during the time which must necessarily elapse before the land attains its full increment. That proportion is very slight, but it is necessary to put it in the Amendment to make the proposition a fair one, and if you take compound interest in the one case you must take it in the other but it is absolutely necessary that these factors should be taken into account. They are taken into account in ascertaining the present value of land, and if you ignore them and come down simply on the bare increment you will do the owner a very great injustice.
Perhaps he has bought the land simply on its future possibilities, being content with an infinitesimal return in the meantime. He has estimated that in the process of development it will be worth a larger sum, and he is content to sacrifice his immediate return in the meantime. The Amendment is not aimed against the principle of an Increment Duty, but only at making sure that the real increment value shall be ascertained and taxed and not the nominal increment value. In the case I have quoted the difference would be very large indeed, and if you do not allow compound interest you would be taxing the man on some thousands more than the real increment, when you have taken into account the period of time for which he has had to wait. There is a small deduction, but it is a very small one. If the Amendment is not accepted the result will be to do great injustice to many owners, whether private owners or land companies. The British Land Company, in their memorial, laid stress on this point. They say it is very unfair to charge increment here and there without taking into account the length of time during which they have waited for the return, and what is true of them is true of many others, both companies and private individuals, and if the Government want this to be carried out without a feeling of great injustice they must make allowance for interest in determining the real increment value on which the tax is to be levied.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI approach the question of making an allowance for interest with a good deal of sympathy. I feel that perhaps there is a primâ facie case in favour of it, but having gone into it with great care, I have come to the conclusion that much more harm would be done by introducing it, and that there are other ways of accomplishing the same object, which would be much more effective and much fairer. One argument against allowing interest is that the longer you hold up land the smaller will your Income Tax be. That is especially the case with the Amendment. With 4 per cent. compound interest, I should think a man holding up land for 15 or 20 years would pay no increment at all, even if the increment were 100 per cent. If it were 50 per cent. it would be wiped out in a very few years by this process. It means that a man who is doing his best to develop the land to build or to sell it will get very little out of the Amendment, but the man who went on holding up his land for 30. or 40 years would wipe out the whole of the increment by this process. In fact, the balance would be on the other side. The longer he held up the land the less he would have to pay. That certainly is not the object of our land taxation. If we had any secondary object at all beyond raising revenue, it would be rather to encourage people to develop their land and put it on the market for that purpose. The Amendment is a thoroughly bad one, and it is the worst form in which the principle could be introduced. Even in Frankfort I believe they do not allow 4 per cent. compound interest.
In the case of a plot which is built op already, the question of interest does not come in. In the case of agricultural land you are allowing by the clause at least a margin of 40 per cent., and in the case of improvements on the land it will run to 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. That is more than an efficient margin to cover the question of interest. Take the case of ordinary land which is not used for agricultural purposes. If it is vacant it is simply an inducement to the owner not really to hold up the land, but to put it to no use at all if a deduction is to be made in respect of interest during all the years he is receiving nothing for the land, because I understand the rent he receives is to be taken into account. But if it is kept vacant he will get his 4 per cent. interest. That is an encouragement to hold up in the very worst form—to hold it up as a vacant plot of ground which does not grow a 885 cabbage stalk. It is a very limited class of transactions which the hon. Gentleman has in his mind. As far as present transactions are concerned, there is something to be said in favour of making an allowance, but the best method of meeting cases of this kind is that which was suggested before with regard to small transactions, that you should make an allowance which would provide a fair margin for interest and for profits. The margin which I suggest is 10 per cent. If the increment is 10 per cent. of the site you should not charge any Stamp Duty in respect of that. In Frankfort there is no charge for the first 18 per cent., but there they go back 40 or even 50 years, and that is a totally different transaction. I believe there ought to be a margin for small transactions upon which no increment is charged, and which will enable the owner to make provision for interest as well, but if he wishes to hold up his land for any length of time of course 10 per cent. is inadequate for that purpose. As a rule it means that he is holding it for a big profit. If he were selling it in five or six years, he could do so at a certain price, but if he prefers to hold it for ten or twenty years, that is a thing that he must take the risk of. He makes an allowance for it in estimating the profit he is ultimately expecting. I could not, possibly accept the Amendment in its present form, or in the shape suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI do not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of what he means regarding 10 per cent. Do I understand that no duty would be charged on any transaction which showed an increment of less than 10 per cent. on the last previous transaction?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEindicated assent.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINTherefore, we might have an increment for a particular plot showing over a series of transactions 100 per cent. of profit, though it showed no more than 10 per cent. on the last transaction, and no duty would be charged.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThat is so, with the guarantee that it is a bond-fide transaction, and that the land is not being passed through half a dozen persons in order to cover the 10 per cent. Any bond-fide transaction which only shows a 10 per cent. profit we propose to exclude. I pr6mised to consider that point, and I -think: the Amendment may be on the 886 Paper to-night. We will have time to-consider it.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINAnd the duty is to be charged on increments over 10 per cent., whatever they may be.?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEYes. The hon. Member made a reasonable suggestion that the State ought to grant that. That is the best way to do it. It leaves a reasonable margin. I accept that with the view of meeting what is substantially the case for it. I have come to the conclusion that if you simply make a deduction in-respect of interest, it is a distinct encouragement for the holding up of land, whereas if you allow a margin of that kind it will be a provision which ought to cover interest as well as expenses. I adhere to the position of the Government as to the value at the last transaction?
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEDo I understand that it is not 10 per cent. on to the original site value, but 10 per cent. on to the value at the last transaction?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEYes.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI wish to be quite clear about that.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI do not want to discuss more than is absolutely necessary for the present purpose the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to put down. He originally offered that concession not to meet-the point we are now discussing, but to meet a different case which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Leverton Harris). We shall have to consider whether the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment meets'the case when we see the exact terms on the Paper. Whether we accept it or not as a satisfactory answer to the plea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney, and my hon. and learned Friend who-supported him, we certainly cannot accept it as any answer to the Amendment now before the Committee. What is the objection of the Government to my hon. Friend's Amendment? I must direct the attention of such Members of the Committee as are here to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said. I only-regret that an important discussion of this kind comes on in the middle of the dinner hour when the great bulk of Members are otherwise engaged. What is the contention which, according to the view of the Government, justifies them in imposing 887 this tax? It is that the individual upon whom the tax is going to fall is getting a windfall to which he has no claim or title, and which he has not earned in any way, and that that differentiates it from profit made in other things than land. It would foe admitted I should think by everyone that interest on a man's capital is earned by him, whether he invests his capital in land or in any other form of security. I know that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway think that men are not entitled to interest at all from anything. They make no distinction between land and other things. They think there is no logical distinction in that matter at all.
§ Mr. W. P. BYLESindicated dissent.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIf the hon. Member for North Salford wishes to state what the distinction is, he will have an opportunity directly I have sat down, but we cannot carry on a dialogue across the floor of the House.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIn my opinion, and I think in the opinion of the great bulk of the Committee, a man is entitled to his interest whether he invests in land or in Consols.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDThe right hon. Gentleman has referred to us (the Labour Party), and I wish to ask: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that rent in land is the same as profit in capital?
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI am not talking about rent in land or profit in capital. I am talking of interest from investments whether the money is in stocks or shares, or business, or land. Here we are dealing with the ordinary commercial interest which a man is entitled to get from an investment in land as much as from an investment in anything else. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he cannot allow the increase in the value of an investment of land to go untaxed. Why? Because if he did he would get no taxes at all. Well, that destroys the whole basis of the tax, and it destroys the whole contention of the Government that a man is getting a windfall to which he has not the same claim as to money he obtains from any other source. The so-called windfall is nothing more nor less than the natural interest that a man might have earned in any investment he had made 888 with equal prudence. I think it is a very important statement which has a bearing both inside and outside this House on the question of the justice of the tax. It does bear out our contention that what the Government are taxing is not unearned increment, but deferred interest which a man takes in a capital sum instead of securing it year by year as he does in other investments. I hope that I have made my view of the matter clear, at any rate, to hon. Members who are present.
I go on to examine a little further the Chancellor's other reasons for not allowing interest to be counted. That is his first objection, that if you allow an ordinary commercial rate of interest he would get no tax at all, because there would be no unearned revenue to tax—a rather singular admission. Then, he says, the case of agricultural land is already covered, as I understand it, by the margin which he allows due to the difference between the basis of the original site valuation and the subsequent valuation. I think that is taking credit for the same thing twice over. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already used that difference to prove to the House that he has sufficiently protected agriculture; but if he uses it on every occasion on which some concession to justice and equity is demanded by anyone as a plea for refusing to listen to the arguments put forward he is using the same consideration over and over again; in fact, the consideration is exhausted by the reason he has already given for it, quite apart from the new one which he now seeks to introduce. If, on the other hand, land is building land, which a man has built upon, the Chancellor of the Exchequer says the man will always be receiving his full rate of interest, and my hon. Friend's Amendment would, therefore, have no operation. That does not by any means follow, especially in Cases where you are developing a building estate in a new part of the town. It is often necessary to open un the estate by letting or disposing of or selling the earlier plots, with the houses you have built upon them, at something less than the actual cost to you, or at an increase which is less than the normal rate of increase on such transactions. You have got to bring a population to that district to give it a habitable look to induce people to be the first settlers in order that later on others may come, and, therefore, improve it. I think, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see that it by no means 889 follows, even in the case of built-on land, that my hon. Friend s Amendment will have no effect. Then he takes the case of land which is building land and is not built on, and says that there is no case for any consideration at all because, if land is not giving an increase, it is clear he is not putting the land to the best advantage. I do wish that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken the trouble to acquaint himself with the experience of those engaged in this business of land development and building all round our great towns, and he would find, again and again, that a man holds the land up not because he is waiting for some exorbitant offers, but because he cannot find a purchaser for it at a reasonable profit, or perhaps he cannot find a purchaser without loss.
Let me take the case of land which is partially built over, but where vacant spots are left. Nothing is worse for a man who wants to dispose of the plots which are built on than to have untenanted vacant plots which are spread among these houses. Nothing tells more against their letting value. They have lost their agricultural value. You cannot use them even as accommodation land for grazing sheep on, and it is his interest to dispose of them as soon as he can. He has to wait until he can find a purchaser; and to say that where they stay vacant with him therefore he has an interest accruing, though his prospect of turning the transaction finally to a profitable end is steadily diminishing, and that he is holding up really from a greedy desire to obtain an exorbitant price is really to display an utter misconception of the terms and conditions under which such business is carried on as anyone engaged in this business will be able to show. Finally, the Chancellor returns to the point on which, as he says, I have already had an argument with him, which he did not at the time do me the honour to reply to, but which he now admits was a solid argument. I do not think even now he fully appreciates the strength of the case against him. He says that after all on the present price of the land you take into account all the increment that you can foresee, and you take account of the interest which will result after a number of years. That is quite true, but that is the condemnation of the Chancellor's tax, because the present price takes account of the future increment and of the number of years which it will take to earn it. The present price is nothing else but the future price discounted on the day at which it is taken. But in reference to this future 890 price which is foreseen, and which is discounted in the price that is paid to-day, the Chancellor comes in and says, "I have received a windfall," and proceeds to take a fifth of the difference between the present price and that future price which wilt only be realised many years afterwards. Anyone purchasing to-day will have to deduct from the price which he should otherwise offer to the existing owner of the land the amount of the tax which he calculates the Chancellor of the Exchequer is imposing on that increment. Once again this shows what the Chancellor of the Exchequer began by admitting, that if you allow the interest on his money you destroy the Increment Tax, and when you admit that you may continue the tax but you have destroyed the logical basis on which the Government seek to put it.
§ Mr. J. C. WEDGWOODThe arguments of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A, Chamberlain) opposite are very cogent, but he seems to me to lose sight of one vitally important point. He keeps on talking about the owner losing his interest, but what we are really discussing, on this Amendment is not merely the question of interest, but of interest less the rent actually got for the land, and the right hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr Hope) in moving the Amendment urged that whenever a man who is not using his land to his full capacity is thereby getting less in rent than his interest on the capital invested in that land, or wherever the rent is less than the interest, that man should receive a rebate on the Increment Tax. Observe what that leads us to. It seems to me that the Chancellor was perfectly right in resisting the Amendment because it leads us to this, that you will allow people who will not use the land to the best advantage to receive a bonus or a rebate from the State, but those people who all along have been good landlords and have been using the land to its best capacity, and have been getting the best possible rate of interest on their original capital should receive no rebate. An Amendment on those lines is contrary to public policy. If you carry this Amendment you are distinctly putting a bonus in the way of the non-user of the land, and penalising those who are at present using the land properly. It is not in the interests of the community that land which some people in the community are willing to pay big prices for should be used for an inferior use. The interests of the community is in having all the land put to its 891 best commercial use, and I say that this Amendment is contrary to that. There, Again, the right hon. Gentleman opposite explained that, after all, it did not matter at all that the rent of land and the profits of capital were entirely different, because if a man put £100 into land or some business he expected to make his money and to get his interest out of it. Surely there 5s a very big difference between putting your money into land and not using your land and putting your money into business and using it in your business. If you invest your £100 in some steamship company, that £100 is useful to the community, and is fructifying each year, and you are getting an interest on that. If you put £100 into land and do not use that land, but keep it idle, you are not using it usefully, and you are creating unemployment.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINYou may put your money into the business of a steamship company which may earn nothing for several years, and you may have to spend money upon developing it. In the meanwhile your money is lying idle in the sense that it is returning you nothing. You look to the future for higher interest or a rise in the capital value with which to recoup the loss of interest during those years. The hon. Member will recognise that in the case of other companies as well as steamship companies this is a thing which constantly arises. But the hon. Gentleman does not recognise it is a thing which constantly arises. But same thing happens. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, the present tax is based on the future value, but you cannot get the future value all at once. It is not a question whether the landlord will or will not in the course of this year build over the whole estate which he has bought —it is a question whether he can or he cannot, and more often he cannot, earn increment value in the case of land at the beginning, any more than he can earn it in the case of other enterprises.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODThe right hon. Gentleman has missed my point. I think he looks at the question too much from the point of view of a man who is investing money. I am trying to look at it from the point of view of the community. In the case of a steamship company, whether a man gets interest or not, his money is being usefully employed to transport goods cheaply, whereas, in the case of land which is not used, the community derives no advantage from it whatever. It is 892 quite true that a man may get his interests back on the land by selling at a higher price later, but meanwhile the land is being held up, and the community suffers.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI deny that, of course.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODDoes the right hon. Gentleman deny that the community suffers from the holding up of land?
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI deny that the land is being held up.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODIf the land is not being used then it is being held up. I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODThen I do not know what is meant by holding up land. I take it that land which is not being used, which could be used, and for which people are willing to pay a price to be used, is land which is being held up.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINDoes the hon. Gentleman mean to assert that every acre of land which has a building value to-day should be covered with buildings to-morrow?
§ Mr. WEDGWOODNot at all. Of course, in the case of land, if it is not of commercial use, it falls back to an agricultural value. That is our object. We want to get the land cheaply into use. But I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has rather interrupted my argument. The difference between investing £100 in a useful business and investing £100 in land held up is exactly the same as putting your £100. into a useful business and putting £100 into your trousers' pocket. In the latter case you are of no use to society. You are not wanted, and no wonder society does not want to pay you any interest on your money. If you wait several years, calculating upon getting higher interest later to recoup you, and a better chance of getting a return for your money, then, though you get no profit in the early years on the money which you employ in a useful business, yet that money is fructifying all the time, and is useful to society as a whole.
§ Mr. J. F. P. RAWLINSONI really think the hon. Member has shown the weakness of the very important principle which he supports. He admits it is perfectly legitimate to invest money in the 893 steamship company, and to look to future years to bring either increased dividend or capital. Is not the business of land development an equally legitimate business? Are there not at the present moment a large number of companies over the South of England whose business it is to buy, we will say, a number of barren acres of land with the object of developing it so that the community may have the advantage of cheap houses as soon as possible? Is that an illegitimate business? When they invest the sum of £1,000 in the purchase of so many acres of land, the site value of which is likely to rise in 10 years, and if in the interval they employ their capital in developing the land, is not that legitimate enterprise, and are not those who take part in it entitled to interest on their money in respect of the years when it was unproductive?
§ Mr. WEDGWOODThe hon. and learned Gentleman must not assume that I call that illegitimate enterprise. I think it is legitimate enterprise; but I also think that the rapid development of the use of the land ought to be encouraged rather than there should be non-use of the land.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONIt is legitimate enterprise, and, therefore, the man who puts £1,000 into land is surely entitled to interest on his money during the five or six years it has been in use for the purposes of development. Any business man who is asked to enter a development scheme of that kind would expect to have interest on his money for that period. Supposing the land rises in value, surely if the scheme is successful he is as much entitled to interest on his £1,000 as he would be in the case of a steamship company. The hon. Member admits that it is a legitimate business, and that it is a legitimate way to use capital. Once he admits that then, surely, it is a reasonable proposition that the investor should be allowed interest on his money. Not only is it legitimate, but, as the hon. Member himself admitted, it is for the benefit of the community. Companies or private individuals invest in land for the purpose of developing it into land for building purposes. We are dealing here with increment value, and that can only be ascertained when you give a reasonable allowance for interest as well as capital. The hon. Gentleman is confusing a subsequent part of the Bill with the present, namely, the tax on undeveloped land. I am persuaded that he is already giving the go-by to that tax on undeveloped land, and I should not be surprised if he really 894 tried to put the Undeveloped Land Tax into the increment. The increment value here is simply the question of the amount to which the site value has risen to the occupier. To use the expression the "windfall," of which we have heard so often, is supposed to be the test of the value which the owner of the land receives. The amount which he benefits by is, I think, as in the case of the steamship company, the amount that would give him a reasonable amount of interest. I would ask the hon. Member in charge of the Bill one point which I do not quite understand. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if a man held up his land for a long time, of course he ought to be entitled to interest or consideration, but he seemed to recognise that it was possible to hold land for two, three, or four years. As far as I understood him, he proposes to allocate 10 per cent. for the expenses a man has necessarily been put to. What I want to understand is this: Does that mean that if at the end of the period, whatever it may be, it turns out that the whole increment of the land is 20 per cent. that he is to have a 10 per cent. allowance out of that 20 per cent., or does it mean that he is only to get an allowance if the whole of the increment does not exceed 10 per cent.? If the hon. Member is not in the position to answer my argument, I cannot press the point, but, as he has not done so, I cannot be blamed. Before we leave this Amendment it is important to know which of the two it means. If we are going to have an abatement of 10 per cent. only in those cases where the increment does not come to more than 10 per cent., then I say such a basis is absolutely illogical and unjust, because you have the fact of a man who has been in possession of the land for four or five years, and he is entitled ex hypothesi to a moderate return of interest on his capital. He will have to hold out for a certain period, and during that period the increment will have accrued to the extent of, say, 12 per cent. Upon that the man would have to pay, in my construction upon the very ambiguous words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the whole of the 12 per cent., whereas if it were 2 per cent. less he would not have to pay.
It is perfectly obvious that a concession of the kind, or any concession in a Bill of this kind, must work most unfairly when you come to think of the different times-of valuation in each particular case. For instance, the first valuation may be made this year. Four years later the owner 895 dies, when there is another; then, again, the subsequent owner sells five years afterwards. That splits up the increment of, say, 18 per cent, into two increments of 9 per cent. each, and you do not know who will have to pay it. In the case of an owner who remains the owner during the whole period, when he dies the 18 per cent. increment would have to be paid. I give that as an instance showing the want of logic or justice of the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated on this particular point. The hon. Member who last spoke went so far as to say that any person who holds land which could be used as building land, and which is not built upon, is really guilty of holding up the land. Can he seriously say that? Take the example of the London County Council, which, according to some, is the model of all that should be, and according to others the model of all that should not be. They have land in the Strand, which for many years now has been vacant of buildings except a notice board which I see occupied by an advertisement, which I understand an hon. Member opposite is responsible for. You have that very large advertisement on that hoarding, but the land is practically unoccupied. It is building land. Have the County Council been guilty of holding that land up. I should imagine the County Council have been willing to let that land, but they have not been able to get a fair return. If that had been the case of an individual who had torn down a lot of slum property to rebuild, surely he ought to have been allowed some interest upon the capital which he had invested. Should it not be regarded as a commercial transaction, and why should it be penalised by an Act of this kind?
§ Mr. T SUMMERBELLI am not prepared to make any dogmatic statement on the question as to the land of the London County Council, but having been a member of a municipality for some 17 years, I know that very often when they acquire land they can only use it for the specific purpose for which they acquire it. I think I am safe in saying that the London County Council are trying to put it into use, and that they will do so at the first possible moment——
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI was taking it as a reduetioad absurdum that the County Council was anxious to get rid of the land, and that they were clearly not holding land up, although anxious to get rid of it.
§ Mr. SUMMERBELLI understood it was used as an argument of a municipality holding up land. An hon. Member says they are, and another says they are not.
§ Sir FREDERICK CAWLEYThey will sell it for a price.
§ Mr. SUMMERBELLThey do not want to sell it for less than what they bought it for, and I am sure they have paid a high price if they have paid on a scale similar to that which other municipalities have had to pay when they wanted land. There is this difference, that whatever the County Council realise on the property the whole community will either share the benefit or share in the misfortune. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Chamberlain) made a strong appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging that the Chancellor had refused to listen to their appeal. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will refuse to listen to appeals so far as the Land Taxes are concerned. I hope he will adhere to them.
The argument always adduced by hon. Members above the Gangway is that there is no difference between an investment in land and an investment in any other kind of property. I should like that proposition to be more clearly demonstrated. If any man puts his money into a colliery or any similar undertaking, his capital is used to develop that undertaking in order that he may enjoy the profits arising therefrom in after years; but a land-owner who owns vacant land, which is going up in value year after year, does not spend a; single penny to bring about that increased value. When a municipality expends its money to develop a town, the land-owner ultimately receives immense value from that expenditure. There is a great difference between the two cases. I am not going to agrue as to the respective rights and wrongs of different kinds of investments; but the land-owner who receives benefits due to the increment on land is the worst sinner, and ought to be the first taxed. This reform has been too long delayed. The land has paid too little, and in being called upon to pay this small amount the land-owners ought to think that they are getting off very well indeed. This is only a beginning. So far as we on these benches are concerned, we think it is a very small beginning—in fact, too small— and had we a majority in the House the tax would be much heavier. I only hope the Government will not listen to the 897 appeals which have been made, but will adhere to the tax, and they will find the people of the country are behind them.
Mr. PIKE PEASENot very long ago a colleague of the hon. Member for Sunderland issued a Budget which he thought might be carried into law some day, and it is plain from his statement, to the effect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was an apt pupil, that he believed the present Budget was in accord with the principle which he foreshadowed about two years ago. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Summerbell) says he would have got more revenue from this system of taxation if he had had the opportunity. He seems to forget that if land was bought, say, 100 years ago, for £50 an acre, and has not been used for agriculture or for other purposes, the owners have lost a considerable amount of money in the way of interest. Taking it at 5 per cent., which would double the sum in 14 years, I calculate that an acre of land bought 100 years ago for £50 would be worth £6,400; and, taking into account the interest on development, it seems only reasonable that that point should be taken into account. If a person bought a piece of land for £5,000 and spent £10,000 in its development, the interest on that money would be lost to the person who spent the money. Is it not only reasonable that that should be taken into account? I sincerely hope the Committee will realise that there is substance in this Amendment and support it.
§ Mr. J. D. REESOne of the grounds on which the hon. Member for Sunderland opposed this Amendment was that land now pays too small a tax. I cannot think on what ground the hon. Member supports that statement. The number of taxes now paid by land is far larger than the number paid by anything else; and so far from a land-owner being specially favoured, it appears that there is no man in this country so heavily taxed.
§ Mr. SUMMERBELLThe justification for my statement is that whereas in 1870 land paid 66 per cent. of the whole of our taxes, it now pays something over 15 per cent., and other property pays over 84 per cent.
§ Mr. REESThe whole condition of the country has altered since the time to which the hon. Member refers, and the relative importance of different industries.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Stuart-Wortley)I think the hon. Member is getting rather far from the Amendment.
§ Mr. REESAt any rate, I had not got very far from the hon. Member. I submit that some such Amendment as this is fair. If, as the hon. Member for Sunderland says, this tax is only a small beginning, it is necessary that it should be closely scrutinised. The hon. Member based his argument on the assumption that land is in a different position in respect of tax from other possessions. I have not heard anybody prove that proposition. The existence of land has been urged not to be due to the owner. Neither is the existence of gold. It is also urged that land is limited in quantity. As many of us know to our disadvantage, so is gold. It is said that land is absolutely essential. So is gold. There is no sustainable ground that I have heard advanced which places land in a different position in respect of increment from any other property. It is not sufficient for hon. Members to get up and merely dogmatise on the subject, and lay it down, as did the hon. Member for Leicester, that this particular species of taxation is fair and equitable simply because the increment upon which the tax is to be levied is due to the action of the community. As a matter of fact, that is far more readily assumed than proved. It would be quite easy to show-in the case of a town like Eastbourne, for instance, that the increment was due, not to the community, but to the action of the Duke of Devonshire. Take my own county, Montgomeryshire. There is a railway at present being put upon its legs not in the least by the community. An hon. Member, my colleague, who sits in this House, is taking a considerable part in the matter. The railway can only be resuscitated because he moves and bears the lion's share of the cost. But when the railway runs again neighbouring land will increase in value. This is action by a public-spirited individual, who happens to have the funds to carry out this improvement, and does it. How, then, can it be argued that that development is always due to the community, and that the increment that results should be taxed on that account. The communal theory breaks down in almost every concrete case I have examined. I submit that there are good reasons for some such Amendment as this, and I will venture to urge upon the hon. Gentleman who is defending this clause on the Government benches to take it into account.
§ Mr. GEORGE N. BARNESIt seems to me that the last speaker has got somewhat wide of the mark, both in regard to 899 the Budget as a whole and particularly in regard to the Amendment which is now under discussion. I think the Amendment is a preposterous one, calculated, if not intended, to defeat the whole object that the Government has in this Increment Tax. The proposal, as I understand it, is to exempt from taxation or from this particular Increment Tax 4 per cent. of the money which may happen to have been expended on the purchase of the site. As has already been pointed out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the result of that would be to encourage rather than to discourage the holding up of land. I take it that the object of the Increment Tax is to encourage the use of land, and to discourage a man holding up land, and thereby preventing the community enjoying that value which is created by the community. For that reason, and inasmuch as an Amendment of this character defeats the whole object of the Increment Tax, I shall, of course, vote against it. Reference was made in a dialogue between two hon. Members as to money invested in shipowning and invested in landowning. It was stated that the shipowner was in the same position as the landowner. There is this essential difference to my mind, that if the shipowner invests his money in ships and deliberately holds up those ships then he is getting no interest whatever for his money. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "There are plenty of ships held up at the present time."] Yes, as a matter of fact, there are plenty held up because there are no freights for them. That is a matter of price. If freights come down there will be work for the ships. But, supposing the shipowner deliberately holds up his ships, he gets no interest, and my contention is that, if the landlord deliberately holds up his own land, he gets no interest, and he is not entitled to any. The County Council was referred to as if it were the custodian of all the virtues, and that whatever it did must necessarily be right. An hon. Member says that that is sarcasm. As a matter of fact, it used to be solid truth, but it appears to me that during the last year or two that the County Council have been acting upon the same principle as many of the landlords in holding up their land in regard to the particular site which has been mentioned.
If the County Council had accepted a certain price which might be paid for that land, then that land might have been put into the market before now. Therefore, I 900 am not justifying the County Council in holding up that land. If they continued to hold it up, it is just that that land should be taxed the same as other land. Just a word with regard to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer early in the Debate. So far as I understand, he is weakening on this particular point, as, I am sorry to say, he has given indications of weakening on other points. He has made it known to the House that he is disposed to exempt from taxation altogether, or to exempt from this particular tax, 10 per cent. of increment. It seems to me that that is a very dangerous concession. If it is not already fixed, I would say to the hon. Gentleman, who happens to be in charge of the Government side at the present moment, that the matter might even now be reconsidered. It is perfectly true that 20 per cent. on the increment is rather a high tax. I rather disagree from the hon. Member for Sunderland, who characterised it as a very low tax. It is a very considerable tax, but, on the other hand, seeing that we are now taking the German model very largely in this matter, it ought to be considered that in Germany, although they start considerably lower than 20 per cent., they go very considerably higher. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO, no."] Twenty-five per cent. is higher than 20 per cent. I am told on the authority of a gentleman who knows Germany pretty well that in some of these cases they go to 33 per cent. There is not the same case for exempting part of the increment here as in Germany.
I should be disposed to exempt 10 per cent., though not in lieu of this preposterous Amendment. That is out of the court altogether, so far as I am concerned, but as a mere matter of practical utility. I should be inclined to exempt something, but if anything of the kind is done, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to take into consideration that there is a considerable risk about it. The Government may be diddled by the landlord, and those who deal in land. Supposing you exempt 10 per cent. of the increment, it is possible— I do not say it is probable—that by dummy landlords people might be enabled to get clear of the tax altogether by one man selling to another at 9 per cent. increment, and the second man similarly. Therefore, if anything of this sort is done, although I might be disposed to assent to it as a matter of practical utility, I do hope 901 that steps will be taken to safeguard the position. I hope that the Government will stick to their proposal to get the 20 per cent., which I believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland says, is in all conscience little enough, having regard to the fact that the community makes the whole of it. If any new departure is to be made in that clause I hope it will be made not from the point of view put forward in this Amendment, but I hope it will be made because it may be found practical and in consideration of the advisability of making it, and then if it is made I hope the position will be so safeguarded as to prevent these considerations from creeping in which might defeat the very objects that the Government have in view.
§ Sir FREDERICK CAWLEYThe hon. Member opposite seems to have only one kind of land-owner in his mind. He cannot see anybody else in the United Kingdom as an owner of land except the big land-owner. As far as I am concerned, I hope the Government will give some consideration to this Amendment, because it is not only the big land-owners we want to get at. Everybody is of the same opinion as hon. Members opposite that the big land-owners near towns ought to be penalised, but there are a great many other holders of land, and especially are we anxious to catch that kind of man who is dealing in land. With regard to speculative builders, a man sometimes buys a small estate, and finds he is unable to develop it all at once. There is no demand for houses. He buys five or six acres of land, and perhaps he has to keep four acres on his hands for a considerable time. These things happen in every town all over the country, and certainly, if you cannot set one kind of property against another a man ought to have the interest on his money added to the cost of the land, even if it is several years before he is able to develop it. With regard to corporations, I know a corporation now which has a considerable quantity of land on its hands, and which it has held up for years. They are asking an exorbitant price for it, and as they cannot get it they are holding it up in the hope that they will get it one day. I think that corporations should not always be held up to us as immaculate, as the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Sum-merbell) wishes us to understand.
§ Mr. SUMMERBELLOh, no; I do not desire that at all.
§ Sir F. CAWLEYI hope the Government will take this matter into consideration, and deal as lightly as they can with the small land-owner.
§ Mr. J. F. REMNANTI should not have intervened except that very considerable reference was made to corporations, and, amongst others, to the London County Council, of which for some years I have been a member. That body was referred to by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) as a body that to-day does not possess all the virtues, whereas its predecessor of a few years ago did. The reason for that opinion on the part of the hon. Member is that the previous London County Council represented his view — the views of the Radical party, whereas the body to-day represents our view. The hon. Member went on to say that the present London County Council was guilty of holding up land. That shows how little the hon. Member understands what he is talking about. The London County Council of today is doing its best, and has succeeded to a very large extent in getting rid of its land from Holborn to the Strand. For some time that land has been held up owing to the mismanagement of the previous London County Council, which fixed such extraordinary and preposterous conditions to the leasing of the land that it was impossible for any builder to accept them. These restrictions arc now being reduced, and terms are being arranged with purchasers, which shows that this land, like every other land, if treated reasonably, will find a market. I maintain that in no material sense is there any holding up of land.
Many inquiries have taken place about this question of the holding up of land. If the hon. Member for the Blaekfriars Division referred to his own corporation of Glasgow, he would find that only a few years ago they appointed a Commission specially to deal with this subject; and what was the result of their inquiries? The result was that so far as they could find out, there was no holding up of land, and that conclusion was confirmed by subsequent inquiries. The possessor of land may be trusted in 99 cases out of 100 to do the best for himself and his land, and to desire to get rid of it on fair and reasonable terms. When you talk of the holding up of certain areas it is very often because a man is unable to get rid of it at a reasonable price. I do not like—and I have voted all through against—this Increment Duty. I am going to support this 903 Amendment, for the simple reason that the Committee has decided that there should be Increment Duty, and I want to have the hardship made as light as possible which may ensue from that duty. We have had a very interesting admission from the President of the English League for the Taxation of Land Values, which is the only Henry George association in this country. The hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne told us his object is to reduce all building land to agricultural land value. We know his views are very extreme, and that on the Front Bench the two Scotch Law Officers were vice-presidents of the Scotch Henry George League. If hon. Members go in for the nationalisation of land they will be taxing the landlords out of existence. I think even the Lord Advocate will be ready to confirm me in that view, because up to a short time ago he was one of the Vice-Presidents of the Scottish League for the Taxation of Land Values.
§ The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure)dissented.
§ Mr. REMNANTThe Lord Advocate shakes his head. I know it is rather remarkable that two Law Officers should have committed themselves to this farcical system of taxing landlords out of existence, and, therefore, I am not at all surprised when the right hon. Gentleman sees the House is ashamed of those two Law Officers that he shakes his head. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) has already declared that—
he re regards all unearned increment, whether from land or capital, as being alike an impost upon the industry of the nation, and therefore a fit subject for special taxation.Do hon. Members below the Gangway agree with that? Henry Georgites, like the Lord Advocate, seem to think that agriculture and land itself is not an in-dustry, but it happens to be one of the most important industries in the country. Are hon. Members opposite aware that it takes something between £400 and £900 per acre to make land ripe for building? To prepare land for building purposes re-quires capital, and without it you are not able to succeed. The opinion appears to prevail that land alone is a fit subject for taxation. I can agree with the logic of the Socialists when they say that all property should be taxed, but I think owners of land have a right to complain of the exceptional treatment to which they are being subjected. I hope every 904 endeavour will be made to see that equal justice is done to all owners of property. It has been estimated by gentlemen who know what they are talking about that one year's increment on Stock Exchange transactions would be equal to about 20 years' increment upon land. In the case of the land you have to pay the money down, but with regard to Stock Exchange transactions you do not pay the money down. The right hon. Gentleman has already expressed his opinion against speculation. I cannot help thinking that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to remove the party Whips, judging from the expression of opinion we have had on this Bill, he would find, not a narrow majority in favour, but a large majority against these land clauses.The case of Germany has been referred to a good many times, and it is admitted that the German system is the one upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has based his scheme. I wish to point out that in Prussia interest at 4 per cent. is allowed before arriving at the increment in the case of land. This Amendment ought to commend itself to the Government, because we cannot alter the principle of the clause now. All we want to do is to modify that principle so that it will press with less hardship upon one form of property in which so many people have chosen to invest their savings. Land is a legitimate form of investment which year by year is becoming more popular, and if it is allowed to go on unhampered it will extend much more quickly in the future than it has done in the past. The hon. Member for Sunderland seems to think that land to-day is exceptionally treated as regards taxation, but that is not so. The result of the Commission which sat in 1901 was that they reported that the land bore for local rates 83 per cent., whereas personal property only bore about 6 per cent. of the burden. In view of this fact, it is unfair when calling for more money to single out one special form of property, and such a policy is apt to lead people to think that land is being singled out for taxation because land-owners happen to differ from the Government in their political opinions. I hope this Amendment will be deemed reasonable by the House, and I trust we shall have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some answer to the points raised during his absence.
Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'be now 905 put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.—Debate resumed.
§ Lord BALCARRESThe Under-Secretary promised to make a statement about this 10 per cent. allowance.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIt is obviously impossible for me to make a statement in regard to an Amendment which I am going to put upon the Paper. If I made a full statement now with regard to that Amendment it would only lead to a discussion,
§ and some hon. Members would want fuller information. I will undertake to put my Amendment down on the Paper for tonight or to -morrow morning.
§ Several HON. MEMBERS rose to continue the Debate, whereupon
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 74.
907| Division No. 234.] | AYES. | [9.36 p.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Elibank, Master of | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Agnew, George William | Essex, R. W. | Marnham, F. J. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Esslemont, George Birnie | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Alden, Percy | Evans, Sir S. T. | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Everett, R. Lacey | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Ferens, T. R | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Astbury, John Meir | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Mond, A. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Fuller, John Michael F. | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Fullerton, Hugh | Morse, L. L. |
| Barker, Sir John | Furness, Sir Christopher | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Gill, A. H. | Napier, T. B. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Glover, Thomas | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) |
| Beale, W. P. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Nicholls, George |
| Beauchamp, E. | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Norton, Captain Cecil William |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Griffith, Ellis J. | Nuttall, Harry |
| Bennett, E. N. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Hart-Davies, T. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Black, Arthur W. | Harwood, George | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Hedges, A. Paget | Radford, G. H. |
| Branch, James | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Bring, John | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Higham, John Sharp | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Hobart, Sir Robert | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Hodge, John | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Holt, Richard Durning | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Horniman, Emslie John | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Robinson, S. |
| Cameron, Robert | Hudson, Walter | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Jackson, R. S. | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Chance, Frederick William | Jenkins, J. | Rowlands, J. |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Cleland, J. W. | Jowett, F. W. | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Clough, William | Kekewich, Sir George | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Shackleton, David James |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Lambert, George | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Lamont, Norman | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Snowden, P. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Lehmann, R. C. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Crooks, William | Levy, Sir Maurice | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Lynch, H. B. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Maclean, Donald | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | M'Micking, Major G. | Summerbell, T. |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Mallet, Charles E. | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) | Wardle, George J. | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Thomasson, Franklin | Waterlow, D. S. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Watt, Henry A. | Winfrey, R. |
| Tomkinson, James | Wedgwood, Josiah C. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Toulmin, George | White, Sir George (Norfolk) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) | |
| Verney, F. W. | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) | |
| Vivian, Henry | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis. |
| Walters, John Tudor | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. | |
| Walton, Joseph | Wiles, Thomas | |
| NOES. | ||
| Balcarres, Lord | Gordon, J. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Oddy, John James |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gretton, John | Parkes, Ebanezer |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. C. (Winchester) | Haddock, George B. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Hamilton, Marquess of | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Percy, Earl |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hill, Sir Clement | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hills, J. W. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bull, Sir William James | Houston, Robert Paterson | Renwick, George |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Cave, George | Kerry, Earl of | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Clyde, J. Avon | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Starkey, John R. |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | M'Arthur, Charles | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Faber, G. Denison (York) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Fell, Arthur | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Morpeth, Viscount | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
| Forster, Henry William | Morrison-Bell, Captain | |
| Gardner, Ernest | Newdegate, F. A. | |
| Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) |
§ Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
908§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 82; Noes, 264.
911| Division No. 235.] | AYES. | [9.45 p.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Gardner, Ernest | |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Oddy, John James |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gordon, J. | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Gretton, John | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Haddock, George B. | Percy, Earl |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hamilton, Marquess of | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hill, Sir Clement | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hills, J. W. | Renton, Leslie |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Houston, Robert Paterson | Renwick, George |
| Bull, Sir William James | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Kerry, Earl of | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Cave, George | Kimber, Sir Henry | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Starkey, John R. |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Lonsdale, John Brownies | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Valentia, Viscount |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | M'Arthur, Charles | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Magnus, Sir Philip | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Scott- | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Fell, Arthur | Morrison-Bell, Captain | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. James Hope and Mr. Remnant. |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Newdegate, F. A. | |
| Forster, Henry William | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Griffith, Ellis J. | Norton, Captain Cecil William |
| Agnew, George William | Gulland, John W. | Nuttall, Harry |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Halpin, J. | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) |
| Alden, Percy | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Astbury, John Meir | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) | O'Malley, William |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Hart-Davies, T. | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Harwood, George | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Barker, Sir John | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Hedges, A. Paget | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Philips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Beale, W. P. | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Beauchamp, E. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Higham, John Sharp | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Hodge, John | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Hogan, Michael | Radford, G. H. |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Holt, Richard Durning | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Black, Arthur W. | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Boland, John | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Bottomley, Horatio | Hudson, Walter | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Jackson, R. S. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Jenkins, J. | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Branch, James | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Brigg, John | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Jowett, F. W. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Joyce, Michael | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Kavanagh, Walter M. | Robinson, S. |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Kekewich, Sir George | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Laidlaw, Robert | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) | Rowlands, J |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Lambert, George | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Cameron, Robert | Lamont, Norman | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Lehmann, R. C. | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Chance, Frederick William | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Levy, Sir Maurice | Sears, J. E. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Cleland, J. W. | Lundon, T. | Shackleton, David James |
| Clough, William | Lynch, H. B. | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Maclean, Donald | Snowden, P. |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex. E. Grinstead) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Crooks, William | M'Micking, Major G. | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Mallet, Charles E. | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Steadman, W. C. |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Marnham, F. J. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Massie, J. | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings, (York, Otley) | Meagher, Michael | Summerbell, T. |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Monzies, Sir Walter | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Elibank, Master of | Micklem, Nathaniel | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Essex, R. W. | Molteno, Percy Alport | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Mond, A. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Mooney, J. J. | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Morrell, Philip | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Morse, L. L. | Tomkinson, James |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Toulmin, George |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Verney, F. W. |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Napier, T. B. | Vivian, Henry |
| Gill, A. H. | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Walters, John Tudor |
| Glover, Thomas | Nicholls, George | Walton, Joseph |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Milan, Joseph | Wardle, George J. |
| Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. | Winfrey, R. |
| Waterlow, D. S. | Wiles, Thomas | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Watt, Henry A. | Williamson, Sir A. | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Wedgwood, Josiah C. | Wills, Arthur Walters | |
| White, Sir George (Norfolk) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. H. Lewis. |
| White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGErose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question that the words of the clause down to 'value,' in sub-section (a,) stand part of the clause, be now put."
§ Question put, "That the words of the clause down to 'value,' in sub-section (a,) stand part of the clause, be now put."
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE (seated, and wearing a hat)I beg to draw your attention to the fact that the other day the Chairman of Committees specially said that the Amendment in my name on line 20 ought to come at this point, and only allowed the closure after saying that I should have an opportunity of moving it at this point.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell)I may explain that the Amendment has been disposed of by the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (the Earl of Ronaldshay).
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEMay I say that this raises a different and much more restricted question to that raised by the Noble Lord?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe Noble Lord's Amendment was comprehensive, and covered it.
§ Mr. PRETYMAN (also seated, and with his hat on)On the point of Order, Sir, which has just been raised, the Amendment of the Noble Lord decided the greater point, and surely it does not debar the Committee because the larger matter is decided from agreeing to a smaller one?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Gentleman must know that when the closure is taken the relevancy or irrelevancy of an Amendment is no longer in issue.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI do not question your discretion in putting the question, but I was asking your ruling upon the point of the promise which had been given by the Chairman.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANPromises that are given by a chairman are contingent upon the state of matters when the Motion for the closure is moved.
§ Question put.
§ Committee divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 86.
913| Division No. 236.] | AYES. | [10.0 p.m. |
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) | Bryce, J. Annan | Elibank, Master of |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Essex, R. W. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Esslemont, George Birnie |
| Agnew, George William | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Everett, R. Lacey |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Byles, William Pollard | Ferens, T. R. |
| Alden, Percy | Cameron, Robert | Ferguson, R. C. Munro |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Fuller, John Michael F. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Cawley, Sir Frederick | Fullerton, Hugh |
| Astbury, John Meir | Chance, Frederick William | Furness, Sir Christopher |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Cheetham, John Frederick | Gibb, James (Harrow) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Gill, A. H. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Cleland, J. W. | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John |
| Barker, Sir John | Clough, William | Glover, Thomas |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) |
| Barnes, G. N | Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) |
| Beale, W. P. | Cooper, G. J. | Griffith, Ellis J. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Gulland, John W. |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Hercourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Crooks, William | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Bethel), Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Crosfield, A. H. | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hart-Davies, T. |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Harwood, George |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. |
| Branch, James | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Brigg, John | Dobson, Thomas W. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon, S.) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Nicholls, George | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Norman, Sir Henry | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Hodge, John | Nuttall, Harry | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Parker, James (Halifax) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Summerbell, T. |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Hudson, Walter | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Hyde, Clarendon G. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Jackson, R. S. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Jenkins, J. | Power, Patrick Joseph | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk. E.) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Jowett, F. W. | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Tomkinson, James |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Toulmin, George |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Raphael, Herbert H. | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Verney, F. W. |
| Lambert, George | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Vivian, Henry |
| Lamont, Norman | Rendall, Athelstan | Walters, John Tudor |
| Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Walton, Joseph |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wardle, George J. |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Robinson, S. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Mackarness, Frederic C. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Maclean, Donald | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Watt, Henry A. |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Rowlands, J. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| M'Micking, Major G. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Mallet, Charles E. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Marnham, F. J. | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Massie, J. | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Sears, J. E. | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Meagher, Michael | Seaverns, J. H. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Shackleton, David James | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Mond, A. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Winfrey, R. |
| Montgomery, H. G. | Snowden, P. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Morrell, Philip | Soares, Ernest J. | |
| Morse, L. L. | Spicer, Sir Albert | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis. |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Stanger, H. Y. | |
| Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | |
| Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Steadman, W. C. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Balcarres, Lord | Gardner, Ernest | Oddy, John James |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gordon, J. | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Gretton, John | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Haddock, George B. | Percy, Earl |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hamilton, Marquess of | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hill, Sir Clement | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hills, J. W. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Renton, Leslie |
| Bull, Sir William James | Houston, Robert Paterson | Renwick, George |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Kerry, Earl of | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Cave, George | Kimber, Sir Henry | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Starkey, John R. |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | M'Arthur, Charles | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Younger, George |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Fell, Arthur | Morrison-Bell, Captain | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Newdegate, F. A. N. | A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
| Forster, Henry William | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
§ Question put, "That the words of the clause down to the word 'value.' in subsection (a,) stand part of the clause."
914§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 95.
917| Division No. 237.] | AYES. | [10.10 p.m. |
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) | Fuller, John Michael F. | Morrell, Philip |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Fullerton, Hugh | Morse, L. L. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Furness, Sir Christopher | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Agnew, George William | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Gill, A. H. | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Alden, Percy | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Glover, Thomas | Nicholls, George |
| Allan, Charles P. (Stroud) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Nolan, Joseph |
| Astbury, John Moir | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Griffith, Ellis J. | Norton, Captain Cecil William |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Gulland, John W. | Nuttall, Harry |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Halpin, J. | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) |
| Barker, Sir John | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Barnes, G. N. | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | O'Malley, William |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Beale, W. P. | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Hart-Davies, T. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Harwood, George | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Benn, Sr J. Wiliams (Devonport) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) |
| Berridge, T. H. D | Hedges, A. Paget | Philips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Bethell, Sir J. N. (Essex, Romford) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Black, Arthur W. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Bowerman, C. W | Higham, John Sharp | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Branch, James | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Brigg, John | Hodge, John | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Hogan, Michael | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Holt, Richard Durning | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Horniman, Emslie John | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Ridsdale, E. A |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Hudson, Walter | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Burt. Rt. Hon. Thomas | Jackson, R. S. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Jenkins, J. | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Cameron, Robert | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Robinson, S. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Jowett, F. W. | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Joyce, Michael | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Chance, Frederick William | Kavanagh, Walter M. | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Kekewich, Sir George | Rowlands, J. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Laidlaw, Robert | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Cleland, J. W. | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Clough, William | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Lambert, George | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Lamont, Norman | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Lehmann, R. C. | Sears, J. E. |
| Cooper, G. J. | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Shackleton, David James |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Crooks, William | Lundon, T. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Lynch, H. B. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Snowden, P. |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Maclean, Donald | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Stanger, H. Y |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | M'Micking, Major G. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Maddison, Frederick | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Marnham, F. J. | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Massie, J. | Summerbell, T. |
| Elibank, Master of | Masterman, C. F. G. | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Essex, R. W. | Meagher, Michael | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Taylor, Theodore c (Radcliffe) |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Micklem, Nathaniel | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Everett, R. Lacey. | Molteno, Percy Alport | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Mond, A. | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Ferguson. R. C. Munro | Montgomery, H. G. | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Mooney, J. J. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Tomkinson, James |
| Toulmin, George | Waterlow, D. S. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander | Watt, Henry A. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Verney, F. W. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. | Winfrey, R. |
| Vivian, Henry | White, Sir George (Norfolk) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Walters, John Tudor | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Walton, Joseph | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) | |
| Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) | |
| Wardle, George J. | Wiles, Thomas | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis. |
| Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. | Williamson, Sir A. | |
| Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) | |
| Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| NOES. | ||
| Balcarres, Lord | Gardner, Ernest | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gordon, J. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Oddy, John James |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Gretton, John | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Baring, Cat. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Haddock, George B. | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hamilton, Marquess of | Percy, Earl |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur, | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Pretyman, E G. |
| Bowles, G Stewart | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hill, Sir Clement | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Hills, J. W. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Renton, Leslie |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Houston, Robert Paterson | Renwick, George |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Cave, George | Kerry, Earl of | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Keswick, William | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Starkey, John R. |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.) |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | M'Arthur, Charles | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Younger, George |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | |
| Fell, Arthur | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Morpeth, Viscount | A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
| Forster, Henry William | Morrison-Bell, Captain |
Captain CRAIGThe Amendment I have now to move is to leave out the words "value of the consideration for the transfer" in paragraph (a) of section (2), and to insert the words "capitalised equivalent, not exceeding fifteen years' purchase, of the rateable value of the land as determined by the Commissioners." My reason for moving the Amendment is to try to get the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal on to some firm basis on which we can discuss it. I would like to persuade the right hon. Gentleman that the real method for the collection of these iniquitous taxes, if they are to be imposed, is that indicated in the Amendment. Most of those who are interested in the holding of land are accustomed to deal with the rents received annually from the tenants. In the value and consideration for a transfer there may be included a great deal besides the question of how much rent is paid annually, and on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's basis of calculation on a transfer he may be charging on various matters which have 918 got nothing whatever to do with the added position of the land. In order to meet that I am urging the Committee to accept the Amendment, which brings it down to a question of so many years purchase on the rent which is to be paid. I think that 15 years' purchase is a fair basis, which would prevent any undue injustice. There is a staff already in existence which fixes rates on every piece of property in the United Kingdom. Therefore, when a transfer of property takes place, we can go to the rate-books, see what that property is rated for and calculate 15 years' purchase. This saves an enormous amount of expense to the lessor, and, I presume, to the lessee, because if the lessor has to make a valuation I presume that the lessee will have to do the same thing. I will explain that later on on the Amendment which stands in my name on the subject; but if a valuation has to be made on every one of these transactions it would be very much simpler for the right hon. Gentleman to use the machinery already in existence instead of putting the country to the enormous 919 expense of setting up a staff of Commissioners to deal with a matter that has already been dealt with. The rateable value of all the land in the country and of all the houses in towns having already been fixed, it is a very simple thing on the transfer of any land sites, or whatever the right hon. Gentleman calls them, to calculate 15 years' purchase on the site value. You understand what 15 years' purchase means, and you all understand what taxable valuing means. It would undoubtedly mean an enormous saving to the country to lay aside altogether the functions of these Commissioners in respect of the rating of various small properties. I do not suppose any hon. Members understand better than Members from Ireland, both below and above the Gangway on this side of the House, the troubles connected with the transfer of land in Ireland as carried out under the Commissioners. Such duties, performed by Commissioners, will prove far more expensive than any duty the right hon. Gentleman will be able to collect. The expense of these operations is intolerable, and is something more than most Members of the House will credit. After the laudatory remarks made about him by one of his supporters, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker), who described him as a "devil going about with a pitchfork in his hand," I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will try to take away some of the odium cast upon him by accepting my Amendment, for, by doing so, he, at all events, would get the credit of removing one of the causes of his sticking his pitchfork into other people. I hope, in the interests of simplicity, my Amendment will be accepted, in order to make the Bill as palatable as possible to this side of the House, though it will not be accepted by the country.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to bo left out stand part of the clause."
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe hon. and gallant Member has certainly done his best to ensure that my right hon. Friend shall not be lured into acceptance of his Amendment, because I think a plain negative to the Bill would have been simple—the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a lover of simplieity—and would have been more effective than his Amendment. The Bill proposes to ascertain and collect duty on the increment which arises on a comparison between the value of the land on 920 the occasion when the tax comes to be collected with the original site value as fixed in 1909. The hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes to take not the value on sale to the purchaser as that which he would prefer to the original site value, but to eliminate the purchase money as the distinct and clear standard of comparison, and to substitute 15 years' capitalised purchase on the rateable value.
I observe that the hon. and gallant Member would take the rateable value. The original site value is, of course, the market value, which includes all prospective values. The effect would be that he would take the high actual value for the value which is exempt, and he would take the lowest posible value, with prospective value eliminated, when he comes to impose the tax. If that is not enough, he takes care to adopt the multiple, which is absurdly low, of fifteen years' purchase, taking also the annual value upon an absurdly low multiple. The effect, I need scarcely point out, would be to make almost any increment impossible and almost inconceivable in the great majority of cases.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe object of the Amendment ought to have been to amend the Bill. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has put before the Committee an observation that it is intended not to amend, but to extinguish the Bill.
§ Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAMI did not quite gather from the speech of the learned Attorney-General whether he reads my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment that it is to be a rateable value determined by the Commissioners. I think his reply was based on The assumption that we were to take the existing rateable value. As I read the Amendment, it is that the Commissioners are to decide what is the rateable value. That is a new factor. That is not my ground for supporting this Amendment. The origin of this tax is based on the fact, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not dispute this, that certain properties in towns, owing to their existing rateable value being too low, do not pay their full share. I know that the Government have diverted from that original position to an Imperial tax, but the origin, so far as the Government is concerned, is what I have srtated that certain lands in towns are lowly rated upon a purely agricultural basis, and that 921 there is a hypothetical rate value upon which they ought to be rated. My hon. and gallant Friend brings in the Commissioners, and says they are to decide what rateable value is. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no.'"] I think his proposition is more germane to the origin of this than the proposal in the Bill. This occasion is the occasion of transfer. Here it does not matter what reasons the Government have for placing tax on the occasion of a transfer. The effect of a heavy tax on the occasion of a transfer is to make the transfer more expensive and less easy in this country than otherwise would be the ease. I am in favour of the easy transfer of land, as I believe all politicians would be. As this Amendment is upon a basis which will make the transfer of land more easy than it will be if the clause is carried in the terms of the Government, I am in favour of the Amendment as against the terms in the Bill.
§ Mr. G. YOUNGERThis is one of the cases where we find ourselves in a difficulty owing to the rulings of the Chair. This Amendment does not raise in precisely the manner in which I proposed to raise at an earlier stage the question as to whether this tax should be calculated on the annual value or the capital value. I endeavoured to do it on two occasions. On the first I was ruled out of order, and on the second the Question was put so that I was not able to move my Amendment. Hon. Members who have followed this particular question of land valuation and land taxation are no doubt perfectly aware that this is a proposal on which the other House disagreed with us on the Land Values (Scotland) Bill, when they insisted that, instead of capital value, annual value, to which we have been accustomed in this country, and upon which all our rates have been based, should be taken. Having carefully considered the matter, I do not think this Amendment comes in opportunely at this point, for the simple reason that my proposal was ruled out at an earlier stage. If the question of annual value had been dealt with earlier in the clause, this Amendment would have been all right, but I hardly think it would be possible to insert it now, though it certainly raises a question which ought to be discussed, and which I hope will be raised on the Undeveloped Land Tax, where it is even more important than here. The proposal would not make such a drastic change in principle in our existing system as the Bill as it stands, and while I shall vote for the Amendment, because I believe in the prin- 922 ciple of annual value, I am doubtful whether, as far as increment value is con cerned, we can now insert it in the Bill.
§ Sir EDWARD CARSONThis is the first Amendment on which the jurisdiction of the Commissioners has come into argument. We have not yet discussed the qualifications of the Commissioners who are to decide these questions.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThere was a very long Debate last week on the question.
§ Sir EDWARD CARSONUp to this point there has been no mention of the Commissioners in the Bill, and under the procedure under which we are working I do not know that they will ever be discussed. I am anticipating that the moment may arrive when we shall get to the end of the Bill by a ruling of the Chair. Personally I object to the Amendment because of the jurisdiction it gives to the Commissioners. We know practically nothing about these gentlemen. I asked recently what their qualifications were to be, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that they would be Inland Revenue Commissioners. I already knew that, so that the reply did not add to the fund of knowledge, legal or otherwise, I previously possessed. What are the qualifications of these Commissioners in relation to land? There has been a system set up here of valuations which requires the most experienced valuers, and unless you can ensure that the Inland Revenue Commissioners have been appointed with a view to these valuations you have no right to put those duties upon them. I do not want to reflect upon the qualifications of the officers of the Inland Revenue for that particular work for which they have been selected. I believe they are most competent gentlemen, and in every way well worthy to fill their responsible posts. But I venture to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to tell me that the qualifications of these gentlemen for land valuing was ever considered at all on their appointment. Is it not a monstrous absurdity that the whole of the duties under this Bill depend upon the valuations of realty, and the valuations by hypotheses of gentlemen who have no qualifications for the task I think in the way this Amendment is framed we are prematurely raising the question as to the qualifications of these Commissioners, which might be much better discussed when we come to set up the tribunal in relation to the various valuations put 923 forth by the Bill. In order that that question may be determined upon a more opportune occasion—presuming we are not closured in reference to it—I move to omit from the proposed Amendment all the words after "land"—["of the land, as determined by the Commissioners."]
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
924§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 260; Noes, 99.
925| Division No. 238.] | AYES. | [10.45 p.m. |
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) | Dobson, Thomas W. | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Agnew, George William | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Elibank, Master of | Lundon, T. |
| Alden, Percy | Essex, R. W. | Lynch, H. B. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Esslemont, George Birnie | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Armitage, R. | Everett, R. Lacey | Maclean, Donald |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Ferens, T. R. | MacVeigh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) |
| Astbury, John Meir | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Fuller, John Michael F. | M'Miking, Major G. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Fullerton, Hugh | Maddison, Frederick |
| Barker, Sir John | Furness, Sir Christopher | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Gill, A. H. | Marnham, F. J. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) |
| Beale, W. P. | Glover, Thomas | Massie, J. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Meagher, Michael |
| Bennett, E. N. | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Griffith, Ellis J. | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Gulland, John W. | Mond, A. |
| Black, Arthur W. | Halpin, J. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Bottomley, Horatio | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Montgomery, H. G. |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Morrell, Philip |
| Branch, James | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Morse, L. L. |
| Brigg, John | Harwood, George | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Brodie, H. C. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Hedges, A. Paget | Nicholls, George |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Nolan, Joseph |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Henry, Charles S. | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Norton, Captain Cecil William |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Nuttall, Harry |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Higham, John Sharp | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Hobart, Sir Robert | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hodge, John | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Hogan, Michael | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Holland, Sir William Henry | O'Malley, William |
| Chance, Frederick William | Holt, Richard Durning | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Horniman, Emslie John | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Cleland, J. W. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Clough, William | Hudson, Walter | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Jackson, R. S. | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Jenkins, J. | Philipps, John (Longford, S.) |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Cooper, G. J. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Jowett, F. W. | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Joyce, Michael | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Kavanagh, Walter M. | Radford, G. H. |
| Crag, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Creeks, William | Laidlaw, Robert | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Scarborough) |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Lambert, George | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lamont, Norman | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Lehmann, R. C. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Spicer, Sir Albert | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Stanger, H. Y. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Robinson, S. | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Steadman, W. C | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Rogers, F. E. Newman | Strachey, Sir Edward | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Rose, Sir Charles Day | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Rowlands, J. | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Summerbell, T | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Sutherland, J. E. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L | Taylor, Theodore C. (Ratcliffe) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Seaverns, J. H. | Thomasson, Franklin | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Shackleton, David James | Tomkinson, James | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Sheehan, Daniel Daniel | Toulmin, George | Winfrey, R. |
| Silcock, Thomas Bali | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Simon, John Allsebrook | Verney, F. W. | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Vivian, Henry | |
| Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Walters, John Tudor | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis. |
| Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent) | |
| Scares, Ernest J. | Wardle, George J. | |
| NOES | ||
| Acland-Kood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Fell, Arthur | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Fletcher, J. S. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Forster, Henry William | Oddy, John James |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Foster, P. S. | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Gardner, Ernest | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckam) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Gordon, J. | Percy, Earl |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Gretton, John | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (By St. Edm'ds) | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Haddock, George B. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hamilton, Marquess of | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Renton, Leslie |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Renwick, George |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hill, Sir Clement | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hills, J. W. | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Houston, Robert Paterson) | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Starkey, John R. |
| Cave, George | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kerry, Earl of | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Keswick, William | Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford, Univ.) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Law, Arthur Bonar (Dulwich) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | M'Arthur, Charles | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Younger, George |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | |
| Du Cros, Arthur | Morpeth, Viscount | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Craig and Mr. Lonsdale. |
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe next Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford), has already been disposed of. The Amendment which follows, standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Edgbaston Division (Sir Francis Lowe), was disposed of in Clause]. The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chippenham (Sir John Dickson-Poynder), is also consequential.
§ Sir EDWARD CARSONWhy?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANBecause they have been disposed of in Clause I, and they are consequential. [An OPPOSITION MEMBER: "Rule them all out of order."] The same remark applies to the whole of the Amendments down to——
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMay I put to you a question on a point of order with reference to the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Edgbaston Division (Sir leave out paragraph (b.) I venture to submit that Clause 1 has determined, subject to the provisions of this part of the Act which we are now discussing, that there 927 shall be charged, levied, and paid on the in-cremerit value of any land, called Increment Value Duty, at the rate named on the occasion of any transfer on the sale of the land or any interest in the land, or the grant of any lease (being a lease for a term of years not exceeding 14 years). Sub-section (b), I submit, may be omitted in its entirety or may be amended in any shape or form without traversing that decision at all. Sub-section (b) defines what the value on which the tax is to be calculated is to be in the case of such a transfer. It does not follow at all from the fact that we have said there should be a tax that we should accept the value as defined in sub-section (b).
§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMANThis Amendment is consequential on the proposal to charge the duty on the occasion of any transfer on sale of the land or any interest in the land which has been decided or on the grant of a lease. It has been decided what are the occasions on which the duty is to be payable. This sub-section defines how the site value is to be calculated, and must be consequential.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI submit the two points are entirely distinct. What we have decided in Clause 1 is that the grant of a lease is to be one of the occasions on which that tax is to be levied, and what we are asked to decide in subsection (b) of Clause 2 is what is the basis on which we calculate the tax on that occasion. Surely the basis on which we calculate the tax is quit;} distinct from the occasion on which that tax is levied?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe right hon. Gentleman must see that it is proposed to leave out paragraph (b.) You would therefore be leaving out words which have been carried in Clause 1. It is not as if it were proposed to amend paragraph (b.) That is a different question. It is proposed to leave out what has already been determined in Clause 1.
§ Sir E. CARSONMay I say, with great respect, that your ruling seems to confuse the question of the basis of the value and the occasion in which the value is to be assessed? Let me illustrate it in this way. Supposing the Committee had decided that there was to be an Increment Tax, and subsequently there was a clause setting up what constituted the increment under this section, surely you would never 928 rule out of order an application by a Member to strike out the particular section or sub-section which set up what the increment is to be? It seems to me that is exactly the case here. We have set up the tax to be collected in the first instance, and what this sub-section proposes is to say that at a particular time the value of certain property shall be ascertained in a particular way. Therefore I submit it is in order to move the omission of the subsection altogether.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat does not traverse what I said a little while ago.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI gather that your ruling extends to this that having decided that the grant of the lease is one occasion on which the tax is to be levied, there must somewhere in the Bill be an explanation of the basis on which the tax is to be collected on that occasion, and that finally to pass the Bill without any basis at all would be to stereotype Clause 1. Accepting that ruling from you, may I still suggest that it always has been within the power of any Member of the House to move to reject the solution of a problem suggested by the Government without being called upon to produce his own scheme, leaving it to the Government if the particular solution which they put into the Bill is rejected, to come forward at a later time with a solution which may be acceptable.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANMy point is that the motion to leave out sub-section (b) is out of older. There are other Amendments on the Paper with a view to amending this paragraph, and therefore I suggest it is out of order to move to leave it out altogether.
Mr. BALFOURI do not take special interest in the point at issue, but I do take great interest in a ruling which modifies the practice of this House. I am far from criticising it. It may well be that the rules under which we work in Committer require reconstruction, but I wish to ask whether your ruling is not one which traverses the common practice of our usual procedure, and whether it may not be adopted in future to regulate our procedure, whichever party may be in power.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThis does not traverse the doctrine at all in the case of a Motion to leave out a paragraph which stands by itself. That is quite a different matter to leaving out a sub-section or paragraph on which the House has 929 already determined. It is not in order to move to leave out a paragraph which hangs on a decision of the House.
§ Sir E. CARSONI understand your ruling is that we are at liberty to amend this sub-section.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANYes
§ Sir E. CARSONThen, if we are at liberty to amend it, why should we not be at liberty to reject it? I submit, Mr. Caldwell, that as we are entitled to amend, we ought to be entitled to discuss whether we will keep it there or not. I submit to you with great confidence that the question of omitting a sub-section gives an opportunity to the House of discussing the sub-section as a whole, which has always been used as a most convenient course, and I submit to you that, above all things, upon a Budget Bill imposing taxes upon the subject is the very last opportunity when we should adopt a principle giving a new procedure.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEOn the point of order, Sir, "occasions," I submit to you, have already been decided after Debate upon Clause 1. The clause reads "on the occasion of any transfer on sale of the lend, or any interest in the land, or the grant of any lease (not being a lease for a term of years less than seven years) of the land." The only new point which is provided by this new sub-section, as was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) is the basis of the value of the consideration for the grant of the lease or the transfer of the interest.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt is not in order to move to leave out the sub-section (b.) The next two Amendments are consequential, and the next, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Radford), to insert after "grant," "by the owner," is also consequential.
§ Mr. PRETYMANMay I submit it is not consequential. It raises a very important point upon which we have had no answer yet, and to which the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill deferred his answer to a later point. It is the case of the grant of a lease when the occasion arises—the grant of a secondary interest, and this is the only place where we shall be able to raise this point.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThis Amendment has been disposed of under Clause 1. It is one of the occasions re- 930 ferred to in Clause 1, and the opinion of the House has been given upon it.
Mr. BALFOURI must ask you a question on a very important point. It is perfectly true some of these points were referred to earlier, but everybody of any experience of fighting a Bill in this House, and nobody has more experience than yourself, knows perfectly well that a reference to some future point cannot be avoided in discussing an earlier Amendment, but I would ask you if we ever have, had an opportunity at an earlier stage of this Bill of raising this specific point by formal Amendment, to which my hon. Friend refers.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIf the Leader of the Opposition will look at it it begins "on the occasion of any transfer on sale of the land or any interest in the land, or, the grant of any lease of the land." Those are precisely the words which appear in Clause 1, and which relate to this matter.
Mr. BALFOURMay I ask whether whenever we raised these detailed points on Clause 1 we were not referred to Clause 2, and if it was not Clause 2 it was Clause 3, and I think it went up to Clause 72 on one occasion. On Clause 1 we discussed the financial proposition. Any details were referred to a later clause, which obviously and plainly worked out the details of Clause 1. We now come to the details of the working out of Clause 1 and we are told that the whole question was determined on Clause 1. I would ask you whether in these circumstances the position of the critics of the Bill is not made almost impossible under your ruling?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe right hon. Gentleman's experience far exceeds anything of mine, and I think he must see that in this case we dealt in Clause 1 with certain occasions, such as the granting of a lease, and what is here is simply a narrative to connect Clause 2 with Clause I, and the words are: "Where the occasion is the grant of any lease of land or the transfer or sale of any interest in the land." That is pure narrative connected with Clause 1. Then: "The value of the fee simple of the land calculated on the basis."
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMay I ask you whether it is not the fact that on every occasion on which it was sought from this side of the House to move a 931 reservation or a saving in Clause 1, the Chairman informed us that the proper place to raise these reservations or savings was on Clause 2, and we were told by the Chairman on Clause 1 that we could not raise by Amendment on the clause the class of Question which you now say is decided.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIf the right hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 1, it says: "Where the occasion is the grant of any lease of the land or a transfer or sale of any interest in the land." It is pure narrative.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI am afraid I did not make my point clear to you. If, as I understand you, you say the words we are now seeking to amend are mere repetition or narration of words already occurring in Clause 1:
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is so.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINBut my point is that when we tried to Amend these words in Clause 1——
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe right hon Gentleman knows we cannot go back upon Clause 1, even supposing there was anything in the point, but in point of fact there is nothing in it. What the Chairman was referring to was simply modifications of particular words which were discussed on Clause I, and a division was taken on those words.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI should like to raise a different point. Supposing we accept your ruling that these words are narrative, surely we are entitled to discuss them. These words are qualified. Surely these words may be divided into two parts. For instance, we have already decided that the duty shall be charged "on the occasion of any transfer or sale of the land, or the grant of any lease… "Surely we are entitled to accept these words as narrative, and to divide the statement into two pans and say how the duty is to apply in the cases of owners and of those having secondary interests. It is for that object that the Amendment is to be moved. I think that is perfectly clear.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThis Amendment is consequential on the same hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and therefore it cannot be moved.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI desire to move to insert the words "by the owner" after 932 the word "grant" ("where the occasion is the grant."). When the occasion is the grant of a lease by the owner we desire that the duty should be taken on a different basis from that in which it is taken when the occasion is a transfer or a re-grant by a secondary interest. The point is one of very great importance. It has already been raised, but we have not had an answer upon it.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEOn a point of order, I submit to you, Sir, that you have already given your ruling, and that it is not in accordance with precedent to conduct a discussion on a ruling of the chair.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe Amendment on which I was ruling was the Amendment on the paper in the name of the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Radford). It appeared to me that the words he proposed to insert were consequential on his previous Amendment, and, therefore, I ruled it out of order. But the Amendment may have force in itself apart from his previous Amendment, and, therefore, I will not object to its being moved.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESThe hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to distinguish between a lease granted by the owner and one granted by a lessor.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANObviously we cannot conduct business in this way. I have already ruled that it is quite proper that the Amendment should be moved.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESThe Amendment involves a consequential Amendment being put on the paper.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI now move the Amendment to insert after "grant" the words "by the owner" in sub-section (b) of section (2). This is an Amendment of considerable substance, on which I imagine that we shall have a good deal of discussion in this way. The Committee is in this difficulty. Early this afternoon the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he proposed that upon all the different occasions on which transfer duty might be claimed on a lease the total sum taken should only represent the duty upon the increment value which accrued between the highest value and the lowest value at which the property had been valued since the original site value had 933 been taken, and when that value was apportioned between different interests the total sum paid would in no case exceed that particular figure. For instance, taking as a concrete case, a piece of land which had been valued at £1,000 on which there had at one time been a price of £1,500, the highest increment duty payable, assuming there were no deductions, would be £100, or one-fifth of the Increment of £500. Suppose that increment had accrued upon a leasehold property when the lease had less than 50 years to expire, there would then be duty payable by two interests, either by the owner, whom we may call the owner of the primary interest, or by the lessee, who is the owner of the secondary interest. These interests have a varying value. At the beginning of the lease the primary interest is reckoned at nothing, and the secondary interest is really the whole interest. At the end of the lease the position is reversed, and the owner of the primary interest has the whole interest, and the interest of the owner of the secondary interest really disappears. During the whole of the period of the currency of the lease the primary interest is waxing and the secondary interest is waning until one disappears in the other. It therefore follows, supposing that there has been a transfer of the secondary interest, the lessee's interest, during the currency of those last years, the whole of the £100 in that particular case will fall upon the owner of the primary interest. Remember we have got it laid down distinctly by the right hon. Gentleman that, whoever may pay, however many occasions it may be taken, and whatever may be the fluctuations, no more than £100 can ever be claimed. Supposing the secondary interest has never paid anything until that interest has been extinguished, it is obvious there can be no claim whatever on the secondary interest, and, if that interest pays nothing, the whole £100 falls, to be paid either in the form of Increment Duty or Reversion Duty by the owner of the primary interest, that is, the owner of the property. But suppose, as frequently occurs, there has been a transfer of the secondary interest to various parties during the lease. The lessee at the beginning of the fifty years building lease, transfers his interest to another man. There are, we will say, three transfers during the last fifty years, A being the owner of the primary interest, and B the owner of the secondary interest. B transfers to C, C to D, and D to E. On 934 each of those occasions some payment will be made, whether large or small. Whatever that payment may be, according to the right hon. Gentleman, it will have to be deducted or taken into consideration by the Commissioners, and, therefore, by whatever sum that payment amounts to there will be pro tanto a deduction of the sum paid by the owner of the primary interest. So it follows that where the secondary interest has remained in one hand all through the last years of the lease, the whole Increment Duty of £100, or whatever it may be, will be payable by the owner. Where it happens that there has been a transfer of the secondary interest, in which he has no concern whatever, part of that duty will have been paid for him beforehand. On what principle of equity do you do that? It simply means that in the case of a bad property, which nobody holds very long, which is frequently transferred by one lessee to another, the owner of the primary interest, when the lease falls in, will have the full amount to pay. Where the tenant remains in constant occupation, and where there is no change in the tenancy, then the amount he will have to pay will, in fact, be the whole sum payable. I beg to move.
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe point put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman certainly cannot be said to present an appearance of simplicity, yet it is capable of a simple explanation. There is only one thing that is not capable of an easy explanation, and that is its connection with the words of the Amendment. I think I must explain what it is I am about to answer. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says the difficulty here is that we arc dealing with site value. We are dealing also with the different interests in the land on which the value has been taken. You may have first of all the fee simple interest, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman called the primary interest; that is, the fee simple or the interest of the reversioner, and there is also the leasehold interest or the minor interest. Now, if increment occurred during the currency of the lease, it may be that the leaseholder will not sell his interest. If the leaseholder does not sell his interest the hon. and gallant Member is perfectly right that at the end of the time when the leasehold interest has expired, there having been no sale and no occasion upon which increment has been taken, the 935 whole increment which has then accrued will stand on the Register against whoever takes possession of the land. That is the case which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is right in supposing. Not having been paid or cleared by any payment on the part of the lessee, the reversioner will have to pay that increment when he comes into the land. He will pay because he gets it. There is certainly no injustice in making the reversioner pay upon the increment value which has accrued upon the land during the leaseholder's possession. Of course I am dealing with the tax as a just one. It is possible the reversioner may get the advantage. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite correct in that he complains of that as an injustice, and then he will follow his Amendment, in which he will seek to make the reversioner pay something more. What is the advantage he gets? It is the increment value accruing with the leaseholder at the time that the leaseholder desires to sell. The increment value accrues against the property and has not been liquidated by any one of the various interests. Whichever interest liquidates it undoubtedly does give some benefit to the other interests which are dependent. If the leaseholder desires to sell how is his value calculated? There is a reversionary interest when he sells, and also the leasehold interest. When he proceeds to sell the interest increment is calculated on the site value. Whatever is appropriated to the reversioner is calculated to him, and whatever is appropriated to the leaseholder to him. Supposing the leaseholder, having forty or fifty years to run, chooses to sell, he does so at a time when he has more interest in the increment than the reversioner. He gets the increment, and therefore he has to pay on the increment. There is no injustice against the reversioner, who gets the benefit; there is no inequity as against the leaseholder, who, when he chooses to sell, is very properly called upon to pay Increment Duty. It may be that the leaseholder who chooses to sell his leasehold interest and thereby franks a portion of the Increment Value Duty standing against the property, will give pro tanto a benefit to the reversioner when he comes in. We do not grudge it. If hon. Members opposite think he should not do it let them propose an Amendment to make him pay twice over. Our anxiety has been to make nobody pay twice over. It has been alleged over and over again 936 by those who have not closely followed the perfectly simple lines of the Bill that we make this, that, or the other person pay twice over. We are doing nothing of the sort. It is only our anxiety to avoid doing anything of the kind that has given rise to the point made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. We will not demand or receive a double payment on the same increment, even though we might be excused for getting it against both the leaseholder and the reversioner. Whoever pays it franks the property to that extent.
Mr. BALFOURWe all admire the moderation of the Government. They make a virtue of not compelling subjects of the King to pay twice over on the same piece of land and the same increment. What we want to know is the justification of their methods of apportioning the Increment Tax. They have laid down-—I think quite illogically—-that a given piece of land should pay a given amount of money for a certain increment. Then the question arises, How is that fixed tax unalterable, simple, bearing a fixed relation to the growth of value, to be apportioned amongst the various interests'? Can anybody who listened to the speech of the Attorney-General say that the plan of the Government is either-defensible or just? The hon. and learned Gentleman complained of the obscurity of my hon. Friend's speech. My hon. Friend was lucidity itself. At all events, the substance is agreed. There is no difference of opinion now between that side and this as to what is going to happen. You are to have the increment on a piece of land running for, say, 50 years, and amounting perhaps to £100; you have to distribute amongst the various owners interested during those 50 years the payment of that £100 to the State. It now appears, by common agreement, that if one tenant has a leasehold interest during the 50 years the increment may be what it will, the leaseholder pays nothing. That is admitted by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He enjoys the increment, but he does not pay on it.
§ Sir W. ROBSONIf he does not sell.
Mr. BALFOURThat is what I say. I am taking the case of one leaseholder-enjoying the increment for 50 years. He does not pay a single shilling in tax to the Exchequer during that period. [An HON. MEMBER: "Unless he dies."] Very well, take the case of a dozen or 20 people enjoying fractions of that incre- 937 ment value during that 50 years, and each one of those 20 paying a proportionate increment value. In one case the reversioner pays the whole of the increment value, though he does not enjoy any of it during the last 50 years. In the other case 20 people who have successively owned the leasehold value pay a fraction of it, and the freeholder, who comes in at the end—though in each case the property is exactly the same—pays a great deal less than the other man. I understand that the Government imagine their Budget is one of equal treatment as between the owners of different kinds of property. At all events, I understand that their view-was that it was a Budget of equal treatment of the people who owned the same kind of property. Evidently it is not. What is more the Government do not pretend that it is. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who, with all his airs of superiority, told us that my right hon. Friend near me had used incongruous language, and used it obscurely, had himself expressed exactly the same ideas in language much less incongruous and more legal, but substantially agreeing with my right hon. Friend. How can the Government defend the position? Can they give the pretence of a justification for it? The whole ten minutes of the hon. and learned Gentleman's ingenious oration consisted of a repetition of the speech of my right hon. Friend. What he forgot was to justify the proposals. There is no difference between us as to what the proposals of the Government are. The Government has forgotten, not to explain, but to justify them. The proposition I put is simple. It is not expressed in the technical language of my right hon. Friend or the legal language of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is perfectly plain to every man in this House. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I believe, does sympathise with the legal terminology, but who is also perfectly capable of dealing with these things in a plain common-sense way, will explain to us why two men, precisely similarly situated, are to pay quite different taxes?
§ Mr. COURTENAY WARNERI think the case is pretty plain, and I am surprised at hon. Gentlemen opposite having any difficulty in understanding it. The first man who realises the increment pays the tax, and in the case of the leaseholder selling he is the first man to realise the 938 income, arid therefore he pays the proportion. If he does not realise increment, and only has used the house, it goes on to somebody that thus realises it in actual cash and then it goes to the reversionary. It is not a tax upon income, it is a tax on actual profit when increment is realised. As soon as increment is realised the tax is paid and collected.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILThe hon. Gentleman has not apprehended in any way the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend. What he suggested was that the leaseholder in one case pays the whole of the increment duty, and in another case would not pay any of it. It is perfectly plain, the two freeholders are in exactly the same position, yet one pays, the other does not. Neither the hon. Member who has just spoken nor the Attorney-General thinks that worthy of being answered. I cannot help being reminded of the story in "Alice in Wonderland" and the Dormouse. Alice asked if the three sisters lived on treacle would they not be very ill! And the Dormouse replied they would. That is the position taken up by the Attorney-General. My hon. and gallant Friend points out there will be great inequality, and the Attorney-General says "There will." He never disputed it. The Attorney-General admitted everything my hon. Friend said, and answered; it only shows the extraordinary moderation of the Government.
§ Sir EDWARD CARSONI think we are entitled to some answer in reply to the arguments of my right hon. Friend the leader of the Opposition. The proposition upon which the Committee is going to vote is this. If "A" being the owner of land makes a lease the question of the Increment Tax he is going to pay depends, not upon anything as regards himself or the land, but on the question whether the lessee transfers or dies during the currency of the lease. Is not that absolutely absurd? Let us bring in the whole community and the value the community confers upon the land, admitting all your Socialistic theories, admitting that all the increment arises from the fact that there is a community that the town has grown up round this property, do you really say in these circumstances that the taxation is to depend, not upon the ownership of "A," but upon something over which he has no control and is not concerned with, namely, when "B" either dies or transfers his property.
§ Mr. G. H. RADFORDI do not find the same difficulty as hon. Members opposite in regard to this clause, but I confess that I am in a difficulty in regard to this matter. I listened carefully to the explanation given by the Attorney-General, but I am still unable to understand what is the measure of the increment value in the case of interest in land as distinguished from land, and I hope some further explanation will be given on this point from the Government Bench. By Clause 1 we have imposed a tax upon the increment value of interest in land. With regard to land itself I understand that the system laid down by the Government for reckoning and imposing the increment value duty is——
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANOrder, order. The hon. Member is not confining himself to the Amendment before the Committee.
§ Mr. RADFORDAccording to the Amendment we are discussing, when the lease is granted by the owner it is clear that you may take the amount of the lease, capitalise it, and ascertain the capital value of the land by reference to the lease, but if you are dealing with the transfer of the leasehold interest it appears to me that the capital value of the freehold has nothing to do with the matter. May I put to the Committee a specific case which has come under my notice to-day? It can easily be verified, because the purchaser is the Postmaster-General. In this case the owner granted a lease for 21 years at a rent of £900. Capitalising the rent at 20 years' purchase the capital value may be put at £18,000. I am not concerned with the land but with the interest in the land, that is, with the interest of the lessee. After a few years the term expired, the Postmaster-General comes along and buys the interest of the lessee for £5,000. The lessee is the owner of an interest in land, and it turns out to be a very valuable interest. I presume that this lessee is the owner of an interest in land upon which duty would be payable under this Bill, but I cannot for the life of me see how the consideration received by the lessee has anything whatever to do with arriving at the amount of the tax or the manner in which it is to be imposed. I shall be glad if the Attorney-General will explain what will happen in this case. The explanation will be interesting, not only to me, but to other hon. Members.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI cannot help thinking the Government will see that this Amendment will improve their clause. Let me read the sub-section as amended: "Where the occasion is the grant of any lease by the owner of the land the site value shall be the value of the fee simple of the land calculated on the basis of the value of the consideration for the grant of the lease." The hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Radford) has said that it is comparatively easy to value the value of the fee simple from the value of the consideration for the grant of the lease, but it is not always, because the land may be subject to restrictive covenants. If the land were leased without restrictive covenants you might say that it was a fair guide to the value of the fee simple, but, when you come to the grant of a secondary lease, the conditions are absolutely different. Supposing, in the case of a primary lease of 49 years, the original lessee at the fag end of the lease grants a secondary lease for 10 years, surely the value the lessee gets for those ten years is no test at all for the fee simple of the land. He can do nothing with the land. He is probably bound to keep any houses upon it in repair, and he has no time to turn it over or to put it to any use. Therefore, to calculate the fee simple on what he pays must be fallacious. You may have occasions where it is worth a man's while to buy at the fag end of a lease or take a short period for the sake of the buildings upon the land because it suits his convenience, or because he has some attachment to them; but you would never think of fixing the fee simple of the land on that basis. Surely the occasions on which you have to calculate the fee simple of the land ought to be confined to the grant by the owner. The hon. Member's consequential Amendment will therefore come in pertinently on sub-section (c). I trust the point raised will be met by one of the legal authorities on the Treasury Bench before we go to a Division.
§ Mr. W. R. W. PEELA very curious state of things arises. Take the case of a lease running for 40 years. The reversioner knows he will have to pay an increment value duty. He watches the increment value increase, and the value of land consequently increases. Perhaps 20 years of the lease has run when, by a happy accident, the lease is sold, the increment value is taxed, and he at once sees himself relieved of that value which 941 is taxed. He then either dies or sells his reversion. He clearly sells his reversion for a much greater price than he otherwise would, because he is relieved of at least half of the value of the growing increment. When he is taxed upon that sale or death, is that increased value which is due not to the action of the community, but to the capricious action of a particular lessee at a particular time, going to be considered as increment due to the whole of the community, and is he going to be taxed on it or not?
§ Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTONI am amazed that the Government had not the courtesy to give an answer to the argumerits which had been addressed to them with such absolute clearness from both sides of the House. There is no difference of opinion as to the facts, and yet the Government will not vouchsafe any ex- planation whatever of the inequality of taxation which is complained of.
§ Sir W ROBSONWhat is the point on which information is required?
§ Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTONThe points have been put ad nauseam. Let me briefly restate one. Two men in the same position are taxed with absolute inequality.
§ The Government have been asked to explain the reason for that. In order to give them an opportunity I beg to move that you report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
§ Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe right hon. Gentleman has complained of lack of courtesy on the part of the Government in not replying to hon. Members. That is a serious charge. It means that being conscious of some great difficulty they are declining to meet it either because they cannot or will not. The right hon. Gentleman might have stated a little more clearly what are the points on which a reply is required—he has merely repeated one point to which an answer has already been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 103; Noes, 238.
943| Division No. 239.] | AYES. | [12.5 a.m. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Du Cros, Arthur | Morrison-Bell, Captain |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Faber, George Denison (York) | Newdegate, F. A. N. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Fell, Arthur | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Ashley, W. W. | Forster, Henry William | Oddy, John James |
| Balcarres, Lord | Foster, P. S. | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gardner, Ernest | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.) | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Peel, Hon. W. Robert Wellesley |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gordon, J. | Percy, Earl |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Gretton, John | Pretyman, E G. |
| Baring, Cant. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'nds) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Haddock, George B. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hamilton, Marquess of | Renton, Leslie |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Renwick, George |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hill, Sir Clement | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Kerry, Earl of | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Keswick, William | Starkey, John R. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Cave, George | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Thornton, Percy HI. |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Tillett, Louis John |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Williamson, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Clyde, James, Avon | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Cochrane, hon. Thomas H. A. E. | M'Arthur, Charles | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Magnus, Sir Philip | Younger, George |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Gill, A. H | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) |
| Agnew, George William | Glover, Thomas | Philips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Griffith, Ellis J. | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Armitage, R. | Gulland, John W. | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro') |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Barker, Sir John | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Hedges, A. Paget | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Beale, W. P. | Henry, Charles S. | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Robinson, S. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Higham, John Sharp | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Hobart, Sir Robert | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Bennett, E. N. | Hodge, John | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Hogan, Michael | Rowlands, J |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Holland, Sir William Henry | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Holt, Richard Durning | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Horniman, Emslie John | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Hudson, Walter | Scott, A. H. |
| Branch, James | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Shackleton, David James |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Brodie, H. C. | Jenkins, J. | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Brooke, Stopford | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Jowett, F. W. | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Joyce, Michael | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Laidlaw, Robert | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Byles, William Pollard | Lamont, Norman | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Lehmann, R. C | Summerbell, T. |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Chance, Frederick William | Levy, Sir Maurice | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Lundon, T. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Cleland, J. W. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Clough, William | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Maclean, Donald | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Tomkinson, James |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Toulmin, George |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | M'Micking, Major G. | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Cooper, G. J. | Maddison, Frederick | Verney, F. W. |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Vivian, Henry |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Walters, John Tudor |
| Cowan, W. H. | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Marnham, F. J. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Crocks, William | Mason, A. E W. (Coventry) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Masterman, C. F. G. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Crossley, William J. | Meagher, Michael | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Micklem, Nathaniel | Watt Henry, A. |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Mond, A. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Montgomery, H. G. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Morrell, Philip | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Morse, L. L. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Elibank, Master of | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Essex, R. W | Nicholls, George | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Nolan, Joseph | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Norman, Sir Henry | Wilson, W. T. (esthoughton) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Nuttall, Harry | Winfrey, R. |
| Ferens, T. R. | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | |
| Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | O Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis. |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Parker, James (Halifax) | |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Paulton, James Mellor |
§ Mr. A. J. BALFOURI am very sorry I did not make my point clear to the Attorney-General. I tried to point out that you might have two people owning the same kind of land, situated in precisely the same position, and both owing the increment to exactly the same social causes. The one might have one leaseholder under him for 50 years till the freeholder came again into possession, and in that case the freeholder would pay the whole Increment Duty. His neighbour might have a succession of leaseholders, and in that case each successive leaseholder would pay a fraction of the increment value, and when the freeholder came again into his property he would pay a very much smaller duty than his neighbour. The question is why these two payments should be taxed at quite different rates.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI scarcely think that at this stage of the discussion the right hon. Gentleman needs the explanation he asks. The explanation has been given again and again. It is perfectly apparent on the face of the Bill, and in what I said earlier I made it as clear as I could make it. What are we doing by this Bill? We have not adopted the method of collecting profit on each transaction. We would have acquired by that means a much larger revenue, and we would have laid on those whose interests are specially championed by hon. Gentlemen opposite a heavier burden. They would have been in a worse position, and we would have been more unmitigated thieves than, according to the language of hon. members, we are described to be. That would have been the position if we had taxed the profits on each transaction in land, taking always the profit on each increment over the price at the time of the last transaction. We deliberately chose a milder method. We chose one which will give us less revenue, and we have arrived at a way which must give relief to those who are interested in those transactions. Instead of collecting the profit on each transaction, as compared with the last preceding transaction, we have established what we call the original site value of the whole of the property in land in this country. That original site value we hold exempt from this tax. That is the scheme which gives rise to what the right hon. Gentleman calls an inequality, but what is really a concession granted in certain cases to certain classes of taxpayers. You have property which is put under lease, and the leaseholder has an interest which 946 is substantial enough for the purpose of sale. If he keeps his leasehold interest to the end of the lease, and enjoys the increment instead of selling it, the occasion for this tax never arises. On the termination of the lease the reversioner comes in. He gets at once the benefit of the whole increment value, and he pays on that increment. Is there any injustice to the reversioner in that? Unless you lay on a tax which is intended to fall impartially on all persons on all occasions, then undoubtedly you must put on a tax which must fall on some occasions on some persons. Such an inequality as that we cannot avoid. I dare say hon. Members opposite think they have a system of taxation which would not fall with absolutely crushing partiality on those who had to pay. I should say that it would fall with the grossest partiality on some.
I now pass to the case where the lessee during the currency of his lease chooses to sell. He sells his own interest and pays the tax upon his own interest. Suppose he has 40 years to run he sells his 40 years' interest only and pays a tax on that interest. What do we do that gives rise to inequality? We say we will allow that payment to be registered so that it shall inure to the benefit of whoever owns the property. Is that injustice? The leaseholder is selling his interest. He is collecting the increment during his life, thereby bringing upon himself the operation of the tax. If he chooses not to collect that increment during his life, but to enjoy it, at his death then of course he would also pay but a somewhat diminished interest at his death. But he has chosen to sell his leasehold interest during his life, and is therefore called on to pay the tax. Is there anything unjust in allowing that tax to be registered so as to frank all the owners of the property, including the reversion? I can quite understand some of my friends saying why should we give up the reversion, and I dare say we might say we will make our tax more stringent. But does it lie in the Mouths of hon. Members opposite to complain that we do not adopt this course? Let us inquire for a moment as to the genuineness of the claims and the sincerity of their indignation. Are they concerned that in this case there is a chance being missed of taxing the reversion? Are they complaining of the monstrous, dishonest injustice of allowing a payment by one person to be put to the credit of all who deal in the property? That surely is not 947 their complaint. Where is the inequality of providing that in every case where you make a payment of this increment value the purchaser who comes after has not to bear the debt and he is just in the same position as the reversioner? Why do not hon. Members say: "'Here is another inequality. You are relieving the purchaser by charging a less price than that which already has been made the subject of Increment Value Duty, and you are missing a chance of taking some of that money." Do they want this Bill to apply to all profits on all transactions by comparing one transaction with the last, instead of comparing one transaction with the standard value'! I dare say if they put down that Amendment it would remove all grievances as to inequality and it would meet with enthusiastic support with these benches. But because we have chosen to allot this tax so as to give in certain cases a not unreasonable concession we are denounced as though we were extracting more money from the taxpayer instead of extracting less. With this explanation I dare say hon. Members opposite will not be satisfied; but it is the explanation that the Government had to give and it is the explanation we give. And I would ask the Committee to remember that with the enormous amount of work lying before us we do not repeat that which already has been discussed, and there is no ground for the charge that has been made that this is my discourteous refusal to give an answer.
§ Mr. BALFOURThe hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstands. We would never have charged the Government with discourtesy if at the beginning they had admitted they had no answer. It is because they say they had an answer.
§ Sir W. ROBSONIt is very easy for the right hon. Gentleman to say we have no answer. It is equally easy, and a good deal more accurate to say that he has no point. As to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, let me assure him that I did not answer, because I did not think an answer was called for. This subject has not been raised for the first time. He gave us the case of a lease from the Postmaster-General for the sum of £900 a year. The property increased in value by £5,000. Is the duty on that increment value to be collected? We deal with the point in this very clause which we are now discussing. There is no difficulty in ascertaining what 948 the value of the freehold will be upon the basis of an increment of £5,000 with a 21 years' lease. Upon such material as that a statement is very rapidly achieved of what the value would be on that basis. There is no valuation; it is a simple computation. Having got the fee simple, the value you next ascertain, by means of the same basis, is what is the value of the 21 years' lease which is acquired as compared with the fee simple? That includes increment accrued on the 21 years' lease, and that is the increment which is charged. That is an answer which I think is fairly obvious.
§ Mr. G. H. RADFORDWill the right hon. Gentleman point out the words in the section bearing on the point? ["Answer, answer."]
§ Sir W. ROBSONEverybody knows it by this time.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMThe hon. and learned Gentleman says everybody knows the answer. He confesses that the inequality urged by my right hon. Friend is a real inequality, and then he avoids a number of Amendments which we have put down and says a concession has been made to certain parties. To what parties? The right parties? Here is the case of a freehold. The owner gives a lease of 50 years to some charitable institution in which he takes an interest and which commands public approval. The man next to him, foreseeing a rapid rise in value, makes a profit by leasing it, giving him money for the transfer.
§ Mr. A. E. W. MASONI notice when the learned Attorney-General referred to the position of the leaseholder he always referred to him as a seller of his interest. I think one ought to remember that the leaseholder is also in a position to sub-let for a period within 14 years without paying any share of the increment at all. The leaseholder can go on gaining all the benefit of the increment without paying anything whatever for it. It is perfectly true that at the end of the term the land will revert to the reversioner, who will have this increment fully and pay his share of the increment. You will be in this position, that whereas the owner will pay Increment Duty, the leaseholder, who has had the advantage of the increment, will escape from paying any share.
§ Sir W. ROBSONIf my hon. Friend will read the Amendment he will see that the tax is collected on the occasion of the 949 granting of a lease—the very case he has put. Therefore, the result will be he will have to pay the tax.
§ Mr. A. E. W. MASONNot when the lease is under fourteen years.
§ Mr. CAVEThe case put is one in which the lessee sub-lets for a period of less than fourteen years. The lessee goes on enjoying increment, not only by personal
§ occupation, but in the form of increased rent, and he pays no duty at all. At the end of the original term the reversioner has to pay the whole of it.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 98; Noes, 219.
951| Division No. 240.] | AYES. | [12.35 a.m. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Du Cros, Arthur | Oddy, John James |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Faber, George Denison (York) | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Forster, Henry William | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Ashley, W. W. | Foster, P. S. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gardner, Ernest | Peel, Hon. W. Robert Wellesley |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Percy, Earl |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.) | Gordon, J. | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Gretton, John | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'nds) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Haddock, George B. | Renton, Leslie |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hamilton, Marquess of | Renwick, George |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hill, Sir Clement | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Kerry, Earl of | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Starkey, John R. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Cave, George | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Younger, George |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Morrison-Bell, Captain | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir |
| Doughty, Sir George | Newdegate, F. A. | Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Valentia. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Bryce, J. Annan | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Dobson, Thomas W. |
| Agnew, George William | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christehurch) | Byles, William Pollard | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Elibank, Master of |
| Armitage, R. | Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Essex, R. W. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Cawley, Sir Frederick | Esslemont, George Birnie |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Evans, Sir S T. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Everett, R. Lacey |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Cleland, J. W. | Ferens, T. R. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Clough, William | Ferguson, R. C. Munro |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace |
| Barnes, G. N. | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Fuller, John Michael F. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Fullerton, Hugh |
| Beale, W. P. | Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Gibb, James (Harrow) |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Cooper, G. J. | Gill, A. H. |
| Bennett, E. N. | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Glover, Thomas |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Cowan, W. H. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Black, Arthur W. | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Crosfield, A. H. | Griffith, Ellis J. |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Crossley, William J. | Gulland, John W. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) |
| Brodie, H. C. | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Montgomery, H. G. | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| fledges, A. Paget | Morrell, Philip | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Morse, L. L. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Henry, Charles S. | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Higham, John Sharp | Myer, Horatio | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Hodge, John | Nicholls, George | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Hogan Michael | Nolan, Joseph | Summerbell, T. |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Nuttall, Harry | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Holt, Richard Burning | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Horniman, Emslie John | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Howard, Hon Geoffrey | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Thomas, Abel (Camarthen, E.) |
| Hudson, Walter | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Hyde, Clarendon, G. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) | Tomkinson, James |
| Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Toulmin, George |
| Jenkins, J. | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Philips, John (Longford, S.) | Verney, F. W. |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Vivian, Henry |
| Jowett, F. W. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Walters, John Tudor |
| Joyce, Michael | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Rainy, A. Rolland | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Lamont, Norman | Raphael, Herbert H. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Rendall, Athelstan | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Cloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W ) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Ridsdale, E. A. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Lundon, T. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Mackarness, Frederic C. | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Maclean, Donald | Robinson, S. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Robson, Sir Wm. Snowdon | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Williamson, Sir A. |
| McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Rose, Sir Charles Day | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Maddison, Frederick | Rowlands, J. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Marnham, F. J. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Winfrey, R. |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Meagher, Michael | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Seely, Colonel | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis. |
| Mond, A. | Shackleton, David James |
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANWe have already decided in Clause 1 that 14 years is to be the occasion upon which increment is to be taken, and that decision therefore shuts out several of the Amendments (specified) on the Paper. This includes the Amendments of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Carlile).
§ Mr. CARLILEOn a point of order, Sir, I submit that my Amendments ["for any period exceeding thirty years"] do not interfere in any way with the 14 years laid down. The expression in the clause "the value of the fee simple," will not apply to leases for less than thirty years. It cannot apply, because it is clearly a gross injustice to charge the full fee simple for a period of less than thirty years. Therefore, I move to insert that the leases should only have value when they exceed that period. This does not in any way clash with the alteration referred to in Clause 1. It is at least not a mere 952 narration of a previous clause, but is an Amendment of substance.
§ Sir E. CARSONI have handed in a manuscript Amendment to omit the words ["(6) Where the occasion is…] "the value of the fee simple of the land calculated on the basis of." I listened to the Attorney-General on this clause, and up to the present I have been utterly unable to see in certain cases what the value of the fee simple is. I want to make the point as simple as possible. If hon. Members will look at the Bill they will see what we are speaking of here is the site value of the land on the occasion on which the Increment Value becomes due, and is to be taken on the occasion of the granting of a lease, or the transfer, or the sale. How is the value of the fee simple to be ascertained? My contention is this: taking the case of a transfer of a lease, the transferor of the lease or the transferee have neither of them anything 953 to say to the value of the fee simple. A lease is granted to me for 50 years, and I transfer that for a consideration to somebody else, why should I pay the whole increment upon the fee simple? I admit what the Attorney-General said that you may be able to ascertain the value of the fee simple, but I find it very difficult to know how that interesting operation is to be performed. A man may get his lease at £50 a year, and he may transfer it to somebody else for £500. There may be a great many other considerations. The Attorney-General said something about ascertaining the value of the fee simple, and then stating what is the proportionate part the transferor ought to pay. That is not in the Bill. The Bill is explicit, that what you are to pay is the value of the fee simple of the land. Nothing could be more unfair than to ask the transferor in these circumstances to pay upon the value of the fee simple at all. He ought to pay simply upon the increased consideration he gets by reason of any increment on the land and nothing more, and if you had words to show that, then I could understand it. But there is nothing of the kind in the Bill.
Take the case of the lessee. The higher the rent he pays the more valuable is the fee simple, but the less value is the interest in the lease, therefore, when he come to transfer his interest in the lease he has to pay on a higher fee simple. I think the result of that is one which will be most unfair, because as far as I can see there are no words in the Bill qualifying this result. You are to estimate the value of the fee simple and tax upon that. I know there are words in sub-section 3 in reference to apportioning the original site value with the portion that is sold, but that has nothing to say on the question of site value to be charged on these particular occasions. I cannot see on the face of this sub-section any words to qualify the statement that he will have to pay on the value of the fee simple. It is so difficult to comprehend, that I have put down this Amendment so that we may have some explanation from the Attorney-General.
§ Question proposed: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ Sir W. ROBSONIf the right hon. Gentleman takes into account sub-section 3 not of the clause to which he has been referring but of Clause 3 he will see that the sub-section to which he has been 954 referring has nothing whatever to do with this question. What has to do with this question is the proportion of the Increment Value Duty when it comes to be assessed. Clause 2 in the second sub-section defines site value, and it tells you how you are to get it. The right hon. Gentleman thinks this will be a very difficult problem, but those who are accustomed to deal with the valuation of land assure me that there is no difficulty whatever about it. If you have got a lease for 40 or 50 years at a given rent, there is not the slightest difficulty in telling what the value of a lease would be for 70, 80, or 100 years, until at last you get at the value of the freehold. You give them the length of your lease and the amount of your rent, and they will always tell you by tables they have continually in use the value of the fee simple without any difficulty at all. It is that and that alone which you can put in comparison with the original site value. The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that you should put in comparison with that the mere value of the considerations given for the lease, but that would be comparing things totally different in character. One is the site value, and the other is merely the price that happens to be paid for a particular interest. You ought to use that price merely as a basis to get at the site value at the time when you can make a proper comparison with the original site value. The difference between the two things gives you the increment, and it is that and that alone you tax. The right hon. Gentleman did not use apt language when he asked why he should pay the whole increment on the fee simple. He would not, because in Clause 3, sub-section 3, it is put in terms quite clear that when the Increment Value Duty is calculated on the occasion of the grant of a lease such proportionate part of the amount of the duty which is due shall be collected as may be determined by the Commissioners, to be payable in respect of the interest in land created in accordance with rules made by them for the purpose. That is a clause which I think will require amending, but to-day we are only discussing the principle, and there is no doubt whatever that when you have got the value of the fee simple, if you are dealing with a leasehold, or any minor interest, you are only-to allocate such a proportion of the duty to the interest as the interest itself bears to the fee simple. If it does not say so, that will have to be made clear in the 955 Clause itself or by the rule which will have to be enacted. The right hon. Gentleman is under quite a mistaken alarm when he talks about the lessee paying on the fee simple. There is nothing of the kind.
§ Mr. CAVEThis is a very interesting Amendment, and it is the first time we have heard any argument ascertaining the increment value duty by going back to the value of the freehold. Let us take a concrete case: Supposing there is land let at a ground rent of £10 a year, and sub-let by the lessee at a rent of £100 a year. Supposing that sub-lease is sold to A, whoever he may be, and A sublets again at £150 a year. What is the duty to be paid upon that last sub-lease? The process that has to be gone through under the Bill is this: First you have to ascertain, given a sub-lessee at £100 who purchases for, say, £500, and who sub-lets for £150, what is the value on that basis of the freehold—rather a difficult point even for an expert to decide. Then, having got at the value of the freehold, that is, the total value of the freehold, you have to extract from the total value of the freehold the then site value of the freehold; then to compare that with the original site value of the freehold, or the proportionate part of the original site value as the case may be. Then you subtract the one from the other, and you have got the increment value of the freehold. Having done that, you have only got a part of the way. You have got the increased site value of the freehold. Then you have to work up again from the bottom and to consider, given the increased site value of the freehold, what part of the increment is to be attributed, first to the original lease, then to the sub-lease, then to the last sub-lease. That is a process requiring a good deal of calculation, and not, I think, quite so easy as represented, because you are dealing, not with actual things which are sold in the market, but with things which are never sold in the market, viz., the value of the bare site of land which, in fact, is built over. It is a problem to be carried out, not necessarily by experts, but by an individual who may be an ordinary layman, who desires to sell his land, and to know what he has to pay when his land is sold. He must go through the process or pay someone to go through it, and even then 956 he may have a contest with the Commissioners or their valuers and may be put to this trouble and expense in order that at the end this increment value, which may be only a few pounds, may be paid to the Exchequer. This is a taxing Bill, and yet you are actually going to leave it to the Commissioners, an executive body, to say what amount of tax a subject is to pay in any particular case. That tax is to be left, not to the clear provisions of a taxing Act, as it ought to be, but to rules which are not before the Committee in any shape or form, but may be made by the Commissioners in whatever shape they think fit after the Bill has passed.
§ Mr. RADFORDI really think I can no longer say I do not understand what the Government mean to do in regard to the Increment Value Tax on the transfer of the interest in land. I do understand the explanation of the Attorney-General, although I do not find that the explanation is exactly in accordance with the Bill. What I should like to point out is this. We are told that on the transfer of any interest in land you must make calculations by which you ultimately arrive at the freehold value of the land in question. Then you must work back from the freehold to the interest in the land that is about to be transferred, and by that means ascertain some figure at which the interest in land is to be valued for the purpose of this duty. If that figure at which you ultimately arrive is the consideration which is paid by the transferor, well and good, but what reason is there, when you have the consideration actually paid on the occasion of the transfer, to go through this complicated process—first of arriving at the freehold value, and then working back to the interest in the land which is to be transferred. I think this wants reconsideration, and that you might get at the simple consideration paid and make that the standard upon which duty is paid.
§ Mr. LAMBTONThis Amendment raises a question of great magnitude. How will this process of taking the fee simple apply to minerals? We were told a short time ago that no one was to pay twice over in regard to this duty. I submit that owners of minerals will pay twice over, and very often three times. At this hour it is, however, too late to enter into the question, and I move that you report Progress.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI cannot take a Motion to report Progress so soon after a decision on such a Motion.
§ Mr. LAMBTONI wish to point out how the valuation of a coal lease, for instance, will be affected. We will imagine that a lease has been let at an increase of £1,000 a year. I presume that extra will have to be capitalised in the fee simple of the land. We will take it at twelve years' purchase, which would amount to £12,000. The increment value would be £2,400. That would have to be paid by the owner of the minerals before he has got one penny into his pocket. He may be granting a lease for forty or fifty years, and during that time he may never receive the increment on which he has paid. Is the increment based on the extra rent which may never be received? £2,400 will be paid, and forty years after that the rental may never amount to anything like the sum expected, and in connection with this part of the proceedings not only will the owner have to pay this tax during the running of the lease, but he will have to pay the other duties under the Bill—including the undeveloped land duty—which may amount to a very large sum indeed. I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he is going to explain the position? There is no site value in minerals. Why is it brought in under this clause? The site value is to be ascertained and the fee simple ascertained. In other parts of the Bill there are exemptions made with regard to land, but none made with regard to minerals. In Clause 3 it is stipulated that the amount of duty shall be as may be determined by the Commissioners. There is no provision whatever to ensure that there shall be an adequate valuation of minerals. There is no provision to ensure that the Commissioners shall have any knowledge whatever of minerals. At this late hour I will content myself with saying that the mineral clauses are absolutely impossible, they are inconsequent, incongruous and incoherent. The right hon. Gentleman should exclude them from the Bill altogether. In conclusion, I should like to ask him how he arrives at the fee simple of minerals?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe hon. Member has asked me a number of questions which are quite outside the scope of the Amendment before the Committee. [MR. LAMBTON: They always are.] He asked me two questions—as to the appointment of valuers, and whether they are to have a 958 knowledge of the value of minerals? Although it is rather outside the particular section of the Bill, I do not mind telling the hon. Member now that I have already promised to see to one point raised unless it is already covered by the clause. I think there is an Amendment down in the name of the hon. Member. But I quite agree with him that in valuing minerals you should have a man who is an expert in minerals and who is not merely a valuer. And I will go further-and say that the man who is employed to value the minerals ought to have a knowledge of minerals in the particular district. I will accept the principle of any Amendment to that effect. I tell the hon. Member that although I do not think the point is at all relevant to this discussion. What is this Amendment. If this Amendment is adopted there will be no increment value at all in the case of the small lease. You cannot compare the value of a lease of 21 years with the original site value. The original site value is the value of the fee simple and, therefore, when you have to sell a lease of 21 years or 30 years, although the increment might be enormous in substance, you would not get any increment value, because it is a comparison between the partial interest and the total interest of the land. Therefore, you are bound to reduce your leasehold values to terms of fee simple. Rules will be prepared by the Commissioners.
§ Mr. LAMBTONThe right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question, viz., how to arrive at the fee simple of minerals?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI am not quite sure that I understand the hon. Member. If he is asking me a question with regard to this particular sub-section, I should say, having established the value of your land for the minerals, then the lease for a term of years, then you have got to reduce to terms of fee simple in order to contrast the value of these with the original site value. [OPPOSITION cries of "Why."] Why not? You value the land with the minerals underneath. You are dealing with increment and not with the question of un-gotten minerals. That is to come later on. Here you value the land with the minerals underneath and you have to go through some process of comparison with regard to a lease of mineral property as in any other case and reduce it to terms of fee simple.
§ Mr. LAMBTONHow are you going to value the fee simple of owners of minerals who do not own the land?
§ Mr. J. A. CLYDEI can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has not answered the direct question put to him. I think he has either missed the exact point of the question or has omitted to face the point, which, I think, is a very real one. The right hon. Gentleman complains of having been asked the same questions over and over again, but he would have less occasion to make that remark if, when the questions were put to him, he would answer at once. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer a question on the point we are now discussing. Sub-section 2 (6) of section 2 says that "where the occasion is the grant of any lease of the land, or the transfer on sale of any interest in the land, the value of the fee simple of the land calculated on the basis of the value of the consideration for the grant of the lease or the transfer of the interest," is to be the site value. It is agreed, is it not, that a mineral lease is an interest in land, and it will not be disputed, I suppose, that mineral leases are often the subject of transfer? On the occasion of such a transfer on sale of such an interest in land, as is a mineral lease, we are told that the site value is to be the value of the fee simple of the land calculated on the basis of the value of the consideration for the grant of the lease or the transfer of the interest. In the case of a mineral lease with certain lordships and dead-rents, how by mathematics or by anything else are you going to ascertain on the basis of the consideration paid for the transfer of a mineral lease the value of something altogether different, namely, the fee simple of the land under which these minerals happen to be, of which these minerals are only a small part, and, it may be, only a small part of the mineral interest? It is of no use for the right hon. Gentleman to refer us to a subsequent sub-section, namely, sub-section 3 of Clause 3, which he says does not contain the explanation at present, but is to contain the explanation some other day. If we are to look for the explanation there, would it not be only reasonable to be told now what the Amendment is to be?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGETo what Amendment is the hon. and learned Gentleman referring?
§ Mr. CLYDEI am sorry that I attributed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was said by the Attorney-General. I certainly understood the Attorney-General to say that the solution was to be found in sub-section 3 of Clause 3, as it is to be framed hereafter, and in that case it would be no more than fair and reasonable that we should at least be told now the substance of the Amendment. I know we shall be told later on, "Oh, but you are committed to this." We have found by experience that when a point is raised on one section and we are told it will be all right when you come to something else, we run the risk of being told "It is too late to discuss that now because the principle is admitted." We are not prepared to allow that form of procedure to repeat itself. The problem is to arrive at the value of the fee simple, where the basis given is the price of the transfer of only one interest. There is a bridge to be passed, but how is it to be done?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThis is a suggestion with regard to some Amendment to Clause 3. It relates to something which was said by the Attorney-General. I do not know what the reply was, because I was not here at the time, and perhaps the hon. and learned Member will repeat what the Attorney-General said.
§ Mr. CLYDEI understand the learned Attorney-General to say that the difficulty which arises upon the valuation under Clause 2, sub-section 2 (b) is one provided for or to be provided for in Clause 3, sub-section 3.
§ Sir WILLIAM ROBSONIt is in.
§ Mr. CLYDEThe problem is to arrive at the fee simple of land on the basis of the value on transfer on sale of a mineral lease.
§ Sir WILLIAM ROBSONTo arrive at the value of land on the value of minerals? I do not see how any such problem arises in the Bill. Where does it arise?
§ Mr. CLYDEI think the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees that it does arise. In his answer he said the solution was simple. If the learned Attorney-General will give his attention to sub-section (b), section 2 of Clause 2 he will see the point. If the matter to be transferred is an interest in land, and it is admitted that a mineral lease is an interest in land, therefore the transfer of a mineral lease is a 961 transfer of an interest in land. The price for the transfer of a mineral lease would no doubt be a price which kept in view the lordships or royalties which would probably be earned under the lease. That price is to be the basis on which you calculate the value of the fee simple of the land. There is no doubt as to what you have to arrive at; that is the fee simple of land, because you want to get at the site value of the land and compare that on the occasion of the transfer with the site value in the original valuation. The answer is a very simple one. How do you propose, from the value on transfer of a mineral lease, to arrive at the value of the fee simple of the land. I ask either or both of the right hon. Gentlemen this question, and shall be glad to receive an answer.
§ Sir W. ROBSONHon. Members opposite seem to think that at last this Bill is unexplainable, and that there is an answer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the poor Attorney-General cannot give. I ask the hon. Gentleman where he finds in the Bill anything which leads him to suppose that we are trying to arrive at the value of the fee simple from an interest in minerals.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIt is an interest in land.
§ Sir W. ROBSONIt is land in relation to surface. If we were merely discussing an interest in minerals there would be no difficulty. We can easily arrive at the capital value of minerals by capitalising the royalty interest in the minerals themselves. But no such difficulty can arise because separate returns are made of minerals. They are dealt with in Clauses 15 and 16. Section 16 says: "Where land comprises minerals a separate return shall be made under this section of the value of the minerals," so that the minerals, when they are to be dealt with separately, that is to say, when they are made the subject matter of assessment by reason of any interest in minerals being conferred upon any one, they are made the subject of a separate return, like a separate parcel of land. They are dealt with also under section 15, as follows: "Except where the context otherwise requires, any reference in this part of the Act to the site value of land shall, in the cases where the land consists solely of minerals, or comprises minerals, include a reference to the capital value of minerals." The fact is that the difficulty, which has so much amused or 962 alarmed hon. Members opposite, is dependent entirely upon the supposed fact that an interest in land comprises an interest in minerals, and is to be dealt with under all circumstances in exactly the same way. Wherever you are dealing with one of these minor interests in minerals you have a separate return of minerals.
§ Mr. CLYDEThe learned Attorney-General refers to Clause 15. What has Clause 15 got to do with this question?
§ Sir WILLIAM ROBSONI do not think it is well to enter upon a technical argument. Hon. Members will see that it is not desirable that I should begin to expound upon the precise application of every word that applies to minerals throughout the Bill. I have referred to two sections.
§ Mr. CAVEDoes the site value of land in sub-section 2 of Clause 2 include the value of minerals or not? I quite agree that under Clause 16 on the original valuation you are to have a separate return. Clause 2 deals not merely with original value, but with the value when the tax is applied. Does the site value at the date of the tax include the value of minerals?
§ Sir WILLIAM ROBSONYes.
§ Mr. CLYDESurely we are right when we say that the whole object of the alteration of Clause 2 is to enable a comparison to be made between the valuation in Clause 2 and the valuation in Clause 14. If you look at Clause 15 you will see that it deals with the total value of minerals. We are dealing here, as I understand, with the comparison which is to enable us to strike the difference between the two site values. Very respectfully I suggest that the question has not yet been faced as it has been put.
Mr. F. A. NEWDEGATEWith all deference at this very late hour of the night, I venture to say with reference to section 15 it may possibly refer to undeveloped minerals where they are known to exist and have not been developed. I would remind the Committee that the question of minerals has not been discussed at all, because an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ash-ford (Mr. Laurence Hardy) was ruled out of order. In dealing with minerals in relation to the question of increment it is absolutely necessary to consider the special points connected with them. It 963 has been specifically stated by the Government that where no increment is charged no decrement is to be allowed for. How, I would ask, are you to value your minerals'? You are to pay increment value, but there is no provision so far as I can make out for "faults" which may exist, or wash-outs, or inferior minerals, or impossibility of working minerals owing to the presence of water. I should like respectfully to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that although increment value has to be paid whenever a lease is entered into, yet when a royalty owner makes his terms with a lessee there are always clauses put in to the effect that if the minerals are found to be unworkable then the lease comes to an end, and the royalty owner ceases to derive any benefit from it. But if the Bill passes into law as it stands the owner of the land who enters into a mineral lease will have to pay a heavy fine in the shape of increment value, and will get no sort of redress whatever, although in a short time it may be found that the minerals are not workable. For the sake of equity and justice this is a point which the Government ought to consider carefully before finally disposing of the matter. I take it that the Government wish to be fair; at any rate they say so. It is always urged in support of the Government's proposals that the purpose of these mineral clauses, and particularly of the land clauses, is to raise revenue in a perfectly fair way from people who are supposed to be able to afford to pay. Yet here in this Bill as it stands—
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIf the hon. Member will excuse my interrupting, I will say that I agree. I think that it is a case that has to be met, and in reply to the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Ridsdale) I promised to consider a similar case under sub-section 5 with regard to undeveloped land. I think there is a case which ought to be met where there is a failure and the land does not pay. In such case, in my view, the remaining instalments ought to be remitted.
Mr. NEWDEGATEI am very much obliged for the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, but there is another point on which I wish to touch. In the part of the country in which I live there is a certain amount of land under which minerals are known or are suspected to exist, but are at the present time un- 964 developed. I venture to say that it cannot be the object of the Government to put difficulties in the way of the development of mineral properties. Yet that certainly is being done, because under the Bill the owner will have to pay a very heavy fine if he goes to the expense of making boreholes and tries to develop his minerals. What will happen in Warwickshire, a county for which I feel entitled to speak, is that no owner will take the trouble to find out whether minerals exist under his land or not, knowing that if he does so he will have to pay this very large sum. That is a matter which ought to be dealt with, because it cannot be right that a stop should be put to the development of minerals in this country. I hope that time will be given to discuss the question very thoroughly, because there is a strong feeling in the country that minerals are not being justly dealt with under the Bill. It sounds rational to say that minerals should be taxed, because people at times get a good return for the money they invest in them, and in such instances are fair objects of taxation. But I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that although everything may seem easy-going as regards minerals, there are times when it is very difficult to make them pay at all. Already the Eight Hours Act has caused difficulties in various parts of the country, and to a certain extent has dislocated trade. There is great trouble at the present moment in the county which I come from and the hon. Member for Mansfield can perhaps give the Committee more information than I am able to do.
§ Mr. MARKHAMI have no strike; you have.
Mr. NEWDEGATEI do not own a pit myself, but my information this morning was that practically every colliery in the district was affected. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will be well advised if he exercises care in tampering with minerals, and I hope that a day will be given to the discussion of questions connected with them.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGErose in his place, and claimed to move that "The Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 77.
967| Division No. 241.] | AYES. | [1.50 a.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Radford, G. H. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Griffith, Ellis J. | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Gulland, John W. | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Armitage, R. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Hedges, A. Paget | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Robinson, S |
| Beale, W. P. | Henry, Charles S. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Beauchamp, E. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Higham, John Sharp | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Bennett, E. N. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Rowlands, J. |
| Black, Arthur W. | Hodge, John | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Holt, Richard Durning | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Horniman, Emslie John | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Brodie, H. C. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Seely, Colonel |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Jenkins, J. | Shackleton, David James |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Jowett, F. W. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Lament, Norman | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Lehmann, R. C. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Clough, William | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Levy. Sir Maurice | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Summerbell, T. |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Maclean, Donald | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Maddison, Frederick | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Cowan, W. H. | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Tomkinson, James |
| Crossley, William J. | Marnham, F. J. | Toulmin, George |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulha'm) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Verney, F. W. |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Micklem, Nathaniel | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Mond, A. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Montgomery, H. G. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Morrell, Philip | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Elibank, Master of | Morse, L. L. | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Essex, R. W | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Nicholls, George | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Ferens, T. R | Nuttall, Harry | Williamson, W. Llewelyn (Car'th'n) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Parker, James (Halifax) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Paulton, James Mellor | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Winfrey, R. |
| Gill, A. H. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis. |
| Glover, Thomas | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Gordon, J. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Cave, George | Gretton, John |
| Ashley, W. W. | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'nds) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Haddock, George B. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Hamilton, Marquess of |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Clive, Percy Archer | Hardy Laurence (Kent, Ashford) |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Clyde, James, Avon | Harris, Frederick Leverton |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Hay, Hon. Claude George |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Kill, Sir Clement |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Dalrymple, Viscount | Kerry, Earl of |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Forster, Henry William | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Foster, P. S. | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Gardner, Ernest | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh |
| Mason, James F. Windsor) | Renton, Leslie | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Renwick George | Williams, Col R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Morpeth, Viscount | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Morrison-Bell, Captain | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Newdegate, F. A. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) | Younger, George |
| Oddy, John James | Starkey, John R. | |
| Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. |
| Pretyman, E. G. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
| Remnant, James Farquharson | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out ["the value of the fee simple of the land"] stand part of the Clause."
968§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 77.
969| Division No. 242.] | AYES. | [2.0 a.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Gulland, John W. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Radford, G. H. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Armitage, R. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Hazleton, Richard | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Hedges, A. Paget | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Henry, Charles S. | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Beale, W. P | Higham, John Sharp | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Beauchamp, E | Hobart, Sir Robert | Robinson, S. |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Bennett, E. N. | Hodge, John | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Hogan, Michael | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Black, Arthur W. | Holt, Richard Durning | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Horniman, Emslie John | Rowlands, J. |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Brodie, H. C. | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Jenkins, J. | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L, |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Seely, Colonel |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Jowett, F. W. | Shackleton, David James |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Joyce, Michael | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Lamont, Norman | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Lehmann, R. C. | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Clough, William | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Levy, Sir Maurice | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Lundon, T. | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Summerbell, T. |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Maclean, Donald | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Maddison, Frederick | Pennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Crossley, William J. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Marnham, F. J. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Davies, Timothy (-Fulham) | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Tomkinson, James |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Masterman, C F. G. | Toulmin, George |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Micklem, Nathaniel | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Mond, A. | Verney, F. W. |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Montague, Hon. E. S. | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Montgomery, H. G. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Elibank, Master of | Worrell, Philip | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Essex, R. W. | Morse, L. L. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Wedgewood, Josiah C. |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Nannetti, Joseph P. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Ferens, T. R | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Nicholls, George | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Nuttall, Harry | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Fullerton, Hugh | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Gill, A. H. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Paulton, James Mellor | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Glover, Thomas | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Winfrey, R. |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. J. Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis. |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Morrison-Bell, Captain |
| Armitage, R | Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Ashley, W. W. | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Dalrymple, Viscount | Oddy, John James |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H. | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Foster, Philip S. | Renton, Leslie |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Gardner, Ernest | Renwick, George |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Gordon, J. | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Gretton, John | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Haddock, George B. | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hamilton, Marques of | Starkey, John R. |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hill, Sir Clement | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Carlile, Hildred | Kerry, Earl of | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Cave, George | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Younger, George |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis. |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
§ Mr. CAVEMy Amendment really raises the substance of paragraph 13. Although I am personally quite willing to go on, I do not think so important a matter ought to be taken at two o'clock in the morning. I beg to move to report Progress and to ask leave to sit again. [MINISTERIAL cries of dissent.]
Mr. STANLEY WILSONI wish to protest against the action of the Government in not attempting to make any sort of answer to the motion moved by my hon. and learned Friend. Really, it is not a case for the Division Lobby; the motion requires some answer. [Interruption.] We are compelled to sit here all night, whilst the Leader of the House absents himself, and I must say that I consider it most discourteous. After all, Mr. Caldwell, he is the Leader of the House; he is the man who ought to set an example to everybody in this House.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not see why reference should be made to the Prime Minister not being here. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is in charge of the Bill.
Mr. STANLEY WILSONI protest, Sir. The Prime Minister is Leader of the House; he is the responsible head of this Government. The Leader of the House should be here to say whether we are to sit here all night. It should not be left to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Prime Minister has not made a single speech in the course of the Debate on the 970 Committee stage of this Bill. I cannot help extending my sympathy to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the very small support that he has had from his Leader. It is a remarkable fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been here the whole of the evening and remained speechless. He makes no attempt whatever to answer the Motion to report Progress, or to give any reason why we should be compelled to sit up till this hour. We are not going to sit up to submit to such insults from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I trust others on these benches will raise their voice in protest if the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to offer some explanation of the extraordinary procedure which we are forced to undergo to-night.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe hon. Member, amongst other irrelevant and slightly inaccurate statements, in the course of his speech, has been good enough to say that I have been here the whole evening speechless. Whether that is a reflection on my sobriety I cannot say.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI want the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this Motion to look at the progress we are making with the Bill. It may be a matter of amusement to hon. Members opposite. Their business is to stop progress; our business is to get on. The right hon. 971 Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, said in the course of the discussion upon the Resolution that after all the Finance Bill must be carried in the current year. It cannot be carried in the current year at the rate of progress we are mating to-night. At the present rate we shall be three years in carrying the Finance Bill. Hon. Members by their cheers avow what their intention is. I am certain that they would regard us as being very simple if we played into the hands of tactics of that kind. We have got to get the Bill to deal with the finance of the year, and it is absolutely impossible to get it except, I am sorry to say, by sitting up till very late hours. If hon. Members will not proceed more rapidly in the course of the day we have to get on in the hours of the night. We must get our Bill, and we must get the whole of our Bill. Hon. Members opposite will admit that we discussed for two hours in the afternoon an Amendment which was acknowledged by the Opposition to be perfectly superfluous. It was admitted that we dealt with the matter ourselves on another clause, and the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was anxious to withdraw it. I trust, therefore, that the hon. Member who has just spoken and who has taken no part in the discussion of the Bill will enable us to proceed now.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINAs the right hon. Gentleman knows that my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave) does not put down Amendments of no substance or make speeches in order to delay proceedings upon matters of no consequence, I think he might see there is more in his Motion than there is sometimes in Motions of this character. The right hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. and learned Friend's appeal is that at the rate we are going it will take three years to pass this Bill. Of course the right hon. Gentleman knows from experience that the earlier clauses raise a great many points which when disposed of facilitate progress at the later stages of the measure, and, indeed, it is quite obvious that this Bill was arranged with a view to dispensing with many such points at the early part of the proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman consequently cannot conclude that because the time taken over a certain number of lines hitherto discussed is so much, therefore the rest of the Bill will occupy a proportionate amount of time in discussion. But I quite admit that the Bill must occupy 972 an abnormally long time in spite of the unsparing use which the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes of the forms of the House for shortening discussion or for passing whole lines and passages of the Bill without any discussion at all. It must take an abnormally long time because it is an abnormally long and complicated Bill, and because, in fact, it is not one Bill but several Bills. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he must have the Bill within a given time within this year in order to provide for the financial necessities of the year, that is a statement wholly out of place on the present clause. What amount of money is going to be made available for the financial necessities of the present year from the passage of the first clause of this Bill? That is a question hon. Members below the Gangway have never considered. [Interruption.] I do not say that hon. Members have no brains, I say that they do not use them. The whole amount which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself estimated he would receive, not merely from this tax, but from the whole of the three taxes was £500,000 in the present year. Of that, £62,500 is the amount to be contributed to the financial necessities of the year if we pass the clause we are now discussing. Am I not right in saying that the financial necessities of this year do not require the passage of this clause this year. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires to proceed as rapidly as he can to meet the financial necessities of the year he might well abandon this clause and go on to something more profitable. Instead of making less progress this year we have to-day been making greater progress than has been customary when matters of such importance have been discussed. It is the inevitable tendency of the Committee, and, if I may say so without disrespect, of the Chair also, to have regard, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer asks us to have regard, not merely to the intrinsic importance of the subject that is being discussed. but to the amount of work that it is supposed the Committee must get through in the course of the Session.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThat is inevitable.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINTherefore it is in the power of the Government, by increasing the total amount they ask the House to do, to reduce the amount of time allotted to any particular discussion 973 without any reference to the intrinsic importance of a particular point. I illustrate that by what took place this afternoon, when a point admitted on all hands to be of vast importance, namely, the question of allowing decrement to be set off against increment, which we had been invited to discuss in this clause, and which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would be ready to discuss on this clause, was disposed of by the Committee in about two hours without a word from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I say that sort of thing would not have been possible if the Government had not crowded so much work into the Session, and in particular so much work into this Bill; and if it is to be got through at all all discussion must be compressed without any regard to the importance of the points we raise. In these circumstances I join in the protest made by my hon. and
§ learned Friend (Mr. Cave), and I hope he will carry it to a Division.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEclaimed to move "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ Mr. F. E. SMITH (seated, with his hat on)On a point of order, Sir, I addressed you before you collected the voices.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe Question was that the Question be now put.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD (seated, with his hat on)On a point of order, I wish to ask whether it is considered the right thing and within the Rules of the House and the practice of the Committee, for the Chairman to signal to the Minister to move the closure?
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 76.
975| Division No. 243.] | AYES. | [2.30 a.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Everett, R. Lacey | Marnham, F. J. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Ferens, T. R. | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Fuller, John Michael F. | Mond, A. |
| Armitage, R. | Fullerton, Hugh | Mantagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Montgomery, H. G. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Gill, A. H. | Morrell, Philip |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Morse, L. L. |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Glover, Thomas | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) |
| Beale, W. P. | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) |
| Beauchamp, E | Griffith, Ellis J. | Nicholls, George |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Gulland, John W. | Nuttall, Harry |
| Bennett, E. N. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Black, Arthur W. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Hedges, A. Paget | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Brodie, H. C. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Henry, Charles S. | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Radford, G. H. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Higham, John Sharp | Rainy, A. Holland |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Hodge, John | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Holt, Richard Durning | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Horniman, Emslie John | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Clough, William | Illingworth, Percy H. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Jenkins, J | Robinson, S. |
| Cooper, G. J. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Jowett, F. W | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Cowan, W. H. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Lamont, Norman | Rowlands, J. |
| Crossley, William J. | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Lehmann, R. C. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Seely, Colonel |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Maclean, Donald | Shackleton, David James |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Elibank, Master of | Maddison, Frederick | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Essex, R. W. | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | Ure, Rt Hon. Alexander | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Verney, F. W. | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Strachey, Sir Edward | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Summerbell, T. | Waterlow, D. S. | Winfrey, R. |
| Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) | |
| Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. J. Herbert Lewis. |
| Thomasson, Franklin | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) | |
| Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) | |
| Tomkinson, James | Wilkie, Alexander | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Morrison-Bell, Captain |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Dalrymple, Viscount | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Ashley, W. W. | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Oddy, John James |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Foster, P. S. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Gardner, Ernest | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Gordon, J. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Gretton, John | Renton, Leslie |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds) | Renwick, George |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Haddock, George B. | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hamilton, Marquess of | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Starkey, John R. |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Stavley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hill, Sir Clement | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Cave, George | Kerry, Earl of | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Clyde, J. Avon | MacCaw, Win J. MacGeagh | Younger, George |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Mason. James F. (Windsor) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster. |
§ Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
976§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 185.
977| Division No. 244.] | AYES. | [2.35 a.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Dalrymple, Viscount | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Oddy, John James |
| Ashley, W. W. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gardner, Ernest | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gordon, J. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Gretton, John | Renton, Leslie |
| Baring Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds) | Renwick, George |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Haddock, George B. | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hamilton, Marquess of | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Starkey, John R. |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Hill, Sir Clement | Valentia, Viscount |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Kerry, Earl of | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Younger, George |
| Clive, Percy Archer | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. George Cave and Mr. W. W. Ruther- ford. |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Morrison-Bell, Captain | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Armitage, R. | Barlow, Percy (Bedford) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Ashton, Thomas Gair | Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Beale, W. P. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Henry, Charles S. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Bennett, E. N | Higham, John Sharp | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Black, Arthur W. | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hodge, John | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Hogan, Michael | Robinson, S. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Holt, Richard Durning | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Brodie, H. C. | Horniman, Emslie John | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Illingworth, Percy H. | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Rowlands, J. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Jenkins, J. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Jowett, F. W. | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Lamont, Norman | Seely, Colonel |
| Clough, William | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Shackleton, David James |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Lehmann, R. C. | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Cooper, G. 1 | Levy, Sir Maurice | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Lundon, T. | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Cowan, W. H. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Maclean, Donald | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Crossley, William J. | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Maddison, Frederick | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Summerbell, T. |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Marnham, F. J. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Micklem, Nathaniel | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Elibank, Master of | Mond, A. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Essex, R. W. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Toulmin, George |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Montgomery, H G. | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Morrell, Philip | Verney, F. W. |
| Ferens, T. R. | Morse, L. L. | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kinca'd.) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Nicholls, George | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Gill, A. H. | Nuttall, Harry | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Glover, Thomas | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Griffiths, Ellis J | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Gulland, John W. | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Winfrey, R. |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Radford, G. H. | |
| Hazleton, Richard | Rainy, A. Rolland | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Raphael, Herbert H. | |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
§ Mr. CAVEmoved, in sub-section (b) to leave out the words "calculated on the basis of the value of the consideration for the grant of the lease or the transfer of the interest"; and to insert the words "as ascertained for the purposes of the assessment of duty under this Act."
Supposing that among the occasions on which duty is to be levied are, first, a lease of the land; secondly, the transfer on sale of any interest in the land. On what basis is the site value of the land to be ascertained? The effect of the paragraph (b) is this: that in those cases the site value is to be the value of the fee simple of the land calculated on the basis of the value of the consideration 978 for the land leased or the transfer. What I want to submit is that that is neither a workable nor a fair basis on which to ascertain the value. Let me take first the case of a lease of a piece of land at whatever amount you choose to put. You are to ascertain the value of the fee simple upon the basis of the consideration for the lease. It means that you must take the rent. On how many years' purchase are you to ascertain the fee simple? Is it to be 12 years, or 15, or 25? The Bill does not say, and, therefore, it is left entirely to the Commissioners to say how many years' purchase are to be allowed. Then take the other considerations for the lease. Take the covenants which are contained 979 in so many leases. How are you to ascertain the value of those covenants? Until you do that you cannot possibly act on the directions contained in the Bill as to the value of the fee simple. There again you must rely upon the discretion or the judgment of the Commissioners. Judgments may vary from time to time as Commissioners change, so that nobody can ascertain beforehand, what is the amount on which he will have to pay duty. Many leases are granted at a rent which is fixed by reference to some temporary matter. Take the case of land in a district where important works are being executed, involving the presence of a large number of workmen. In a case like that the works may go on for some time. The value of the land rises in consequence, but it rises only for a short time—for the period of years, whatever it may be, during which the demand for accommodation continues. When a lease is granted on that land it would be, of course, a lease at a higher rent than the land, as a rule, is worth. And yet on a lease of, perhaps, fourteen years, at a rent which is made high by temporary circumstances which will disappear at the end of the time, you ascertain the value of the whole fee simple on the basis of that rent. That is not a right basis to take in such a case.
Take the case of a lease of mines. I put it very seriously to the Attorney-General that a lease of mines is clearly an interest in the land. Everyone knows that land, unless the contrary is provided, includes the minerals under it. In the Bill itself you will find express provision that where land comprises minerals the value of the land is to include the value of the minerals. If I am right in saying that the land includes the mines then quite clearly a lease of the mines is an interest in the land. Now supposing a lease of mines is to be sold. The amount received for the lease of the mines depends upon the amount of minerals under the land; it does not depend in any way on, it has no relation to, the value of the surface. A lease of mines under a street in the City of London would be worth no more than a lease of similar mines, containing similar minerals, in the country. But what the Bill does is this. It forces you to ascertain by reference to the consideration for the sale of the mining lease the value of the whole fee simple. The hon. Member for Edin- 980 burgh showed perfectly clearly that it is utterly absurd to ascertain the value of the freehold of the whole land, including the surface, on the basis of the consideration given for that interest in the land. That is another reason why I object to the statement that the consideration of the sale of the interest in the land is any basis at all for ascertaining the fee simple. Take the case of sporting rights. A lease of sporting rights is a lease of an interest in the land. Yet how absurd to suggest that you are to ascertain the value of the freehold upon the basis of the consideration given. The two things have no relation. This clause is not only not workable, but unfair to those affected by it. We were told the other day that a lease of a flat is not to be an interest in the land. For what reason is that laid down? I should have thought it perfectly clear that whether you divide your land into sections, one by the side of another or in sections one above another, in either case you are cutting up your land and each section is an interest in the land. I have a lease of one floor of some chambers in Lincoln's Inn. By the custom of Lincoln's Inn, as of other Inns, you may cut up your house into sections lying above one another, and each floor is a tenement by itself. Each of those floors is as much an interest in the land as the ground floor, and if you are going to make such an exclusion from your definition of interest in the land, you are not only creating an absurdity, but pointing to a very easy evasion of the Bill. All that a man has to do to evade the Act is to let off all the other floors, retaining only the ground floor and the basement, and the whole value would be taken on that basis. How can you ascertain the site value of the land by reference to the consideration for the sale of a flat? You have got to make an almost impossible calculation. I venture to say you may have 20 problems of this kind arising so long as you adhere to the definition in the Bill. What should be the exact method adopted is another matter. I propose in the Amendment to take the value of the fee simple as ascertained under the Act. That would involve reference to Clause 14, subsection 2, in which the value of the land is what it would fetch in the open market. Therefore, I suggest that when you are ascertaining the value of the fee simple of the land it should not be calculated on the basis of the value of the consideration for the grant of the lease or the transfer of 981 the interest, but on what it would fetch in the open market. As the paragraph under consideration does not deal wisely or adequately with the problem which the Government has to solve, I move the Amendment.
§ Sir W. ROBSONIn the case of a sale we have got the purchase money to go on as the basis on which we may calculate the capital value; but I think the Committee will at least see that in order to meet the case under consideration we have chosen a method which has some great advantages over that proposed by my hon. and learned Friend. He took the case of a value which might arise from a factory being put down upon some land, and in connection with which there would be a demand for workmen's dwellings. A lease of 14 years would afford a very fair basis upon which to calculate. I admit much must be left to the discretion of the Commissioners. Of course, there has also to be considered the deductions which are to be made on the site value. These are deductions made by the landlord: and they are not deductions of Commissioners that have been discovered by the Commissioners. Those cases, therefore, do not appear to afford insuperable difficulty. They are mere cases of fact. Comparing one method with the other, I think it will be found that we have chosen a better plan in the Bill in taking into actual consideration the purchase money paid on the sale or transfer of an interest, and we have calculated our capital value on that rather than a separate valuation on each occasion of the increment value. That we are compelled to adopt in the case of corporations in paragraph (d,) but we are not compelled to adopt it in this case. We have taken the course which is practicable and which, except in rare instances, presents little difficulty.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI venture to suggest that the Attorney-General has entirely misapprehended the point of my hon. and learned Friend. The Attorney-General has made rather a feature of this, namely, that if it is a transfer of an interest in land, you have then got, as I understand, a fresh interest or a fresh hereditament, and you do not require to go back to the site value. If I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman correctly, that statement is not only absolutely contrary to the section itself, but it is absolutely contrary to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated in previous discussions. According to the 982 section as it stands on the transfer of any interest you have to find the value of the fee simple on the basis of the value of the consideration for the transfer of the interest. We have a very curious anomaly here because, although a lease for 14 years is excluded, the transfer of a lease for two years would be included. Supposing A has got a 14 years' lease, 12 years of which have expired, and he sells the concluding two years' lease, what is to be done under the section unless the Amendment is adopted? The Commissioners, I suppose, have themselves to set to work, and the lease at a certain rental having been sold for a certain amount, they have to find out the value of the fee simple. it reminds one of the familiar problem that if the fender and the irons cost 10s. 6d., what is the price of a ton of coals? The things have no possible reference to each other, and in fact the Attorney-General went so far just now as to say during his extraordinary explanation of the words of the clause that it would not be the value of the fee simple to which you would have to go back, because this would be a separate hereditament and you would simply have to take the value of the interest. In corroboration of the concluding remarks of my hon. and learned Friend, let me give an instance. The firm of Bourne and Robinson, who are very large colliery owners in Manchester, adopted the practice of buying land and paying for the fee -simple, and then selling the surface, which they do not want, of a very large portion of the land. The result was that they were left freeholders of the minerals. The firm dissolved; and Mr. Robert Robinson became undoubted owner of a fourth part of the minerals. All sorts of transfers are taking place every day with regard to the minerals. If I read this section rightly in the case of a transfer of that sort it becomes necessary to ascertain' the site value of the property. The property may have a railway station on the surface, or, it may be, a canal. It may be in the centre of the town of St. Helens, or it may be a farm, and the value of the minerals is practically the same per acre over a given area. You are asked upon the sale of some of the coal, without any regard whatever to the position of the surface, to fix the site value of the land. I say it is ridiculous. The Amendment seems to me to get over the difficulty, and is a bond fide attempt to help the Government out of it. I am rather sorry that my hon. Friend has moved the Amendment), 983 because when those right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill come to consider the matter in the daytime they will see that to adopt it is the only way out of an awkward position.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the clause.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 160; Noes 67.
985| Division No, 245.] | AYES. | [3.15 a.m. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Hedges, A. Paget | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Henry, Charles S. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Armitage, R. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Higham, John Sharp | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Hobart, Sir Robert | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Robinson, S. |
| Beale, W. P. | Hodge, John | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Hogan, Michael | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Bennett, E. N. | Holt, Richard Durning | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Horniman, Emslie John | Rowlands, J. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Brodie, H. C. | Jenkins, J. | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Seely, Col. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Shackleton, David James |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Jowett, F. W. | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | King, Alfred John (Knutstord) | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Lamont, Norman | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Lehmann, R. C. | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Clough, William | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Straus, B. S. (Mile-End) |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Lundon, T. | Summerbell, T. |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Maclean, Donald | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Cowan, W. H. | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Maddison, Frederick | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Crossley, William J. | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Toulmin, George |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Marnham, F. J. | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Verney, F. W. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Dunne, Major E Martin (Walsall) | Micklem, Nathaniel | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Mond, A. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Elibank, Master of | Montgomery, H. G | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Essex, R. W. | Morrell, Philip | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Morse, L. L. | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Ferens, T. R | Nannetti, Joseph P. | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Nicholls, George | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Nuttall, Harry | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Gill, A. H. | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Glover, Thomas | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Winfrey, R. |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Pickcrsgill, Edward Hare | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Porsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | |
| Gulland, John W. | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. J. Herbert Lewis and Mr. J. M. F. Fuller. |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Radford, G. H. | |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Rainy, A. Rolland | |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Raphael, Herbert H. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Brotherton, Edward Allen | Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Bull, Sir William James | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Forster, Henry William |
| Ashley, W. W. | Carlile, E. Hildred | Foster, P. S. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Gardner, Ernest |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Gordon, J. |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Clive, Percy Archer | Gretton John |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Clyde, J. Avon | Hamilton, Marquess of |
| Barrie, H. T. (Lendonderry, N.) | Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Harris, Frederick Leverton |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Hay, Hon. Claude George |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Dalrymple, Viscount | Hill, Sir Clement |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Nicholson, Wm G. (Petersfield) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Kerry, Earl of | Oddy, John James | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Pretyman, E. G. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Remnant, James Farquharson | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Renton, Leslie | Younger, George |
| Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Starkey, John R. | |
| Morpeth, Viscount | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G. Cave and Mr. W. W. Rutherford. |
| Morrison-Bell, Captain | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | |
| Newdegate, F. A. | Valentia, Viscount |
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEclaimed to move, "That the Question that the words of the clause down to the word 'to' ["subject to"] stand part of the clause,' be now put."
Mr. STANLEY WILSONOn a point if order, Mr. Caldwell, is it not your duty as Chairman to look after the rights of the minority? It seems that you accept the closure on half the clause without discussion.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINOn a point of order, Mr. Caldwell, may I ask if we are to understand that we are to have no opportunity of raising any question on sub-sections (c) or (d) of this clause?
§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMANThe Amendments next on the Paper are nearly all out of order. There is no substantial Amendment shut out.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINAre we to regard the ordinary right of moving to omit the sub-section as taken away?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe very object of the closure, under the Rules of
§ the House, means that it is to be applied sometimes.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI submit to you, Mr. Caldwell, that the closure which you are now enforcing is closure by compartments without any Order of the House.
Captain CRAIGI wish to ask you, Mr. Caldwell, on a point of order, whether, in view of your ruling just now in which you said that nearly all the Amendments are out of order, we are to be prevented from discussing those other Amendments which you clearly suggested are in order?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANSome Amendments that may be in order are necessarily closured, otherwise there would be no need to closure at all.
Mr. STANLEY WILSONOn a point of order, Mr. Caldwell. Has this ever been done before? Is it not an entirely new precedent?
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 66.
987| Division No. 246.] | AYES. | [3.25 a.m. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Crossley, William J. | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Hodge, John |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Armitage, R | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel |
| Beale, W. P. | Elibank, Master of | Jenkins, J. |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Essex, R. W. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Evans, Sir S. T. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Everett, R. Lacey | Jowett, F. W. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Ferens, T. R. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Lamont, Norman |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis |
| Brodie, H. C. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Lehmann, R. c. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Gill, A. H. | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Glover, Thomas | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Maclean, Donald |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Gulland, John W | Maddison, Frederick |
| Clough, William | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Manfield, Harry (Northants) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Marnham, F. J. |
| Cooper, G. J. | Hedges, A. Paget | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Henry, Charles S. | Mond, A. |
| Montgomery, H. G. | Robinson, S. | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Worrell, Philip | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Morse, L, L. | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Toulmin, George |
| Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Rose, Sir Charles Day | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Rowlands, J. | Verney, F. W. |
| Nicholls, George | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Nuttall, Harry | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Scott A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Pearce, Robert (Stalls, Leek) | Seely, Colonel | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Shackleton, David James | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Silcock, Thomas Ball | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Simon, John Allsebrook | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Radford, G. H. | Spicer, Sir Albert | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Raphael, Herbert H. | Strachey, Sir Edward | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Winfrey, R. |
| Rendall, Athelstan | Summerbell, T. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. J. Herbert Lewis. |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Morrison-Bell, Captain |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Ashley, W. W. | Dalrymple, Viscount | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Oddy, John James |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Forster, Henry William | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Gardner, Ernest | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Gordon, J. | Renton, Leslie |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Gretton, John | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hamilton, Marquess of | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Starkey, John R. |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hill, Sir Clement | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Kerry, Earl of | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Cave, George | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Younger, George |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | A. Acland-Hood and Viscount |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Morpeth, Viscount | Valentia. |
§ Question put, "That the words of the clause down to the word 'to' ["subject to"] stand part of the clause."
988§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 65.
989| Division No. 247.] | AYES. | [3.30 a.m. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Glover, Thomas |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Cooper, G. J. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) |
| Armitage, R. | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Gulland, John W. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Cowan, W. H. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Crossley, William J. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) |
| Beale, W. P. | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Bennett, E. N. | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Berridge, T. H. O. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Henry, Charles S. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Elibank, Master of | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Brodie, H. C. | Essex, R. W. | Hodge, John |
| Brooke, Stopford | Evans, Sir S. T. | Hogan, Michael |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Everett, R. Lacey | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Ferens, T. R. | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Jenkins, J. |
| Clough, William | Gill, A. H. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Jowett, F. W. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Lamont, Norman | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Summerbell, T. |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Radford, G. H. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Rainy, A. Rolland | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Raphael, Herbert H. | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Lundon, T. | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Toulmin, George |
| Maclean, Donald | Rendall, Athelstan | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Verney, F. W. |
| Maddison, Frederick | Ridsdale, E. A. | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Marnham, F. J. | Robinson, S. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Rogers, F. E. Newman | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Rose, Sir Charles Day | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Mond, A. | Rowlands, J. | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Montgomery, H. G. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Morrell, Philip | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Morse, L. L. | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Wilson, p. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Seely, Colonel | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Nannetti, Joseph P. | Shackleton, David James | Winfrey, R. |
| Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Nicholls, George | Simon, John Allsebrook | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. J. Herbert Lewis. |
| Nuttall, Harry | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S) | |
| O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) | Spicer, Sir Albert | |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Craig. Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Morrison-Bell, Captain |
| Ashley, W. W. | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Dalrymple, Viscount | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Oddy, John James |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Forster, Henry William | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Gardner, Ernest | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Gordon, J. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Gretton, John | Renton, Leslie |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hamilton, Marquess of | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Starkey, John R. |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hill, Sir Clement | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Kerry, Earl of | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Cave, George | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Younger, George |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI move, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Captain CRAIG: On a point of order. I wish to ask whether this irregularity of proceedings night after night cannot be obviated in some way. Would it be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put these closuring Resolutions on the Paper? I do not object to sitting up until two, three, or four o'clock, but for the convenience of Parliamentary business I think we might have some notice as to how long it is intended we shall remain here. The House used to sit up to twelve. That was considered too late and it was altered to eleven, whereupon the hour became from three 990 to four o'clock, so that the whole thing was turned into a farce. There are no regular hours of business in the House. It seems to depend on whether the Ministerial week-end relays have come back in sufficient numbers from their holidays in the country. There ought to be some regular hours of business. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might let us know what the time will be on different occasions, and we could make arrangements accordingly. I have never heard of anything more ridiculous than asking us to come here at a certain hour without giving us the slightest idea how long we are to be kept here. The Committee cannot reasonably consider these matters at this hour. This is really not a Budget Rill at all. It is in the first instance a 991 Land Bill; secondly, thirdly, fourthly, and fifthly, it is a Bill dealing with all classes of legislation. We feel it is not a Budget in the true sense of the word. Hon. Members opposite do not suggest that they will take the constitutional method of going to the country; but, if necessary, they will appeal, as far as I can see, to the Crown. I shall not oppose the Motion; but I take this opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement to the House.
§ Motion to report Progress agreed to; Committee to sit again this day (6th July).