Commons Sitting of 19 July 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a quarter before Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Manchester Corporation Bill [Lords],—read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Westminster City Council (Superannuation, etc.) Bill [Lords],—to be read the third time to-morrow.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [Lords],—Not amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Alliance and Dublin Consumers Gas Bill [Lords],—As amended, considered; a clause added; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Collooney, Ballina, and Belmullet Railways and Piers Bill,—As amended, considered:—
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the third time and passed.
Dunoon Burgh Bill [Lords],—to be read a second time to-morrow.
North Eastern Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),—Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Second Reading [15th July] further adjourned till to-morrow.
Ardrossan Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],—read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  National Defence (Personal Service).
  Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he would introduce legislation to compel every capable man to learn enough to discharge the duty of giving personal service for the defence of his country?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): No, Sir. I do not propose to introduce such legislation.
  Mr. HUNT: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman said that it is the duty of every man to give personal service for the defence of the State, how is that to be brought about if the right hon. Gentleman will not take the only means by which it can be effected?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is more in the nature of an argument than a question.

  War Department Land (Sales).
  Mr. ARTHUR LEEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he would grant the Return standing on to-day's Paper relating to Sales of War Department land?
  Mr. HALDANE: The preparation of this Return would involve a very considerable amount of labour, but if the hon. and gallant Member wishes it, I will have a Return prepared giving the position and area of land sold. In the interests of the public service, it is not advisable to disclose the prices obtained.

  Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield Rifles.
  Mr. HUNTasked what had been done, or was going to be done, with the Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield long rifles which were unserviceable or unsuitable for converting into short rifles?
  Mr. HALDANE: When the conversions are finished all that are found unserviceable will be broken up.

  Territorial Force (Chaplains).
  Captain MORRISON-BELLasked the Secretary of State for War when it was intended to gazette chaplains of the late Volunteer Forces to the ranks they were entitled to hold in the Territorial Forces?
  Mr. HALDANE: All honorary chaplaincies to the Imperial Yeomanry and all honorary and acting chaplaincies to the Volunteers have now lapsed, and a Chaplains' Department of the Territorial Force has been created in lieu. Any denomination that has 15 per cent. of the establishment of a battalion is entitled to a chaplain, and the right of putting forward names has been given to the authorities of the leading churches. A large number of chaplains were gazetted on the 13th instant and another gazette will very shortly be published.

  Special Reserve (Allowances to Officers).
  Captain MORRISON-BELLasked why mounted officers in the Special Reserve were granted no allowance for the hire of a horse for their training, whilst mounted officers in the Territorial Forces were?
  Mr. HALDANE: If the hon. and gallant Member will kindly refer to paragraph 364 of the Special Reserve Regulations he will find that horse hire is granted as in the Territorial Force.
  Captain MORRISON-BELLasked the Secretary of State for War why a colonel commanding a Special Reserve battalion was only allowed 3s. 6d. a day and travelling allowance and no pay for the four days that he had to perform the duty of inspecting the recruits at his headquarters?
  Mr. HALDANE: The lion, and gallant Member's question is not understood. Pay is allowed for the four days in question.
  Captain MORRISON-BELL: How much pay is allowed?
  Mr. HALDANE: Pay is allowed in accordance with the regulations in the usual way.
  Captain MORRISON-BELL: Where is it stated in the regulations that pay is allowed?
  Mr. HALDANE: If the hon. Gentleman will communicate with me, or put down a question, I will give him the reference.

  Duke of York's School (Chelsea Site).
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked whether any decision had been come to as to the future of the Chelsea site of the Duke of York's school?
  Mr. HALDANE: No, Sir.

  Balkan Question (International Conference).
  Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his proposal to hold an International Conference to deal with certain aspects of the Balkan problem had now been finally abandoned?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. T. McKinnon Wood): The answer is in the negative; but the most critical questions of the Balkan problem have been adjusted amicably, and negotiations are still proceeding on one or two minor points connected with Article 29.
  Lord BALCARRES: Do we understand the hon. Gentleman to say that a conference is likely to be held on this point?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I did not say that. I said it was not abandoned.

  Abdication of Shah of Persia.
  Mr. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has information that the Shah has taken refuge in the Russian Legation; and whether he has any further information to give on the subject?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, Sir. He subsequently announced his abdication, and his son, Sultan Ahmed Mirza, has been proclaimed Shah in his place under the

  5
  Regency of Azad-ul-Mulk, head of the Kajar tribe, pending the meeting of the Assembly.
  Mr. REES: Has the hon. Gentleman any information from our officers as to the state of affairs at Meshed?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No; I am not able to give any information.

  Naval Review (20th July).
  Lord BALCARRES (for Mr. Ashley)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the disposition of capital ships for the Review of 20th July, as shown upon the Admiralty chart of 24th June, has been or will be modified in any way?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): Except for the "Corn-wallis," which is absent giving leave prior to refit, the disposition of the battleships and cruisers is as shown on the chart.
  Lord BALCARRES (for Mr. Ashley)asked how many battleships, armoured cruisers, other cruisers, scouts and destroyers will be assembled in the Thames on 20th July; and how many of each class were laid down since 1st April, 1906?
  Mr. McKENNA: Twenty-three battleships, 16 armoured cruisers, eight other cruisers (excluding the "Blake" and "Blenheim"), four scouts, 48 destroyers. Of these, three battleships, one armoured cruiser and three destroyers were laid down since 1st April, 1906.

  Calliope Dry Dock (Auckland, New Zealand).
  Captain CRAIGasked what is the total Admiralty contribution towards the Calliope Dry Dock at Auckland, New Zealand; what is the annual subsidy paid for the same; what year this arrangement was entered into with the owners of the dock; for what reason was it made; whether any other dry docks at home or abroad are subsidised or contributed to by the Admiralty; and, if so, where are they situated?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Calliope Dry Dock was built by the Auckland Harbour Board without any contribution from the Admiralty. It was completed in 1888. The dock was not properly equipped with workshops, etc., and in 1899, after considerable discussion, the Admiralty entered into an agreement with the Harbour Board for the equipment of the dock
  6
  in consideration of a subsidy. A further agreement was made in 1903, under which additional equipment was to be provided in consideration of an increase in the subsidy. The total sum to be paid as subsidy is £150,000, which is to be spread over 30 years from the date of completion at the rate of £5,000 a year. Pending the entire completion of the work, smaller annual payments are made on completed sections of works. The subsidy was granted with a view of getting the dock properly equipped. At present a subsidy is being paid on one other dock only, namely, the Colonial Government Dock at Colombo.

  Submarine Equipment (Safety Helmets).
  Mr. ARTHUR LEEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Submarines C 11 and C 17 carried a full supply of the new safety helmets for enabling the crew to escape in the event of the vessel foundering; if so, whether these appliances were actually used after the collision on 15th July; and whether any lives were saved thereby?
  Mr. McKENNA: Neither of the vessels carried an equipment of helmets. These life-saving helmets are a new invention of which it has not yet been possible to obtain supplies sufficient to equip all submarine vessels. The delivery of the whole quantity ordered will not be completed until November next, but supplies are being distributed to the depot ships for submarines as deliveries are received. The air-traps required to enable these safety helmets to be used had been fitted in C 17, and were to have been fitted in C 11 at the first opportunity which might occur of the boat being in dockyard hands.
  Mr. LEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in May of last year, 14 months ago, he gave an assurance in this House that these appliances would be supplied as soon as possible?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
  Mr. LEE: In view of the simplicity of the apparatus, is it not possible to supply a sufficient quantity in order to enable men to escape in cases like the recent disaster?
  Mr. McKENNA: I can only give the information which I have, and that the earliest date at which this supply can be fulfilled is November next.
  Mr. LEE: Can he say when the order was given for them to be supplied?
  Mr. McKENNA: Will the hon. Gentleman put down a question?

  Pension Committees (Disallowance of Recommendations).
  Mr. GWYNNasked the President of the Local Government Board if the Local Government Board in England has in any case disallowed the recommendation of a pension committee upon the adverse report of a pension officer, except where the officer has been able to produce actual proof in support of his view?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. J. Burns): In any case in which an appeal is made to the Local Government Board by a pension officer against the decision of the local pensions committee, the Board obtain from the committee a statement of the grounds of their decision and form the best judgment they can with regard to the matter. They give due weight to the opinion of the committee, but they are not always able to arrive at the same conclusion as the committee, even although the pension officer is not able to produce actual proof in support of his view. There are cases in which actual proof cannot be given either one way or the other.

  Unoccupied Tenements (Metropolitan and Provincial Boroughs).
  Captain MORRISON-BELLasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will inquire from the clerks of the local authorities concerned as to the number of houses and tenements now unoccupied in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Newcastle, Bristol, Sheffield, Leeds, Portsmouth, and each of the Metropolitan Boroughs?
  Mr. BURNS: I have enquired how far it would be practicable to supply this information, and I understand that in most cases it can be given, though sometimes only approximately. I will endeavour to obtain it, and will inform the hon. Member when I have done so.

  Vaccination in Shoe Lane Casual Ward (Case of F. J. Wilson).
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, on the night of 13th July, F. J. Wilson, after having been admitted to the City of London casual ward in Shoe Lane, was expelled because he refused to be vaccinated; whether such conduct
  8
  is the rule at this ward; and whether the Local Government Board proposes to take any action on the matter?
  Mr. BURNS: I have made inquiry, and I am informed that a man named James Wilson was admitted to the casual wards on the 13th instant, was vaccinated without any complaint being made by him, and was discharged from the casual wards after the usual regulation period. I understand that it has been the custom at these wards for some years for persons admitted to the casual wards to see the medical officer on admission, and that, unless they object, he vaccinates them if necessary. The acting master states that he has never known a casual pauper to be ordered out or ejected for refusing to be vaccinated.

  Old Age Pensions (Maintenance of Parents).
  Sir H. CRAIK (for Mr. Joynson-Hicks),asked whether the fact that the guardians of the poor take proceedings on behalf of an aged widow to compel her son to contribute towards her maintenance, and succeed in such proceedings, recovering the costs thereof from the defendant, is a bar to the old lady's obtaining an old age pension; and, if so, why such action by the guardians is treated as the receipt of Poor Law relief by the applicant?
  Mr. BURNS: I do not find that any case of the kind referred to has come before me. I may, however, point out generally that the Guardians could not take proceedings to compel contributions from a son towards the maintenance of his mother unless she was chargeable, and that she would be disqualified for an old age pension not by the proceedings, but by the receipt of the relief which would be a condition precedent to the proceedings being taken.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman says there has never come to his knowledge a case of this description?
  Mr BURNS: Yes, I repeat what I have said.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: May I be allowed to supply the right hon. Gentleman with scores of such cases?
  Mr. BURNS: I shall be delighted to receive them, but they will not be as the hon. Member implies.

  Artizan's Cottages, Sligo (Refusal of Loan).
  Mr. O'DOWDasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the housing of the working classes committee of the corporation of Sligo has applied, through the Board of Works, for a loan for the erection of artizans' cottages in that borough, and the Treasury have notified that body that a loan will not be granted by the Commissioners of Public Works, although the corporation have paid the half-yearly contribution demanded of them; and, if so, will he state the grounds on which this loan has been refused?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I am informed that the Sligo Corporation itself applied to the Board of Works in April, 1906, for a loan for the purpose stated. The Board of Works informed the corporation that in view of the habitual unpunctuality of the corporation in the payment of instalments on loans already granted as they fell due they felt some difficulty in recommending the Treasury to sanction the further loan applied for. Since then the corporation has not renewed its application, while it continues to be unpunctual in the payment of instalments. It is not understood to what half-yearly contribution the hon. Member refers in the penultimate line of his question.
  Mr. O'DOWD: Am I to infer that the loan will be granted?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, I have already pointed out that the repayment of existing loans has been unpunctual and that the last recommendation we had from the Board of Works on the subject is that in view of all the facts it will not be prudent or wise to grant the loan.
  Mr. O'DOWD: Does the unpunctuality of the corporation affect the matter if the last instalment applied for has been paid?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It may have been paid, but I am not sure how long it was overdue before it was paid.
  Mr. JOYCE: Is it not the case that under the Act of last year no outstanding loans contracted by any corporation or Town Commissioners are to interfere with their borrowing powers?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That does not seem to arise out of the question. If the hon. Member will put a question down I will give an answer.

  Inland Revenue Officer's Pension, Wolverhampton.
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a Mr. Heas, of Wolverhampton, ex-Inland Revenue officer, who has had to retire owing to ill-health, has been awarded a pension for 34 years' service only, whereas he claims for 37 years' service, including three years' service in the Postal Department; whether he is aware that the breakdown in health was due to strain put upon the Revenue Officers by working excessively long hours in obtaining information and making out the claims for old age pensions, for which these men only received remuneration amounting to 4½, d. per hour, although their ordinary wages amounted to 1s. 6d. per hour; whether, considering the state of this man's health, brought about by his attention to duty, the Treasury can give the man the right understood to exist, viz., to grant a pension for unbroken civil service of the applicant; and whether he can take any other action in this matter?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Mr. Heas was not qualified for pension in respect of his Post Office service. There is nothing in his superannuation papers to suggest that his breakdown was due to work connected with old age pensions, and I see no sufficient reason to reconsider the award which has been made in his case. I must add that the head of his Department was not able to certify without qualification that his service had been satisfactory.

  Small Holdings, Vatersay (Rejected Applicants).
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate if he would state how many of the applicants for new holdings on Vatersay, Inverness-shire, had been rejected by the Congested Districts Board owing to inability to equip, stock, and cultivate a holding as required under the Government proposals set forth in the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill and elsewhere?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Arthur Dewar): Where, as in the present case, there are more applicants than holdings, all that can be said in reply to my hon. Friend is that the claims and qualifications of the rejected applicants were considered inferior to those of the applicants to whom holdings were allotted. The Congested Districts

  11
  Board selected the 58 most suitable tenants, taking into account character, experience, energy, and ability to equip, stock, and cultivate a holding.
  Mr. WEIR: How many have been rejected for that reason?
  Mr. DEWAR: None have been rejected for that reason only. Everything was taken into account. Some have been rejected, but that was because the qualifications as a whole were inferior.

  Island of Lewis (Crofter Holdings).
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate, in view of the purchases of land by the Congested districts Board, especially in Inverness-shire, would he state whether Major Matheson, the proprietor of the island of Lewis, had been approached with a view to the purchase of land by the Board for the creation of new crofter holdings?
  Mr. DEWAR: The question of land purchase in the Lewis is not at present before the Congested Districts Board, and no proposals in that direction have been made to the proprietor.
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland was aware that the farm of Dalbeg, Shawbost, island of Lewis, consisting of 1,930 acres, was formerly in the occupation of crofters, and that Mr. Forsyth, one of the Crofter Commissioners, after inspecting the farm, reported to the Congested Districts Board that part of it was suitable for new holdings; and, seeing that the cottars who planted potatoes on part of the farm did not take that action until they had been removed from the crofter holdings on which they were previously located, owing to the crofters being unable any longer to bear the burden of the cottars on their crofts, would the Secretary for Scotland state briefly what efforts he had made to secure new holdings on Dalbeg from the proprietor, Major Matheson, especially bearing in mind that these men had expressed their inability to seek a living outside the island of Lewis for want of funds?
  Mr. DEWAR: The Secretary for Scotland is aware of the facts referred to by my hon. Friend, who was informed, in reply to a question on 28th April, that the proprietor is not prepared to create new holdings on the farm of Dalbeg.

  FINANCE BILL.

    RATING OF VACANT LAND (FINDING OF ROYAL COMMISSION, 1884).
    Mr. GOULDINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state whether the finding of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes in 1884 with regard to the rating of vacant land was based upon any evidence before that Commission?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE (on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer): The Commission do not refer in their Report to the evidence on which this particular finding is based, but evidence on the point was submitted to them by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West. Birmingham, who said that all lands surrounding urban improvements ought to be specially taxed, and, further, that the ground landlords of the urban area itself ought not to "escape scot free." If there is a general desire that that evidence should be reprinted, my right hon. Friend will be very glad to consider it.

    SEPARATE VALUATION OF GROUND AND BUILDINGS (TOWN HOLDINGS).
    Mr. GOULDINGasked whether the Government will take steps to give the same publicity to the findings of the Select Committee of this House on Town Holdings with regard to the separate valuation of ground and buildings as has just been given to the findings of that Committee with regard to a division of rates?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend has already announced that he will be glad to cause a Supplementary Volume to be published, containing any extracts which hon. Members may think necessary to complete the information in regard to taxation of land values recently laid before the House. Perhaps hon. Members will be good enough to furnish him with lists of the extracts, etc., which they think should be included in such a volume. As regards the case mentioned by the hon. Member, my right hon. Friend hardly thought it necessary to cause the findings of the Select Committee on Town Holdings with regard to the separate valuation of land and buildings to be published in extenso in the Blue Book, because a full summary of the Committee's findings is included at page 251 in Extract A from the Local Taxation Commission's Report. The hon. Member will find that this extract from the Royal Commission's Report not

    13
    only covers all the points raised in the Report to which he refers, but also contains much additional material on the subject.
    Mr. GOULDING: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the reason for the publication of the findings of the Committee with regard to a division of rates, which is perfectly irrelevant to the matter, while that which is pertinent to it is excluded?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I cannot see that the principle in the one case and the other is different.
    Mr. GOULDING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the findings in the Report?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE:I have seen them.
    Mr. GOULDING: They certainly are not relevant.
    Mr. REMNANTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consent to the publication of the reasons of the late Marquess of Salisbury, the late Viscount Goschen, and Viscount Cross for dissenting from the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes with regard to the rating of vacant land, in the same form in which the opinions of minorities on the Royal Commission on Local Taxation have just been published?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE:I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Worcester, in which I repeated the pledge given to the hon. Member himself by my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member is, of course, aware that in connection with the quotation from the Housing Commission's Report in the Land Taxation Blue Book, it is made quite clear that Lord Salisbury, Lord Goschen, and Lord Cross dissented from the recommendations in question.
    Mr. REMNANT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how we are to approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to those matters which we want published?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. Gentleman will send to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the extracts he wishes to be published the matter will be considered, and I am sure they will be published.

    TAXATION OF SITE VALUES.
    Mr. REMNANTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can explain
    14
    why Part III. of the recent Blue Book on Taxes on Land publishes in extenso the minority Reports with regard to taxation of site values in the case of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, and ignores the minority Report on the same subject in the case of the Select Committee of this House on the Land Values Taxation (Scotland) Bill, 1906?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: As the hon. Member must be aware, it is not the custom of Select Committees of this House to issue minority Reports. Perhaps, however, he refers to the Special Report of the Select Committee on the Land Values Taxation (Scotland) Bill, 1906. My right, hon. Friend did not think it necessary to cause the whole of this Report to be reprinted in the Land Taxation volume, but extracted therefrom the section dealing with the Practicability of Land Value Valuation, to which subject the Committee devoted the greater part of their Report.
    Mr. REMNANT: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have seen what is published in the Blue Book. There is no reference whatever to the minority Report.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to make a speech.
    Captain CRAIG: May I ask why the Government dodge these things in such a way that only evidence in their favour is published, and not evidence on the other side?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is not the fact.
    Mr. REMNANT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will publish these portion of the Report which tell against the proposals of the Government?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: If there are any which tell against the proposals of the Government they will be published.
    Mr. REMNANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish them?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have already stated that the Government are perfectly willing to publish any extracts on the subject.
    Mr. REMNANT: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman means that the whole of the minority Report will be published in extenso?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have pointed out that there is no minority Report. There is no possible way in which there can be a minority Report of a Select Committee.
    Mr. REMNANT: Does the right hon. Gentleman draw a distinction between the Reports of Royal Commissions and the Reports of Select Committees in dealing with these questions?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Of course; there is all the distinction in the world. Every hon. Gentleman who has ever sat on both knows that a Royal Commission can present, and frequently does present, a minority Report. A Select Committee cannot, and therefore does not.

    TAX ON MOTOR SPIRIT (VETERINARY SURGEONS AND EXEMPTIONS).
    Mr. WEIRasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can see his way to grant to veterinary surgeons the same exemption in respect of the tax on motor spirit as it is proposed to grant to medical practitioners?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot see his way to extend to veterinary surgeons the concession which he has promised to medical practitioners in respect of the duty on petrol.

    SEPARATE TAXATION OF SITE VALUES.
    Mr. REMNANTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will explain why the Blue Book published last week on Taxes on Land contains two Memoranda in favour of the separate taxation of site values contributed to the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, and does not contain any of the Memoranda adverse to such taxation contributed to that Commission by the late Lord Farrer, Sir Robert Giffen, and other experts?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The two Memoranda referred to—namely, those by Mr. Edgar Harper and Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton —were included in the Blue Book because they are discussed at considerable length in the separate Report of the Local Taxation Commission on Urban Rating, which appears in the Blue Book immediately preceding the two Memoranda in question, and which contains a large number of references to passages in them. In the Memorandum by Sir Robert Giffen only four lines are devoted to the subject of rating ground values, Which he dismisses as impracticable. Lord Farrer, on the other hand, suggests as an alternative to the separate rating of ground values the imposition of municipal Death Duties, and the whole of his observations on this subject would, of course, have had to be given
    16
    in order to make clear his attitude on the question. I may add that the Memoranda by Sir Robert Giffen and Lord Farrer appear in a special volume of 250 pages, together with the views of 14 other authorities, all of whom might well have been quoted had space permitted. Of these 14 only three expressed an adverse opinion on the rating of land values.
    Mr. REMNANT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will allow to be published extracts from the memoranda of Lord Farrer and Sir Robert Giffen which derogate from the proposals of the Government?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have already pointed out that the whole of Sir Robert Giffen's memorandum consists of only four lines. I shall be glad to consider the hon. Gentleman's request.

    INCREMENT DUTY ON LAND VALUES (EXEMPTION OE SMALL OWNERS).
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked when the Government will put on the Paper the Amendment to the Finance Bill exempting small owners of land from the Increment Duty?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend hopes to put the Amendment in question on the Paper on Wednesday.

    MINERAL ROYALTIES IN UNITED KINGDOM.
    Mr. SMEATONasked what is the total amount of mineral royalties in the United Kingdom, according to the latest available statistics?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The latest available statistics are those which appeared in the Report of the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties issued in 1893. Their estimate, which related to the year 1889, was as follows:—
    Total estimate of royalties and way-leaves on "coal, ironstone, iron ore, shale, and metals of mines subject to the Metalliferous Mines Act, 1872" for the year 1889 in the United Kingdom:—

    £

    £

    Royalties.

    Wayleaves

    Coal

    4,008,353

    201,916

    Ironstone and iron ore

    561,122

    14,781

    Other metals

    87,068

    —

    Total

    £4,656,543

    £216,697

    Lord BALCARRES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in the

    17
    Report of that Commission any reference is made to stone, salt, or other minerals of that character?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The question on the Paper is—"What is the total amount of mineral royalties?" and I have given an answer to that question.
    Mr. SMEATON: Are there no royalties on these particular minerals at present?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. Gentleman will put a question on the Paper, I will see whether I can get the information for him?

    UNGOTTEN MINERALS VALUATION.
    Mr. SMEATONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to a case in South Wales where the owners of a colliery had a valuation made of the ungotten minerals within their workings; is he aware that this valuation occupied several months and cost the owners £900; and that, on the basis of this valuation, the mineral duty at ½d. in the £ would have realised £125 for the Exchequer, or less than one-seventh of the cost of valuation; and whether, if this ratio between cost of valuation and realised duty is even remotely approximate for the United Kingdom, he will consider the advisability of substituting for the mineral duty a substantial tax on mineral royalties?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend has reason to believe that in the case to which my hon. Friend refers the cost of the valuation included not only the cost of valuing the unworked minerals within the workings of the colliery, but also of valuing the plant, works, railways, rolling stock, brick works, house property, etc., belonging to the company. The question, therefore, is based on a misconception, as the cost of valuing the minerals alone would only amount to a relatively small proportion of the cost of the whole valuation.
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: When is the Chancellor of the Exchequer likely to make his statement in regard to the proposed taxes on royalties?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: When we reach that part of the Finance Bill.

    LAND TAXES IN FRANKFORT.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked whether, under the Frankfort regulations for Land Taxes, any Increment Duty is payable on
    18
    gifts inter vivos; and, if so, under what conditions?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The original Frankfort law of 1904 contained a provision to the effect that when a property was acquired by a gift inter vivos the tax was payable on the amount by which the donee was enriched by the gift. This provision, however, disappeared from the revised law of 1906, and section 9 of the present law runs: "The tax shall not be payable on the passing of property at death or by a gift inter vivos in the sense of the Imperial Inheritance Tax Law of June 3rd, 1906."
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked whether, in the Frankfort regulations, where an estate is sold in portions, the loss on one part may be set against the gain or profit on another part, as in Cologne, in the assessment of Increment Value Duty?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: There appears to be no provision of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member in the case of Frankfort. In the case of Cologne, the estate to which their regulations apply must be locally and economically a single and separate property, and in order that any set-off for loss may be allowed either the sales must be simultaneous or the loss must have occurred on the part of the estate within three years before a sale against which the set-off is claimed.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: Why has the Chancellor of the Exchequer taken the Frankfort regulations rather than the Cologne regulations for the tax on increment?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: He has taken them because on the whole they are the better set of regulations.
    Mr. STANLEY: Is it a fact that the Chancellor has followed these Frankfort regulations?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: He has followed the regulations that seemed best.

    GROCERS' LICENCE DUTIES.
    Mr. BERTRAM (for Mr. Buckmaster)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now prepared to state his intentions with regard to altering the principle on which the Finance Bill proposes to assess Licence Duty on grocers licences?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend has, on full consideration, come to the conclusion that it will be desirable to modify his proposals, as embodied in the

    19
    Finance Bill, for the assessment of Licence Duty on what are commonly known as grocers' licences. He is in communication with representatives of the holders of these licences in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and hopes to be able to propose a scheme which will be accepted by the general body of traders in the three countries.
    Mr. BERTRAM: Would the right hon. Gentleman refer to the word "now" in the question? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been in sufficient communication with the representatives of the licensees, and he ought to be able to state definitely his intentions.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: He hopes to do so at the earliest possible moment.

    ESTATE DUTIES (YIELD).
    Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the yield of the Estate, etc., Duties in each of the last three years; and if he will explain, in view of the fact that he stated on the introduction of the Budget that the revenue from Estate Duties on the old basis of taxation was estimated at the average amount of the previous three years, how the figure £18,600,000 was reached?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The yield of the Estate, etc., Duties in each of the last three years was as follows:—

    1906–07

    …

    …

    £18,958,000

    1907–08

    …

    …

    £19,070,000

    1908–09

    …

    …

    £18,370,000

    The estimate of £18,600,000 represents the average for the three years after making certain necessary adjustments.

    TAX ON SITE VALUES.
    Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before deciding to propose his new taxes on site values, his attention was drawn to the statement made in the conclusions to the Report on Urban Ratings on Site Values, signed by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, Sir E. Hamilton, Sir George Murray, and others, to the effect that there is no large undeveloped source of taxation available for local purposes, and still less for national purposes; and whether the Treasury officials still adhere to this view?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part, the hon.
    20
    Member must be aware that it would be contrary to all precedent to make any statement in this House as to the personal views of permanent officials on subjects connected with the business of their Departments.

    INCREMENT VALUE DUTY (EXEMPTIONS).
    Mr. WALTER ROCHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the exceptions now made of certain properties from the incidence of the Increment Value Duty under the Finance Bill will cause any material reduction in the estimate given of the yield of this tax; and, if so, whether he will give a revised estimate of the yield of this tax?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend does not anticipate that the estimated yield for the current financial year of the Increment Value Duty will be materially affected by the exemptions which have been introduced into the Finance Bill. In regard to subsequent years, it is too early as yet to form a reliable estimate as to the probable yield of the tax.
    Lord BALCARRES: Is it any good making these concessions if the owner of the land does not reap the benefit of them?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think that it has been suggested to us that the owners of land do not welcome the concessions which have been made.
    Lord BALCARRES: Did the right hon. Gentleman state that the result of these concessions would be to impoverish the Exchequer?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No. What he said was he does not anticipate that the estimated yield will be materially affected.

    LOCAL LAND REGISTRIES.
    Mr. FELLasked if the books and records of the local land registries will be open to the inspection of the public on payment of fees?
    Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to move the financial resolution authorising the establishment and maintenance, of local land registries to carry out the land clauses of the Finance Bill?
    Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can supply any estimate of the cost of establishing the local land registries and of their annual maintenance

    21
    under the Finance Bill; and if the cost of maintenance exceeds the estimate of the amount of the Increment Duty on land to be collected through them?
    Mr. PIKE PEASEasked in which towns it has been decided to establish local land registries?
    Mr. PIKE PEASEasked what will be the status and emoluments of the higher officials to be appointed to the new local land registries; how many such appointments are contemplated; and when the Supplementary Estimate will be presented?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will answer these five questions together. My right hon. Friend did not mean to imply in his remarks on the 14th instant that it was proposed under the Finance Bill to create immediately local registries of titles to land, but that one of the results of the measure would be the gradual establishment of a system of local land registration in this country. The questions put by the hon. Members are, therefore, premature. I may, however, explain that at the same time my right hon. Friend stated that local Inland Revenue offices will have to be established in important centres, such as Liverpool, Birmingham, etc., in order that it may not be necessary for all transactions in respect of Increment Duty to be dealt with at Somerset House.
    Mr. FELL: How is it possible to have land registration without first establishing land registries?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think that there must be some little confusion of thought both with regard to the registries, that is to say, the registration of titles to land and the stamping of documents, which requires a local stamping establishment; and the answer I have given has, I hope, cleared up any misapprehension on that point. If not I will answer any further question.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that there will be no registration of the documents that need stamping?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: There will be local offices in which instruments sent to be stamped can be stamped, and there will be a central register for the registration of title in the land.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, or shall I put down a question, how many of these local
    22
    offices are going to be established, and whether he has any estimate at all of the cost?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Perhaps it will be more convenient to the Noble Lord and to myself if he puts the question down.

    QUALIFICATIONS OF REFEREES.
    Captain MORRISON-BELLasked what opportunities will be afforded to the House of considering the qualifications, salaries, and terms of appointment of the referees to be appointed under the Finance Bill?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Opportunities for discussing the matters to which the hon. and gallant Member refers will arise when Clauses 22 and 23 of the Finance Bill are reached in Committee.

    PETROL AND ESTATE DUTIES (RETURNS).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether, in the event of the Finance Bill being modified in its passage through this House, either in regard to the Duty on Petrol or the Estate Duties, the right hon. Gentleman would cause the Customs and Inland Revenue Commissioners to keep a complete record of all the duty paid at the higher rates in order that Returns may be made in the event of such alteration in the Bill?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: In the event of such a contingency arising, the existing Departmental records will contain all necessary information on which to base repayments of duty.

    ALTERATION OF RATES OF DUTY.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether Estate Duty is now being demanded and paid at the higher rates proposed in the Finance Bill; and whether there is any precedent for the alteration of the rates of duty, other than those relating to Customs and Excise, before the Finance Bill has passed into law?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I may refer the hon. Member to my answer on the 8th instant to a similar question by the hon. Member for Windsor. A similar course was pursued in regard to the alteration of the Estate Duties effected by the Finance Act, 1907.

    EXISTING LICENCE DUTIES.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether, having regard to the fact that existing

    23
    licence duties do not expire until 10th October, and by the provisions of the Finance Act the new licences are to be taken out on 1st October, the loss in the value of such unexpired licences on the existing number of 87,000 public-houses in the United Kingdom will mean a loss of about £50,000 to the licensed trade; and whether the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to make an adjustment or rebate in respect of such 10 days?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The greatest possible loss in respect of any one licence would be less than £2, but the aggregate figures quoted by the hon. Member appear to be substantially correct. My right hon. Friend will consider the desirability of making an adjustment in this respect.

    SALE OF LAND TAX LAST CENTURY.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has had any opportunity of making further inquiries as to the sale by Land Tax Commissioners of Land Tax to private persons at the beginning of the last century; and if he has been able to ascertain any cases of such sale?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir.

    CONSUMPTION OF SPIRITS (UNITED KINGDOM).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked what was the consumption of spirits in the United Kingdom last year; what the right hon. Gentleman estimated the consumption to be this year; and how much he estimated a tax of 3s. 9d. a gallon on that amount to produce?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I assume that by "consumption" the hon. Member means the amount of spirits paying duty and retained for home consumption. On this basis the figures are as follows:—

    1908–9–38,626,000 gallons, which included forestalling clearances.

    1909–10–29,700,000 gallons (estimated).

    The additional tax of 3s. 9d. will not, however, be paid upon this latter number of gallons, as a large proportion of the total was cleared in April last at the old rate of duty. My right hon. Friend has estimated the additional revenue obtained by increasing the duty by 3s. 9d. at £1,600,000 for the current year.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the last figure he has given was collected on the old rate?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: In the figures given there were not only increases of the revenue, but there were decreases of the expected revenue in this year, and the two together account in double degree for the reduction I have pointed out as possible.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Surely the right hon. Gentleman can tell us by now the proportion of spirits in this year which paid duty on the old rates?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is not the question on the Paper.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman find out?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will see whether the figures are available.

    Pension Coupons (Manchester).
    Mr. HAWORTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that anxiety and difficulty were recently caused to a number of old age pensioners in Manchester by their not receiving fresh supplies of coupons by the due date and by their not being able to obtain any information on the subject; and whether he will take adequate steps to avoid such delays in future?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The work of delivering the pension order books was practically completed by the date on which the first payment of pension was due—viz., 25th June. In one area, however, there was an interruption in the delivery owing to the officer's illness, but even in that area the delivery was completed by the 26th.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the same difficulty arose in other parts of the country?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am not aware. I will make inquiries.

    Surveyors of Taxes (Hours of Work).
    Captain CRAIGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has recently received a copy of a resolution passed at the annual meeting of the Association of Tax Surveying Officers to the effect that surveyors of taxes are emphatically of opinion that the work arising out of the Finance Bill, other than that relating to Land Taxes, is beyond the powers of the present Income Tax staff; whether he is aware that many surveyors are now, and have been for a considerable time, working 10 to 12 hours a day, exclusive of meal

    25
    hours; what hours are laid down by regulation as reasonable for a surveyor of average ability to work per day or per week; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent surveyors being overworked when the Finance Bill becomes law?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. As regards the third part of the question, the duties of surveyors of taxes are not susceptible of regulation in the manner indicated. The last part of the question is purely hypothetical.

    Land Purchase in Ireland (Atkinson Estate).
    Mr. REDDYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Thomas Wallace, Ballincor, Shinrone, who applied for £3,970 for the purchase of 209 acres at Balloughboy and 58 acres at Kilmurry Ely, both on the Atkinson estate, and received an advance of £3,000 for the purchase of his holdings at Ballincor and Clonaheen, namely, 796 acres, Tollemache estate, holds also another farm of about 84 acres at Kilmurry Ely on the Atkinson estate, which he recently acquired from William Carroll, Arabeg; whether agreements for the purchase of this latter farm were lodged with the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, by whom, and for what amounts?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): No purchase agreement signed by either Thomas Wallace or William Carroll for the purchase of 84 acres of the lands of Kilmurry Ely on the Atkinson estate has been lodged with the Estates Commissioners.
    Mr. REDDYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Mr. Richard Wallace, Bellfield, Shinrone, who applied for £288 of an advance to purchase his farm at Shinrone (Lloyd estate), and for £327 to purchase his farm at Kilmurry Ely (Atkinson estate), and who now holds the Garbally farm lately held by William Woods, namely, 120 acres (Ford estate), for the purchasie of which Woods had lodged purchase agreements applying for an advance of £1,749, holds also in the parish of Shinrone, King's County, the following lands: Kilfrancis, about 167 acres, held in fee; Maheramore, about 76 acres, estate of Trinity College, Dublin: Ardavagga, about 43 acres, Donovan estate; Snugsborough, about 67 acres, Day estate; and Gurnalee, Queen's County, about 334 acres,
    26
    Palmer estate; will he say if agreements for purchase of any of these lands have been lodged with the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, what is in each case the amount applied for?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that Richard Wallace has signed an agreement to purchase 67 acres of Snugsborough on the Day estate for £795. As regards the lands on the Trinity College estate, the Donovan estate, and the Palmer estate referred to in the question, the Commissioners cannot identify proceedings for sale as pending before them. They do not know what lands Richard Wallace may hold in fee.
    Mr. REDDYasked whether William H. Atkinson is now in the occupation of Cangort demesne, Atkinson estate, King's County, and, if so, will he say how he holds the same; has he lodged purchase agreements for the same with the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, what is the amount of the proposed purchase advance?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that William H. Atkinson has signed an agreement to purchase 340 acres of the lands of Cangort demesne, on the estate of Frances E. Atkinson, and has applied for an advance of £6,322. He is returned as holding the lands under a yearly tenancy.

    Land Commission Court (Kenmare).
    Mr. BOLANDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the fact that the Land Commission court held at Kenmare on the 6th instant was adjourned indefinitely, although a number of cases set down for hearing were not dealt with; whether, seeing that many of the tenants had to travel a long distance and bring their witnesses, he will state why these tenants were not notified in advance that their cases would not be dealt with, or, alternatively, why the court did not sit for an extra couple of hours in order to complete the list; and can he state when the hearing will be resumed at Kenmare?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the Land Commission that on the occasion in question the Sub-Commission Court was unable to hear 15 of the fair rent cases which had been listed. Owing to the number of applications which ultimately came up for hearing it was found in court that it would be impossible to have the

    27
    holdings in these 15 cases inspected and judgment delivered by the 31st instant when the Sub-Commission Courts adjourn for the vacation.
    Mr. JOHN MURPHY: Did the Sub-Commissioners in two cases where sales were pending deliberately put back the fixing of a fair rent?
    Mr. BIRRELL: If the hon. Member will give me notice I will investigate the case.

    Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
    Mr. GWYNNasked whether, in the matter of old age pensions, the Local Government Board is not bound to accept the recommendations of a pension committee unless proof can be furnished that the applicant is not entitled to a pension; or whether it is open to the Local Government Board, where documentary proof is not forthcoming, to accept the opinion of the pension officer as against the decision of the committee?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board can only intervene when a pension officer or claimant appeals against the decision of a pension committee, and it is obvious that the Board cannot be bound by the decision which they are called on to review. It is open to them to accept any recommendation or opinion of either pension committee or pension officer which appears to have a sufficient basis of fact.

    Dolan v. Birmingham (Alleged Boycotting at Monte, County Westmeath).
    Sir WALTER NUGENTasked if the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the recent trial in Dublin of Dolan v. Birmingham and others, arising out of alleged boycotting at Monte, county Westmeath; if he had noted the admissions made by witnesses for the plaintiff of fraudulent misrepresentation for the purposes of obtaining advances to purchase land, and the judge's comments thereon; and what action, if any, the Irish Government proposed to take in this and similar cases when fraud was admitted, or proved, to punish the offenders, and protect the Treasury and the ratepayers of Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The attention of the Estates Commissioners has been called to this case and to the learned judge's charge, as reported in the daily newspapers. Proceedings have been instituted before the Commissioners for the
    28
    sale of the estate in question, but it has not yet been inspected. When it comes to be dealt with in order of priority, the Commissioners will consider the matters disclosed in this case.

    Untenanted Lands (Kinahan Estate).
    Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAMasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the apprehension existing in Glenville, county Cork, respecting the way in which the division of untenanted lands on the Kinahan estate may be carried out, in consequence of the action of an inspector in entertaining applications for allotments made by farmers and their sons who live several miles away and are in independent circumstances, while there are evicted tenants and their representatives, poor tenants with uneconomic holdings, on the estate, small cottiers, and many other deserving applicants possessing prior claims, which should be provided for before other applications are considered; if he will represent to the Commissioners the necessity for a careful examination and revision of the list, when submitted by the inspector, before giving their approval to the allocation of these lands; also if he can state what price has been paid, or agreed to be paid, for the lands in question; whether the holdings of tenants on the estate, who have signed provisional agreements to purchase, will be inspected for value; and will these tenants be provided with turbary on the mountain as an adjunct to their holdings?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is being sold to the Estates Commissioners under section 6 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. In allotting the untenanted lands, when acquired, the Commissioners will consider all applications made to them. They do not think it desirable at this stage of the proceedings to state the estimated price of these lands. The tenanted holdings on the estate have been inspected, and the question of turbary will receive due consideration.
    Mr. DENIS KILBRIDE: What is meant by saying that "the Commissioners will take all the circumstances into consideration"? Does that mean that the three Estates Commissioners will make personal inquiry, or whether they will accept the report of the inspector who makes the inquiry?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It means that the report of the inspector will be duly considered by the Estates Commissioners.

    Jackson Estate (Applications for Reinstatement).
    Mr. O'DOWDasked whether the Estates Commissioners have received from Mr. Thomas O'Dowd, D.C., of Bervaish, electoral division of Drumrat, Boyle (No. 2) District, an application for reinstatement in the farm on the Jackson estate, near Ballymote, county Sligo, from which his father was capriciously evicted in 1864; whether particulars of this case, in all its bearings, were furnished, on reference form No. W. 26676 1–7, to the Estates Commissioners in 1907; and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman say what decision has been come to in regard to the matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received the application referred to. As the eviction did not take place within the period of 25 years before the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1903, mentioned in section 2 of the Act, the Commissioners cannot take any action in the case.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application from Mrs. Catherine O'Connor, of Annamade, Cullooney, county Sligo, claiming reinstatement in her father's evicted farm, situate at Knocknahar, Culfadda, Ballymote, county Sligo, Boyle (No. 2) Union, on the Jackson estate; and, if so, what decision, if any, the Commissioners have come to in the matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have not received any application for reinstatement from Mrs. Catherine O'Connor.

    Evicted Tenants (Kenmare Estate, County Kerry).
    Mr. JOHN MURPHYasked if the Estates Commissioners can now state what steps they have taken to settle the claims of outstanding evicted tenants on the Kenmare estate, county Kerry, and what has been the result; and if the Commissioners have taken any steps to acquire any grazing or untenanted land on the estate for the purpose or for the improvement of holdings?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have not yet completed their negotiations for the reinstatement of the outstanding evicted tenants. As I have already informed the hon. Member, in reply to a question asked by him on 19th March last, such portions of the un-
    30
    tenanted lands on the estate as would be suitable for evicted tenants have been inspected.

    Cromarty and Dingwall Railway.
    Mr. WEIRasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that a Provisional Order for the construction of the Cromarty and Dingwall Railway was obtained several years since, and that the Highland Railway Company on the 3rd July last signified their intention not to proceed with the construction of the line, will he state when the promoters proposed to commence this long-delayed railway; and when will the Provisional Order expire?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. H. J. Tennant) (for Mr. Churchill): I have communicated with the Light Railway Company, and have received a reply from the chairman, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. The powers to construct this line will expire, unless again extended, in August, 1911.

    Sir Robert Geffery's Almshouses, Shoreditch.
    Mr. DICKINSONasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that Sir Robert Geffery's Almshouses in Shoreditch are threatened with destruction at the hands of the Ironmongers' Company, and that the garden of these almshouses, extending to about an acre, is the only open space of appreciable size (except one or two churchyards) in the borough of Shoreditch; whether he is aware that the Charity Commissioners, after holding a public inquiry, decided that no case had been made out for the destruction of the almshouses, and that, a second inquiry having been ordered by the Chancery Division of the High Court in a suit commenced 200 years ago, an application by ratepayers of Shoreditch to attend the inquiry was recently opposed by his representative and refused by the court; and whether, under these circumstances, he will take steps to ensure that a public inquiry shall be held into the case of the almshouses?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson): I am aware of the proceedings with regard to this charity, and have myself appeared in court in support of the decision of the Charity Commissioners, which was adverse to the removal of the almshouses. The Court of Chancery, however, directed an inquiry into the matter in Chambers, and I am informed that it is

    31
    contrary to the practice for the public to take part in such an inquiry. My representative was willing to let the application on behalf of the public stand over in order to take my directions, but this was declined by those who appeared for the public. They insisted on the judge dealing with the application forthwith, and he did so, deciding in accordance with the practice.

WITHDRAWAL OF A MEMBER.
  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: As a matter of personal explanation, I desire to thank the whole House for the handsome manner in which they vindicated my character on Friday last. I wish, at the same time, to retract the unparliamentary expression which I was requested by the Chair to do at the time of the incident. I also desire to say, in justice to the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), that he has sent me a long letter of apology, giving me permission to publish same, which will be done accordingly.

  QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
  Mr. H. BOTTOMLEY: I desire, Mr. Speaker, respectfully to call your attention to what, I submit, is a breach of privilege on the part of the hon. Member for South St. Pancras (Mr. P. Whitwell Wilson), in regard to the proceedings of this House on Wednesday night last. It will be within your knowledge that the House sat all night and into the next day on the Finance Bill. You will not be surprised to hear that various Motions were made to report Progress, and various Motions were made to closure those Motions. The hon. Member for South St. Pancras, I do not think it will be disputed, is in the habit of publishing every day in the columns of a newspaper, or, to avoid anything argumentative, in a publication called the "Daily News," what are described as "Pictures in Parliament." On Friday last, giving what purported to be a picture of the proceedings of this House an Committee during Wednesday night, the hon. Member, after a description of the state of things which existed at certain points under the conditions which I do not think will be disputed, wrote:—
  "The question of the moment was whether the Budget can he carried without closure by compartments, a hateful instrument as applied to finance, and very dangerous at this juncture, when the House of Lords is searching for a pretext upon which to attack the Com-
  32
  mons. The guillotine has certainly been postponed and, one hopes, rendered unnecessary by the efforts of the House this morning. And one would only venture the comment that the defence of existing procedure depends a good deal upon the Chairman. Ho one denies Mr. Emmott's difficulties, but last night his demeanour seemed to be barely courteous to the Minister who is the Leader of the House for the time being."
  I put it to you that that went beyond the border line of privilege. The article goes on:—
  "Motions to report Progress are after all, acknowledged frivolities, and to refuse the closure on such a Motion after several speeches of the usual kind had been delivered upon it is simply to create a deadlock."
  There again he suggested that the Deputy-Speaker and the Chairman of Committees, having been guilty of rudeness and barely courteous conduct, created a deadlock by his procedure. That, I would suggest, would be near the border line of privilege. The article goes on:—
  "When that closure is moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself the refusal of it amounts to a snub, which in the present case was singularly undeserved. With brisker management of the House several hours might have been saved."
  I do not lay particular emphasis on that. The article then goes on to give a picture of the incident to which the Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne) referred a moment ago. This is the phrase to which more particularly I desire to call your attention. Having referred to the unfortunate incident and having mentioned the accusation made by the Noble Lord, there comes this phrase:—
  "Mr. Thorne's protests were warm but he received no protection from the Chair."
  Later on comes the phrase that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Thorne) was ordered to withdraw and then comes this:—
  "The monstrous injustice of this treatment was everywhere recognised."
  Taking all these phrases together, upon the authorities with which you are familiar, I respectfully submit that to charge the Chairman of Committees of this House, and Deputy-Speaker, first, with rude conduct in the chair; secondly, with so dealing with the administration of the closure so as to delay the proceedings of the House; and, thirdly and mainly, with monstrously unjust treatment towards a Member of this House when, as I respectfully submit, he had no alternative whatever but to act as he did, comes well within the cases of privilege. It would be an impertinence on my part to refer you to any kind of authority, but I do venture to submit just one passage in Sir Erskine May, which seems to me, with great respect, almost to meet this case. I

  33
  quote from page 88 of the last edition of May, in which I find this:—
  "An accusation of partiality in the administration of the closure directed against the Speaker by a Member of the House was held to be a breach of privilege."
  With great respect I submit that that applies equally to the Deputy-Speaker.
  "Subsequently, however, the same Member published in a newspaper a letter which contained a repetition of the same offence against the Speaker. The House thereupon, having heard the Member in his place, resolved that the letter was a gross libel upon Mr. Speaker, deserving the severest condemnation of the House, and that the Member be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of the Session, or for one calendar month, whichever should first terminate."
  I respectfully call your attention to the case, and to submit with great humility that the hon. Member, if not within, is very near the Rules of privilege. I hope the House will forgive me for having interrupted the proceedings with this matter.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Before the matter goes any further perhaps the House would like to hear what the hon. Member has to say on the matter.
  Mr. P. WHITWELL WILSON: I am quite certain the House is in all these personal matters the fairest judge and jury that any Member could lay himself before. The House will, I am sure, recognise that it is not always easy either to write or to think with perfect discretion after heated and arduous all-night sitting. I need not say that I am perfectly ready to withdraw any statement in my writings, which my hon. Friend appears to have studied so closely, that may have overstepped the mark. I can only trust that the Chairman of Ways and Means will accept this withdrawal in the unqualified spirit in which it is offered. The Chairman has a very difficult task, and I should be sorry if I caused him any personal irritation. At the same time, as reference has been made to the unfortunate incident of Thursday morning, I think the House will realise that if I wrote with heat, which I do not in any way defend, that I was writing in no way on my own behalf. I had in mind solely the reputation of a fellow Member, and I thought it might be perhaps subjected in a public manner to unfounded assertions. Under those cimcumstances, I leave myself in your hands.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think I need add anything to what has already been said by the two hon. Members who have addressed the House. There is no doubt that the offence is rather a serious one. The position of the Chair is always a diffi-
  34
  cult one, whether occupied by myself or by the right hon. Gentleman who devotes so much time and patience to his duties in the Chair; and it becomes doubly difficult if he is criticised—of course he expects to be criticised—but if he is somewhat ungenerously criticised for the action which he feels bound to take. I am convinced the House will agree with me when I say that there is not a Member of the House who is more anxious to hold the balance fairly between all parties than the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means. The hon. Member who made this attack, or gave vent to this criticism, impatient, no doubt, at having gone through the arduous hours of an all-night sitting, feels that it was improper, and has entirely withdrawn it. In these circumstances, I think the House will hardly desire to pursue the matter any further, and that we may now regard the whole incident of last Wednesday night as completely wiped out.

  PRESENTATION OF BILLS.
  The following Bills were presented and read the first time:—
  Mr. WEDGWOOD.—Cruelty to Women—Bill to make further provision for the protection of certain Women from Cruelty, and for other purposes connected therewith. (To be read a second time upon Monday, 26th July.)
  Mr. WEDGWOOD.—Children (Reports of Trials)—Bill to amend the Law with regard to the Reports of Trials in which Children and young persons are concerned, and for other purposes connected therewith. (To be read a second time upon Monday, 26th July.)

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.—[13th Day.]
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

PAET I.—DUTIES ON LAND VALUES.
Increment Value Duty.
Clauses 3, 4, and 5 of the Bill have been reprinted as follows, to show the Amendments made in Committee.
Additions are indicated by italics, and square brackets are used to mark words which have been omitted. Clauses 1 and 2 (as amended in Committee) appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT (col. 1851–1854), 13th July, 1909.

CLAUSE 3.—(General Provisions as to Collection of Increment Value Duty.)
(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, after giving credit for [having regard to] the amount of duty paid on previous occasions.
(2) Where Increment Value Duty is collected on the occasion of the transfer or passing on death of the fee simple in possession of any land, or on any periodical occasion in the case of land held in fee simple in possession by a body corporate or unincorporate, the whole amount of the duty which is determined shall be collected by the Commissioners in accordance with rules made, by them for the purpose.
(3) Where Increment Value Duty is collected on the occasion of the grant of a lease, or on the transfer or passing on death of any interest in land, or on any periodical occasion in the case of an interest in land held by a body corporate or unincorporate, 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, transferred, passing on death, or held, in accordance with rules made by them for the purpose.
(4) For the purpose of the collection of duty on the increment value of any land under this section, the increment value shall be deemed to be reduced on the first occasion on which Increment Value. Duty becomes due under this Act by am amount equal to ten per cent, of the original site value of the land, and on any subsequent occasion by an amount equal to ten per cent, of the site value on the last preceding occasion on which Increment Value Duty has become due, and the amount of duty to be collected shall be remitted, in whole or in part accordingly.
Any duty which by reason of this provision is remitted on occasion shall not be collected and shall be deemed to have been paid.
Provided that no remission shall be given tinder this provision on any occasion which will make the amount of the increased value on which duly has been remitted during the preceding period of five years exceed twenty-five per cent. of the site value of the land on the last occasion on which increment value became due prior to the commencement of that period or of the original site value if there has then been no such occasion.
(5) Increment Value Duty shall be a Stamp Duty collected and recovered in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

CLAUSE 4.—(Collection and Recovery of Duty in Cases of Transfers and Leases.)
(1) On any transfer on sale of any land or interest in land, or on the grant of any lease of any land for a term exceeding fourteen years, Increment Value Duty shall be collected on the instrument by means of which the transfer or the lease is effected or agreed to be effected, and shall be assessed by the Commissioners and paid by the transferor or lessor, as the case may be.
(2) It shall be the duty of [every] the transferor or lessor, on the occasion of any transfer on sale of any land or interest in land or on the grant of any lease of any land for a term exceeding fourteen years [in cases where Increment Value Duty is due], to present to the Commissioners, in accordance with regulations made by them, any such instrument or reasonable particulars thereof for the purpose of the assessment of duty thereon, and if the transferor or lessor fails to comply with this provision he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [of] ten pounds, with a right to appeal to quarter sessions, and to pay interest at the rate of five per cent. per annum on any duty ultimately payable by him as from the date on which the instrument has been executed.
(3) Any such instrument shall not, for the purposes of section (fourteen) of the Stamp Act, 1891, and notwithstanding anything in section twelve of that Act, be deemed to be duly stamped unless it is stamped—

(a) either with a stamp denoting that the Increment Value Duty has been assessed by the Commissioners and paid in accordance with the assessment; or

(b) with a stamp denoting that all particulars have been delivered to the Commissioners which, in their opinion, are necessary for the purpose of enabling them to assess the duty, and that security has been given for the payment of duty in any case where the Commissioners have required security; or

(c) with a stamp d(noting that upon the occasion in question no Increment Duty was payable;

37
but where an instrument is so stamped, it shall, notwithstanding any objection relating to the Increment Value Duty, be deemed to be duly stamped so far as respects that duty.
(4) Any duty assessed by the Commissioners under this section shall be a debt due to the Crown from the transferor or lessor, as the case may be, and for the purpose of calculating the amount of Increment Value Duty due on any subsequent occasion shall be deemed to have been paid.
(5) Regulations may be made by the Commissioners with respect to the mode in which any instrument is to be presented to them in order to be dealt with under this section, and for the payment of any Increment Value Duty by instalments in the case of any lease or transfer on sale where the consideration is in the form of a periodical payment, and the Commissioners shall deal with any instrument presented to them and allow payment by instalments in accordance with those regulations. The, regulations shall provide that where the duty due on the, grant of a lease is payable by instalments, and the lease is determined before all such instalments have fallen due, the instalments which have not fallen due shall be remitted, and that in that case the amount of duty which, under this section, is deemed to have been paid shall be reduced by the amount of the instalments so remitted.
(6) In any case where Increment Duty shall have been paid under the provisions of this section, but the transaction in respect of which the duty shall have been paid was subsequently not carried into execution, the duty shall be returned to the transferor or lessor on his making application to the Commissioners in accordance with regulations to be made by them under the provisions of sub-section five thereof.
(7) Where any agreement for a transfer or agreement for a lease is stamped in accordance with this section, it shall not be necessary to stamp any conveyance, assignment, or lease made subsequently to and in conformity with the agreement.

CLAUSE 5.—(Collection and Recovery of Duty in Case of Death.)
The provisions as to the assessment, collection, and recovery of Estate Duty under the Finance Act, 1894, shall apply as if Increment Value Duty were in addition to the Estate Duty; but where any interest in land in respect of which Incre-
38
ment Value Duty is payable is property passing to the personal representative as such, the duty shall be payable out of that interest in land in exoneration of the rest of the deceased's estate, and shall be collected upon an account to be delivered by the personal representative, setting forth the particulars of the increment value in respect of the property.
Provided that in respect of all property of the deceased, other than that assessed to Increment Value Duty, the Crown shall, as a creditor in respect of such Increment Value Duty, rank pari passu with the oilier creditors of the deceased.

CLAUSE 6.—(Collection and Recovery of Duty in Case of Property held by Bodies Corporate or Unincorporate.)
(1) Where land or any interest in land is held by any body corporate or by any body unincorporate as denned by section 12 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, the occasions on which Increment Value Duty is due shall be the fifth day of April in the year nineteen hundred and fourteen and in every subsequent fifteenth year.
(2) The account to be delivered under section 15 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, shall, in the case of the account to be delivered in the year 1914 and in every subsequent 15th year, contain an account of the increment value of the land, as on the preceding 5th day of April (calculated, in cases where an interest in the land only is held, in accordance with the value of the interest), and that section shall apply for the purpose of Increment Value Duty, whether the body corporate or unincorporate are chargeable with duty under Part II. of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, or not.
(3) The provisions of sections 13 to 18, of sub-section (1) of section 19, and of section 20 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885 (with the exception of any provisions relating to appeals), shall have effect for the purpose of the assessment and recovery of Increment Value Duty as they have effect for the purpose of the duty charged under section 11 of that Act:
Provided that Increment Value Duty may, if the body corporate or unincorporate chargeable therewith so desire, be paid by 15 equal yearly instalments, and the first instalment shall be due immediately after the assessment of the duty.

39
Any part of any duty so payable by instalments may be paid up at any time.
(4) Any Increment Value Duty assessed by the Commissioners on an account delivered in accordance with this section shall, for the purpose of determining the amount of Increment Value Duty due on any occasion, be deemed to have been paid.
(5) Nothing in this section shall affect the collection of Increment Value Duty on the occasion of the grant of any lease or the transfer on sale of any land or interest in land by a body corporate or unincorporate.
Mr. JOYNSON HICKSmoved, in section (1), after the words "the occasions on which Increment Value Duty is due shall," to insert the words "except in the case of reversionary interests in respect of which Increment Duty shall not be payable until the same reversion falls into possession." This clause relates to duty payable every 15 years by bodies corporate or unincorporate, which include such bodies as insurance companies, who retain these reversions as a matter of business until the time comes for them to fall into possession. The clause is inserted to cover the duty that would be payable under Clause 5, if the owner were an individual rather than a body corporate. Increment Duty is there payable on the death of any holder, and in accordance with the provisions of the Finance Act, 1894. Under that Act, Estate Duty is payable on a reversion, bit by section 7 (6), where the estate of any deceased person includes an interest in expectancy, there is an option to pay the duty upon that reversion at once or when the reversion falls into possession. If an individual held the reversion to which this clause applies, he would clearly be entitled to postpone payment of the Increment Duty until the reversion fell into possession, and I submit that exactly the same reasoning applies to the case of a corporate body. It would be quite unfair to enact that when an individual holds a reversion he shall have the option of postponing payment of Increment Duty until the reversion falls into possession; but that a body corporate, who may be equally unable to raise the necessary funds until the reversion falls into possession, shall pay at stated times, although the reversion may not fall into possession for possibly 40 years. I submit that this is a reasonable Amendment, and one which, since it will not harm their scheme, the Government might well accept.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson): I think the hon. Member is mistaken in saying that in the case he puts to me an individual would not have to pay Increment Duty upon a reversion. Under section 27 an interest in land is held to include an interest expectant on the determination of a lease, but no other interest in expectancy; and by section 2 any interest in land is made the occasion for the collection of duty. So that an individual, if he transferred a reversion expectant on the determination of a lease, would thereby give rise to an occasion for the collection of Increment Duty. All that the section with which we are now concerned does is to apply exactly the same principle, neither more nor less, to a corporation, and if the Amendment were carried it would actually put corporations on a different basis from that occupied by an individual. Both corporations and individuals, if they part with a reversion expectant on the determination of a lease, give rise to an occasion for the collection of Increment Duty, and no other interest in the nature of an expectancy does. I think the hon. Member will agree that the Bill had better be kept on the same footing for both corporations and individuals.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is it quite clear that in the case not merely of a transfer, but of death, an individual holding a reversionary interest in land is bound then and there to pay Increment Duty upon that reversion? Is he not entitled, under Section 5 of the Finance Act, 1894, to postpone payment until the reversion falls into possession?
Sir W. ROBSON: He has just the same powers and privileges in regard to Increment Value Duty as in regard to the payment of estate duties.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Then I think I am right. I am simply desirous of putting corporations on the same basis as individuals. It is clear that in the case of a transfer they are the same now; but if an individual holding a reversionary interest on the determination of a lease dies, his representatives have a right, under Section 5 of the Finance Act, 1894, equally as if it were Estate Duty, to postpone payment of Increment Duty until the reversion falls into possession.
Sir W. ROBSON: Under what section of the Finance Act?
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Section (6), sub-section (7), of the Finance Act, 1894

41
"…… or when the interest falls into possession." That is clear. The individual or his representatives have a right to postpone the payment of the Estate Duty until the interest falls into possession.
Sir W. ROBSON: I do not think there is any right to postpone. The matter is very technical, and we had a discussion on a previous occasion with regard to this very matter. Section 8, sub-section 4, shows that you are not dealing with properties for which the executor is accountable, as he is for the reversionary interest. Subsection 6 of section 7 has no application to that particular clause. I am quite clear about it.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks he is right—though with the very greatest deference and humility I rather think I am right—I will withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, that if I turn out to be right he will put the Amendment in on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. JAMES HOPE (on behalf of Mr. Cave)moved to leave out the word "fourteen" ["In the year nineteen hundred and fourteen"] and to insert "twenty-four." I understand the whole principle of the Government's dealing with the corporations is that the duty should be payable every 15 years. Therefore, I cannot understand why they should not give them the benefit of the first 15 years' run. It is obvious that the Government are not able to fix on the corporations the same rule as that which applies to individuals, whereby they may become liable for duty at once. They have departed from that rule and substituted a certain period of time, a period which I suppose is intended to be half an average generation. I do not know exactly on what principle they have adopted that, but I submit that they ought to give the corporations the benefit of that 15 years from the first. I do not think anything has been said by the Government in the earlier Divisions to explain why they do not give them this benefit.
Mr. MASTERMAN: This is not a controversial point, but the hon. Member asks for an explanation as to why the Government have made this particular time. The whole intention of this clause, as I said to the Committee when dealing with the first clause, is to put the corporations, as far as possible, in the same position as private
42
individuals The time originally chosen for dealing with the corporations in order to make a similar amount of time to that of a generation in the Finance Act was 30 years. Subsequent research has largely proved that that time is too long, and that probably the duration of the period between one Death Duty and another is something more like 24 years. Having accepted the period previously at 30 years, we accept now that a corporation should be assessed for Increment Duty once every 15 years, because as the hon. Member will see a corporation is put in a different position from the owner in dealing with the payment of Increment Duty. The owner pays Increment Duty at the time of his death, either in cash, or what is an equivalent, cash in instalments with interest; a corporation, though it is assessed at a certain period, pays during the 15 years that succeed in regular yearly payments. If my hon. Friend will work out the figures he will see that the corporation is really in a parallel position to the individual. The average Increment Duty to be paid by the individual is a 15 years' average, and the corporation is paying during 15 years. That is, perhaps, a little wide of the particular Amendment under discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am sorry, but as that is non-controversial, I thought I might give that explanation in connection with the next Amendment. Because 30 years appeared to be an over-estimate, and we should rather take 24 years—the time of expectancy between one death and another—we have fixed, not upon 7½ years, which is not a very convenient number, but upon five years—for six would be a little in excess of what would be justifiable—for the purpose of the first valuation.
Mr. E. G. PRETYMAN: I am afraid it is not entirely so uncontroversial a matter as the hon. Gentleman supposes. He forgets the parallel Estate Duty. There is consequently a very great difference in the two cases. In the case of the Estate Duty, that duty, not paid at the time, has escaped altogether. In the case of the Increment Value Duty, if not paid, it is only accumulating, and I may point out— and we are obliged to repeat this again and again—that it is this perpetual expense, trouble, and continuous valuation that we so strongly object to in this case. I do not propose to subscribe to all the hon. Gentleman said. I do not for the purpose of my argument think it is necessary to go into it. What I do wish to say

43
is that in this case there is no necessity to take the duty on these frequent occasions, because it is cumulative, and is not like the Death Duty. We ought in a case like this to endeavour to some extent to save the individual subject as much as possible. The object of the Crown is not to have the shortest possible intervals for the calculations of the increment, but as long intervals as it is possible without loss to the Crown. What I venture to suggest that those responsible for the Bill have to show to the Committee is, not how these calculations may or may not correspond with the calculations made for the Death Duties, but that a lengthening of the period as suggested by the Amendment would involve a serious loss to the Crown. So far no attempt has been made to show that.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can give any defence at all. Five years is fixed, because if you reduce the period in the Finance Act the net result will come out at 7½ years or six years, and therefore the Government make it five. It is a most extraordinary argument. I only rose because the hon. Gentleman addressed his argument to my Amendment, and not to the Amendment on the Paper, and I was rather afraid my Amendment might be ruled out of order when it was reached on the Notice Paper. I ask the Government most earnestly whether this period of 15 years can be accepted as a fair one to companies and corporations? Is it fair that large industrial companies in the country who are brought under this provision should be compelled to make this valuation every 15 years? Large companies such as the great iron and steel works in the country have not only large quantities of land, but of minerals also, and to compel them to have periodic valuations at such very short periods would be quite unreasonable. No one can possibly say 15 years is equivalent to a generation. I think we are justified in saying that these terms should be enlarged because of the extraordinary inconvenience and expense which would be put upon corporations on account of these valuations of which we have learned so very little up to the present. There is another class of persons alluded to in these Debates—the clergy of the country, who, I believe, are still considered as coming in under this clause. I think it would be very unreasonable to put upon the clergy the expense of having a valuation
44
every 15 years. Therefore I hope that before we arrive at my Amendment the Government will consider the expediency of giving us some enlargement beyond the terms of the Bill.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The Increment Duty is recognised as an entirely new tax. If this tax is imposed in the manner provided in the Bill corporations will be called upon in 1914 to pay the first Increment Duty. That means that this clause will have a retrospective effect. If in 1914 the first Increment Duty will have to be paid that means that the Increment Duty will be retrospective for the past 10' years, otherwise there is no justification for the Government to say that at the end of five years' time they are to obtain the first Increment Duty. The individual has to take his chance. If he dies within the period of 15 years Increment Duty has to be paid. I think the Government could very easily give this concession that from whatever date or period the time is established it should correspond with a generation whether 15 or 20 years. I think that would meet the idea of fairness and equity to all parties concerned. If this date of 1914 was moved up, and the first period fixed at 15 or 20 years as the date when Increment Duty should be collected, I think that would be much more just.
Viscount MORPETH: The hon. Member who spoke on behalf of the Government assured us there was no principle in this Amendment, and then he proceeded to enumerate a number of principles which he brushed aside because he said they were inconvenient. Inconvenient to whom? To the Government or to the taxpayer? If they are inconvenient to the Government surely it is only a matter of calculation. It is rather an extraordinary thing that the Government should put forward the inconvenience to the taxpayer as any part of the consideration to be advanced under this Bill, because quite apart from the question of money, the Bill itself bristles with inconveniences to the taxpayer. If it is only a question of inconvenience to the Government, I suggest to them that the taxpayer would rather pay with some slight inconvenience of arithmetic and calculation at the further period of 7½ years, which at any rate is a gain of 2½ years. It seems to me that we have no right whatever to overtax corporations because of some little inconvenience of the Treasury, and if that is the only argument that the Government can put forward it is a very poor one.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I tried to understand the Under-Secretary, but I did not succeed. I am quite sure it was not his fault; perhaps it was due to the intricacy of the subject. I failed altogether to understand some of the reasons by which the Government arrived at this period of five years. As I understood the hon. Member, he treated bodies corporate and unin-corporate, which do not die in the same way as individuals, who do die. He said we have assumed that the average life of a generation is thirty years. We assume that individuals will pay once in 30 years, and the hon. Gentleman went on to say that that being so we arrive at 15 years as the period for corporations. I do not understand why, if an individual lives and enjoys his property 30 years, the corporation period is only to be for 15 years. The hon. Gentleman explained he arrived at 15 years because the individual lives 30 years. I confess I do not see any connection between the two. What we are specially concerned with on this occasion is what should be the first occasion on which the payments should take place. The hon. Gentleman, having arrived at 15 years, told us the half of 15 years is 7½ years, and as that is a complicated and difficult figure which may embarrass gentlemen so simple-minded as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, we will substitute an easy figure such as five years for the complicated figure of 7½ years. The argument does not seem to me to explain itself, or, indeed, to be any argument at all. The hon. Gentleman said whereas the individual has to pay cash down the corporation may spread its payment over the period of years. The individual, if he does not pay cash down, will be charged interest from the date on which the tax accrued, but the corporation, which spreads itself over 15 years, will be charged no interest at all. That is in favour of the corporation, and I admit that it is just to ask some shorter period from the corporation than the individual. But while making allowance for that, I would set against it the inconvenience and cost involved to the corporation in having these frequent valuations. The Government has an absolute security, be the period long or short, for their money. In these circumstances, I agree with my hon. Friends as to the desirability of giving bodies corporate or un-incorporate the longest period possible in order to save them that expense, which brings in no additional money to the Exchequer. But I only rose in order to ask the Under-Secretary for the Home Office whether he will make it clear to me why,
46
the life of an individual being 30 years, it becomes proper to take 15 years in the case of a body corporate or unincorporate, and why, if it becomes proper to take 15 years, it should be proper to take half that time as the period for the first valuation?
Mr. MASTERMAN: I am sorry that I was so obscure. In the case of the individual, the first case which has been put forward, we are only dealing with an expectancy. The corporation for certain will have to be assessed for the tax in 1914. We are dealing with the probability of the life in the case of the Death Duties, and therefore a good many estates will come under Increment Tax between the passing of the Act and the year 1914, and will all come in under the new duties, but no corporation will pay duties before 1914.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The 30 years is the average. The hon. Gentleman has first taken the average, and then says all people would not reach that average, and he has tried to strike the average by halving his former average.
Mr. MASTERMAN: I am dealing now with how we get down to 15 years. Take the simplest case that where the increment is a continual increment. We allow 30 years as the probable time of death; the increment which is paid then is increment which has been accruing all that time. What I want to point out is that the average of that increment is to be found in the fifteenth year. Take increment which, say, is started in 1900, and goes on to 1930. But a very small amount of increment will have accrued in the year 1901, and what he is really paying is the average increment in 1915, that is the 15 years' period. Is that clear? [Cries of "No."] If I have not made myself clear, I am afraid I must leave it to somebody else to make it clear. I think the right hon. Gentleman is on the strongest ground in criticising the five years' period. On the system which I have explained it would seem as if it ought to be 7½ years, but, as we are advised by experts, 30 years was considerably too long a period for taxes, and probably the life of an estate is more nearly 20 years than 30 years.
Mr. PRETYMAN: That makes the matter much more serious.
Mr. MASTERMAN: I am only trying to take the two cases. Suppose you take 20 years, five years is an exact proportion of that. It is no great advantage to corpora-

47
tions to be assessed in 1915 or 1914. They will proceed to pay one-fifteenth of the increment during each year, and the operation will not be complete until 1930.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This is a very difficult matter, but I think I understand the lion. Member's meaning up to a certain point. I think he is mistaken in taking half the period which he assumes to be the life of the individual. I think it complicates matters if we introduce 24 years. If the Government say henceforth we will take 24 years to be the life of the individual, I shall be perfectly ready to conform my argument to that. I think this proves that the Death Duties, even as imposed by Sir William Harcourt, are a much more onerous charge than Sir William anticipated. It will, however, be time enough to discuss the bearing of those points when we reach that portion of the clause which deals with those duties. Let me assume that 30 years is the undisputed average for the individual, and it is on that assumption we are now arguing. The natural thing would be to fix 30 years for the body corporate or unin-corporate. The hon. Gentleman takes 15 years because he says that would be the average, but he forgets that 30 years is itself the average. Some people die at less than one year and some enjoy succession for 50 or 60 years, but 30 years is the average. The Government treat that as if it was the average, and then they halve it. If the hon. Gentleman will take as much trouble to understand my argument as I have taken to understand his, I think he will begin to feel that my argument has something in it, and that the Government are working upon a mistaken basis. But, assuming the Government are right, why do you again halve the 15 years? Let us assume that 15 years is the proper period for bodies corporate or unincorporate. Why do you halve the half of the average again?
Mr. MASTERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is assuming that no one dies.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I assume that people die at the same rate after this Budget as they did before, it. It has been stated that whether a man lives or dies the Government are going to get more out of him, and while there are clauses in this Bill which might induce a man to live there are others which might induce him to die. I assume some will die in the first year, and some will
48
live longer than the average. Some people will die much earlier than the average, and some will live much longer. Why are you to take a half or less than a quarter of the average instead of the average itself as a period upon which corporations ought to pay? I do not think I can make the point any clearer. Although I think I understand what has induced the Government to frame the Bill in this way, I confess that I cannot see any justification for it.
Sir W. ROBSON: The right hon. Gentleman wishes to know why, if the average in the case of an individual is once in 30 years, we should make a corporation pay once in 15 years. The principle is that we reckon each individual, to use an Hiber-nianism, will die once in 30 years. If he pays his increment then in a lump sum, he will, in fact, pay each of the preceding 30 years' income on an average of 15 years after the increment accrues. For the last 15 years it is clear that each year's increment is paid at a less average. The first year goes 29 years back, and that is paid 29 years after the increment accrues. He pays the next year's increment 28 years after it has accrued, the next 27, and so on down to 15 years. Then at 15 years he begins to pay less, so that if you average all these payments, he pays on the average each year's increment 15 years after it accrues, and that has been taken by way of an average for corporations. We have said that it is to the interest of a corporation that it should begin to clear off its increment fairly early, and, therefore, we take five years. Following the strict analogy of the Death Duties, we ought, perhaps, to have taken six years, and taken 24 years instead of 30 as the proper average. That gives us a certain mathematical reason for selecting five years. I think it is better, when the valuation is complete in 1909, that the increment should be cleared off at an early date.
Mr. GEORGE CAVE: I think I appreciate the Attorney-General's points. Take a generation as 30 years. The individual pays at the end of 30 years. A corporation has to pay in the middle of 30 years, but let us see what the consequence is. The first corporation payment ought to be made in the middle of the first 30 years—that is, after 15 years. Let us look into the matter a little further. It follows equally clearly that the second payment ought to be paid

49
in the middle of the second 30 years—that is, 45 years from now. You ought to begin at 15 years, and proceed by periods of 30 years. The Attorney-General has made this point so clear that it has completely upset his own Bill. Assuming he is right that the first payment ought to be made after 15 years, surely, in face of that, this cutting of the first division into something nearly half is perfectly without justification. He takes half of 15 years, and, for some reason, places it at five years. Assuming his arithmetic to be right, the hon. and learned Gentleman does not tell us why he does it. I think this Amendment has led to a very useful discussion, and no kind of answer has been given to it.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I should like to ask the Government whether they take their basis of the length of life as 30 years or 24 years? First they argue it on the 30 years' basis, and, taking half that, they make it 15. Then they halve that, and place it at seven and a half, and, by making a sort of round shot, they arrive at five years. When the point has been argued they say
24 years is the right basis, and you get the quarter of this as six years. As there is only one year difference between this six years and five, the Government say they will stick to five years. I want to know if the Government think the average chance of life is 24 years or 30 years? Possibly the effect of the Budget may be to depreciate it to 24 years.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: The proposal of the Government does not in any way ease the company, but, on the contrary, it involves them in a valuation at the end of live years for what the Government admit is an extremely small advantage. I think the Attorney-General might agree to put in some figure which will not involve companies in a valuation at the end of five years with very little advantage to the State.
Question put, "That the word 'fourteen' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 71.

Division No. 311.]

AYES.

[4.45 p.m.

Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hedges, A. Paget

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T C. R.

Cross, Alexander

Henry, Charles S.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cullinan, J.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Alden, Percy

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Ambrose, Robert

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Astbury, John Meir

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Delany, William

Hogan, Michael

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

Horniman, Emslie John

Barker, Sir John

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Donelan, Captain A.

Idris, T. H. W.

Barnes, G. N.

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Beale, W. P.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Beauchamp, E.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Joyce, Michael

Beck, A. Cecil

Evans, Sir S. T.

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Everett, R. Lacey

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Fenwick, Charles

Laidlaw, Robert

Bennett, E. N.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Flynn, James Christopher

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Levy, Sir Maurice

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Black, Arthur W.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lundon, T.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Bowerman, C. W.

Ginnell, L.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Bryce, J. Annan

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Macpherson, J. T.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Grant, Corrie

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Byles, William Pollard

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Cameron, Robert

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Chance, Frederick William

Halpin, J.

M'Micking, Major G.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Maddison, Frederick

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Marnham, F. J.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Massie, J.

Cleland, J. W.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Clough, William

Harmsworth R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hart-Davies, T.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Mooney, J. J.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morrell, Philip

Cooper, G. J.

Hayden, John Patrick

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Napier, T. B.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Nicholls, George

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Tomkinson, James

Nolan, Joseph

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Toulmin, George

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Rowlands, J.

Verney, F. W.

Nussey, Sir Willans

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Walsh, Stephen

Nuttall, Harry

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Walton, Joseph

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wardle, George J.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Sears, J. E.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Seely, Colonel

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

O'Dowd, John

Shackleton, David James

Watt, Henry A.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Sheehy, David

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Slean, Thomas Henry

Weir, James Galloway

Parker, James (Halifax)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Whitbread, S. Howard

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Snowden, P.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Soares, Ernest J.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Stanger, H. Y.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Williamson, Sir A.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Reddy, M.

Summerbell, T.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Sutherland, J. E.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Rees, J. D.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Craik, Sir Henry

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Newdegate, F. A.

Balcarres, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Baldwin, Stanley

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Percy, Earl

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Pretyman, E. G.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fell, Arthur

Radford, G. H.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Forster, Henry William

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gardner, Ernest

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bertram, Julius

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Renton, Leslie

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bowles, G. Stewart

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hamilton, Marquess of

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Bull, Sir William James

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Stanier, Seville

Carlile, E. Hildred

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Hills, J. W.

Valentia, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

Joynson-Hicks, William

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Cave, George

Kerry, Earl of

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Winterton, Earl

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Clive, Percy Archer

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. James Hope and Mr. Leverton

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Morpeth, Viscount

Harris.

Mr. EVELYN CECILmoved in section (1) to leave out "fifteenth" ["and in every fifteenth year"]and to insert thirtieth."
The arguments used Attorney-General have proved that I have infinitely greater justification for moving this before. If I understood his arguments correctly, there is every reason for the Government giving way on this Amendment and substituting every 30 years as the future interval at which corporations and similar bodies should pay the Increment Duty for the 15 years proposed in the Bill. The proper arrangement, according to the Attorney-General's
52
own arguments, would be that we should fix 15 years hence as the time at which corporations ought, in the first instance, to pay Increment Duty, and that after that they should pay every 30 years. Thirty years is the average of a generation, and I do not understand why corporations are to be treated less favourably than the average individual. It is not as if individuals necessarily die every 30 years. There are some who live a longer period and there are some who live a shorter period, but the general average hitherto has always been accepted to be about 30 or 33 years. If that be the average as regards individuals, I maintain that corporations and corporate bodies

53
ought to be treated on a similar plane. I think, without further elaboration of the figures, it is quite sufficient to appeal to the Attorney-General's arguments on the last Amendment, and to press the fact that corporations and individuals ought to be treated on the same basis. I beg to move that 30 years be substituted as the interval between the two dates when Increment Duty is to be charged instead of 15 years.
Mr. MASTERMAN: I should have thought this point was settled by the long arguments we have already had.
Mr. EVELYN CECIL: This is the future.
Mr. MASTERMAN: All the arguments on the last Amendment were directed to this point, and we made it clear that a corporation would get an enormous ad-vantage over an individual in the fact that the corporation payment is spread over 15 years. Therefore, if the increment commences, say, in 1914, the last payment will only be paid in 1929. That is not the case with the individual. If any of it is not paid for the moment, it has to be paid with interest, which is equivalent to payment at the moment. I do not think the hon. Member proposes to withdraw the boon we are giving to corporations of payment spread over 15 years, or that he wishes interest to be charged to corporations during those 15 years. In those circumstances, corporations would be deprived altogether of their favourable position compared with individuals.
Mr. EVELYN CECIL: The hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) pointed out that the proper arrangement was to begin at the end of 15 years, and then to go on at intervals of 30 years. That argument has not been answered.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It is expressly provided in section (5) that nothing in the clause is to affect the collection of Increment Value Duty on the grant of a lease or on the transfer on sale of any land or interest in land by a body corporate or unincorporate. The only other occasion of collection is death, and what you have to do is to look at the question of death when you are comparing the case of an individual with that of a corporation; and, as an ordinary generation is somewhere between 30 and 36 years, it is impossible to say, simply comparing the two on the one point of death, that it is fair to make corporations pay at the end of every 15 years. Of course, there is this point also: If you make it 15 years instead
54
of 30, as in the Bill, the chances are that the Revenue will not get the income which it otherwise might. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day, in reply to a deputation, gave certain facts. Some trouble has been taken to average the number of title deeds of pieces of land, and it has been found that the average life of a 14 years' lease is just under 10 years. On an average of 30 years the Increment Duty will become payable by a private individual in 10 years. If you are going to introduce 15 years as the line for the purposes of a company you will considerably reduce the average for the ownership by companies. As a matter of common sense you will reduce it from 10 years to eight years, and in the case of companies is it reasonable to expect more than 10 per cent, increment on land in eight years? I do not think it is. This Bill as it stands provides carefully that corporations shall not pay an increment at all. You are also making it very difficult for them, because at repeated intervals you are putting them to considerable trouble, inconvenience and annoyance in preparing returns without doing any real good. You are not taking the best steps possible to secure the payment of duty to the same extent as is demanded of private individuals. There is no reason whatever for treating a company differently from private individuals. But by this you are going to collect it differently on transfer and on lease.
Mr. J. BERTRAM: I am in favour of 15 years as against 30. If corporations are to render these accounts to Somerset House every thirtieth year instead of every fifteenth year, it will involve very much heavier work on the officials. I certainly think the shorter period a much more reasonable arrangement.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I do not think the arguments could have been put better than they were by the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave). The Government, in their defence, put considerable stress on the question of instalments. But after all, the question of instalments is very much one of convenience to the persons paying the tax. In this matter of convenience, too, the taxpayer should have precedence in consideration before the official.
Question put, "That the word fifteenth stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 71.

Division No. 312.]

AYES.

[5.9 p.m.

Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

Ginnell, L.

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Grant, Corrie

O'Dowd, John

Alden, Percy

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Ambrose, Robert

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Astbury, John Meir

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Atherley-Jones, L.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Barker, Sir John

Hart-Davies, T.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Reddy, M.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Barnes, G. N.

Hayden, John Patrick

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Beale, W. P.

Hedges, A. Paget

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Beauchamp, E.

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Beck, A. Cecil

Henry, Charles S.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Bellairs, Carlyon

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Bertram, Julius

Hobart, Sir Robert

Rowlands, J.

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Hogan, Michael

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Holland, Sir William Henry

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Black, Arthur W.

Horniman, Emslie John

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Sears, J. E.

Bowerman, C. W.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Shackleton, David James

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Bryce, J. Annan

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Burke, E. Haviland

Joyce, Michael

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Snowden, P.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Kekewich, Sir George

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Soares, Ernest J.

Byles, William Pollard

Laidlaw, Robert

Stanger, H. Y.

Cameron, Robert

Lambert, George

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Summerbell, T.

Cleland, J. W.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Sutherland, J. E.

Clough, William

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Clynes, J. R.

Lundon, T.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lyell, Charles Henry

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Cooper, G. J.

Macpherson, J. T.

Thomasson, Franklin

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Tomkinson, James

Crean, Eugene

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Toulmin, George

Cross, Alexander

M'Micking, Major G.

Verney, F. W.

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Maddison, Frederick

Walsh, Stephen

Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Walton, Joseph

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Marrham, F. J.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Delany, William

Massie, J.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Watt, Henry A.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Menzies, Sir Walter

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Doneian, Captain A.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Weir, James Galloway

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Morrell, Philip

Whitbread, S. Howard

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Evans, Sir S. T.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Everett, R. Lacey

Nanier, T. B.

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Fenwick, Charles

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Williamson, Sir A.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Flynn, James Christopher

Nolan, Joseph

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Nussey, Sir Willans

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Nuttall, Harry

Gibb, James (Harrow)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Bowles, G. Stewart

Balcarres, Lord

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Baldwin, Stanley

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Bull, Sir William James

56

57

Carlile, E. Hildred

Harris, Frederick, Leverton

Radford, G. H.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Castlereagh Viscount

Heaton, John Henniker

Renton, Leslie

Cave, George

Hill, Sir Clement

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hills, J. W.

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Chaplain, Rt. Hon. Henry

Joynson-Hicks, William

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Clive, Percy Archer

Kerry, Earl of

Stanier, Beville

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Valentia, Viscount

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent Mid)

Craik, Sir Henry

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Winterton, Earl

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Woiff, Gustav Wilheim

Faber, George Denison (York)

Morpeth, Viscount

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Fell, Arthur

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Forster, Henry William

Newdegate, F. A.

Gardner, Ernest

Percy, Earl

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Evelyn Cecil and Mr. Laurence

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Hamilton, Marquess of

Pretyman, E. G.

Hardy.

Mr. PRETYMANmoved, at the end of section (1) to add, "except upon land, or any interest in land in respect of which there has been an occasion on which Increment Value Duty has been due, under Clause 4 of this Act, within the preceding 15 years."
The Amendment which I propose is rather of the same kind as that which has already been discussed. I will not repeat the arguments already used, but I will point out that in dealing with corporations you are dealing with two kinds of property—one the property which they occupy, and the other the property in which they deal, and there is very considerable difference between the two. In regard to the property which they occupy for the purposes of their businesses or trade, as these corporations do not die, it is perfectly true that no duty at all will be leviable upon it. On that kind of property which they occupy for the purposes of their business it is obvious that if there is to be Increment Duty at all, it must be at an interval. In regard to property in which they deal, land, it is obvious that they must pay when it is transferred, and it does appear unnecessary that where there has been a transaction within the 15 years, within the period between the two charges of duty, which we have just imposed under section? of this clause—that where there has been a case in which a valuation has been sent in and a calculation made since the last occasion when Increment Duty became payable—it does seem unnecessary to again charge them at the statutory period. The Attorney-General will see that the effect of my Amendment will be that when an occasion arises in the sense which we have just passed, in which the corporation would have to pay Increment Value Duty, they would have to state that
58
they had paid since the preceding occasion, so that they will be exempt in regard to property in which they dealt. This will apply to cases in which they lease land, because, of course, if they have sold the property, they cannot have any more liability in regard to it. It is obvious that if a corporation has alienated a portion of its property by sale, they will come under section (5) of this clause, and they will have had to pay the duty, but this provision does affect and very seriously affect the cases, which are numerous, where a corporation grants a lease, or where a corporation has had the reversion of a lease to call in, and owing to that fact has had within one year or two years, or some period very much less than 15 years, actually to have its property valued and have paid the duty. In those circumstances it does seem unnecessary to put them to that expense again.
I will add a further argument, which I think has some little weight. Where a private individual is being assessed it has been suggested from the Government Bench that he may, and sometimes will, make a rough-and-ready valuation. He may have somebody to do the work for him; he is the only person affected, and the consequence rests upon him as to the class of valuation he chooses to make. In the case of a corporation, however, they are obviously responsible to their shareholders, or if they are corporate bodies they are responsible to other people, and it is clear that a valuation made for the purpose of paying duty in every case must be a valuation which can be supported by professional opinion of those who are not in their employment, and it must be a valuation which they can show to their shareholders and to the public, and this valuation upon which they pay duty must be a responsible valuation which can be

59
substantially supported. A valuation of this character must be expensive and costly, and that the Government should compel them, at such frequent intervals, to make it seems quite unnecessary. Meanwhile the Increment Duty will be piling up. There will be no loss to the Government and no permanent exemption, unless they can show that they have paid the duty within the period between the occasions stated, but under this section they will still be liable, and I would suggest to the hon and learned Attorney-General that ha might usefully accept this Amendment, and save a great deal of expense to the subject, while he would incur very little loss to the State.
Sir WILLIAM ROBSON: The hon. Gentleman kindly gave me a copy of this Amendment, and although the arguments which he has used in its favour have a good deal of force, they appear to me to tell against the Amendment, from the point of view of those who desire to favour corporations, because it is quite clear that as the Bill now stands we may have to take small increments. The Amendment suggested by the hon. Member, of course, does not refer to the case of sales, and we need not trouble about property which is sold. In the case of granting of a lease, the lease must be for more than 14 years, in order to constitute an occasion, and I think the occasions to which the hon. Gentlemen refers will be infrequent. Let us take a case. You have granted a lease; some lease has been transferred, and the result is an occasion has arisen and Increment Value Duty has been assessed. Shortly afterwards comes the end of the 15 years, and the hon. Member says is it fair that the corporation should he put to the inconvenience of having to give a fresh account?
Mr. PRETYMAN: Not necessarily shortly after, six or seven years.
Sir WILLIAM ROBSON: Then in that case there is a substantial increment. I was putting this in favour of the hon. Gentleman's argument. You get a fixed period for assessing the increment laid down, but a short time after comes an occasion for assessing the increment under Clause 4. If it does not come in a short time there is a fair possibility of an increment; if it does come in a short time there is another point of view from which to look at it. The corporation does not have put upon it the obligation of rendering
60
some entirely new account, which otherwise it would never have to render at all. Under the Act of 1885, and this is a most important thing to remember when measuring the inconvenience put upon corporations1—under the Act of 1885, in order to satisfy—
Mr. PRETYMAN: It is not the same thing. Corporations under the Act of 1885 are quite different people to those under this.
Sir WILLIAM ROBSON: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. They are not different people at all.
Mr. PRETYMAN: They are all ex-exempted under the Act of 1885.
Sir WILLIAM ROBSON: No; different kinds of property are exempted; but it is provided that any body corporate or un-incorporate, contemplated under that Act shall deliver or cause to be delivered the account which has been mentioned. I say that bodies corporate or unincorporate have to deliver an account which is equivalent to the Legacy and Succession Duty account. There are a great many exemptions which may apply to the property, but every body corporate has to deliver an account in order that the Corporation Duty may be assessed upon it. It has already to set forth the whole of its property during the year. The hon. Gentleman says, and says quite rightly, that that does not cover all corporations, and we are proposing to cover all corporations. That, again, only means that we are making them render an account which otherwise they would have to keep every year. Every corporation has to do for itself that which, under the Act of 1885, some corporations have to do. It has to make an account of the annual value of the income or profits that have accrued to the body during the year, and it is prudent and proper that in the case of all well-governed corporations there is an account which will comprise a valuation of its property. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that corporations do these things by experts, and they do them much more thoroughly than they are done by individuals. That is an argument in favour of the Government, rather than of the Amendment. A corporation year by year collects and system-atises all the particulars that we require, and all that they have to do is to render an account, which, it is shown, it is no serious inconvenience to do, under the circumstances. What benefit do they get

61
by it? They get the benefit of the 10 per cent, margin, within which no Increment Duty is assessed. Really the 10 per cent, margin is much more likely to be of benefit to them to a greater extent than the rendering of this account, which they have already to make in the ordinary course will be an inconvenience. I do not think we are putting any substantial inconvenience upon them. Surely they have—and must keep—an account of their affairs, almost identical to the account which is required, not exactly identical but almost identical. They must value their property in the ordinary way, and all they have to do is to make up the account, which will certainly not be a task of tremendous difficulty. Against that little additional trouble they will have the privilege of this 10 per cent, margin.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I think the Attorney-General after his speech can do nothing less than accept the Amendment, which he has only refused on two grounds, one being that these accounts have to be kept or rendered by every company.
Sir WILLIAM ROBSON: These accounts have to be kept, not by all companies, of course, but every corporation, covered by the Act of 1885, has to keep such accounts.
Mr. PRETYMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman is beginning to reduce his claims very considerably. The Attorney-General told us that every corporation has already to keep these accounts for the purpose of the Act of 1885.
Sir WILLIAM ROBSON: No; I did not say so. I said that every corporation had to keep such accounts not for the purpose of the Act of 1885. Some corporations have to keep them for the purposes of that Act, and other corporations would have to keep accounts of the same character as those kept for the purposes of the Act of 1885.
Mr. PRETYMAN: Is the argument reduced to this that every corporation has to keep accounts?
Sir WILLIAM ROBSON: Accounts exactly similar to those required by the Act of 1885.
Mr. PRETYMAN: It is very difficult to follow his argument, but the argument used as we understood it was that every corporation had to keep accounts under the Act of 1885. If that was not his argu-
62
ment, I do not know what was. He argued that they had to keep these accounts in any case.
Sir W. ROBSON: Certainly.
Mr. PRETYMAN: Then what does the argument amount to? For the purposes of his argument the hon. and learned Gentleman told us that these accounts had already to be kept. But by what companies? He must have been perfectly well aware that companies ordinarily carrying on trade or business are not affected at all by the Inland Revenue Act of 1885. It really is not fair to the Committee to use such an argument as that and cloud the issue by reference to that Act, as if it covered the same ground as this Bill. That Act only refers to a few companies. It is mainly concerned with city corporations and no others. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that this Act of 1885 really covers any larger area than that of city companies and other cognate bodies?
Sir W. ROBSON: I do not.
Mr. PRETYMAN: Does this Bill not cover the area of every company dealing in land throughout the Kingdom?
Sir W. ROBSON: Certainly.
Mr. PRETYMAN: Then where is the argument? It really is not fair to the Committee. If the hon. and learned Gentleman has not had time to study the Amendment, and desires it to be deferred, or if he has any argument to use against it, it is perfectly right and proper that we should be influenced by it, but it is not fair to use an argument of that kind which does not apply to the case at all. Every industrial company in the country which is concerned with, and which deals in, land, has two kinds of property, one which it occupies and one which it uses in the course of its business. That which it occupies will necessarily have to come under this clause in order that it should be liable to duty at all, and the other kind of property in which it deals will necessarily come under the purview of Clause 4, and will be liable to duty, and companies should not be put to the additional expense of preparing a valuation. By the hon. and learned Gentleman's own admission, none of these companies, except city companies, are affected by the Act of 1885 at all, and none of them have to prepare or keep accounts in any way concerned with that Act, therefore the whole

63
argument falls to the ground, and I do not see how he can refuse this Amendment. The proposal merely is that where the duty has been paid in the ordinary course on transfer or on a lease, a company shall not be obliged to again send in a valuation until a further statutory 'period has elapsed. It is a reasonable Amendment. There will be no loss of revenue, and there will be a great saving of trouble, and I really think after the defence which the hon. and learned Gentleman has made, which was no defence at all, and did not touch the subject in any way, he might accept the Amendment.
Mr. GEORGE CAVE: The Amendment I understand is this. If the period for the account arrives within 15 years after a payment already made on a lease, the account need not be rendered, the object of the clause being to avoid frequent valuation. If the hon and learned Gentleman had said 15 years is too long, and had conceded that if there had been a lease within ten or five years, there need not to a further valuation for 15 years I could have understood it. But he opposed the Amendment on totally different grounds, and said that corporations already have to make this valuation. For that purpose he used two arguments. He said corporations have to render a similar account under section 11 of the Act of 1885. Of course they have not to do so at all. Those which are subject to the Act have to render accounts simply of yearly income, or profits accruing during the year—a perfectly simple thing to do. They say they have received so much during the year, and they pay 5 per cent, on it. There is no valuation at all involved in that. The hon. and learned Gentleman sees that that does not cover the ground quite, and says even if they have not to render accounts they must keep accounts, that is, they must have on their books the value of all their property. Does he really suggest to the Committee that every corporation, even those which do not have to render accounts at all under the Act of 1885, value their land every year? Does a rector value his glebe every year? No one dreams of it. Friendly societies render no accounts under the Act of 1885. Surely they do not value their land every year. There is no reason why they should. The answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman is no answer at all. It is not the fact that if you excepted the corporations from the duty of valuing under this section they
64
would have to value in any case. Experience shows that this is not so. Suppose, say in 1913, there has been a lease of corporation land, and for that purpose a valuation has been made and duty assessed or paid. Then comes 1914, the first 15-yearly period. What we suggest is that as you have already paid in 1913 you ought not to have to value again in 1914. Probably no duty will result from the valuation, but for that very reason it is a burden on the corporation which it ought not to bear. The same thing might occur before every 15-yearly period under the section. It is a substantial grievance, and I think it might be easily met if the Government would say that if there has been a payment of duty within five years of the 15-yearly period they will dispense with valuation.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The point here has become important because of the way it has been dealt with by the Attorney-General. He seems to be under the impression that practically all corporations are bound to-day to keep certain accounts mentioned in the Customs Act of 1885, whereas I suppose the number of corporations will probably be about one in 20,000. It is a mere estimate, but when you compare all the railway companies, banks, friendly societies, religious institutions, all those bodies which are now to be taxed, with the two or three city companies and concerns such as the Zoological Society, which have no shareholders, and who are the only people within the purview of the Customs Act of 1885, it is obvious that any argument at all such as the Attorney-General tries to use to show that what is now required from a corporation is already provided for is absolutely futile. He says for their own purposes they have to keep accounts, and they must make a valuation every year. From the point of view of business knowledge the statement of the Attorney-General has completely taken my breath away. It is one of the most preposterous statements I have ever heard made in the House of Commons, and I am certain no business man on the other side would say it is the practice of railway or other limited companies to make a fresh valuation of their property every year. Ninety-nine companies out of a hundred put down from year to year the amount of their capital, represented by their assets, at the amount stated the year before, writing off a trifle for depreciation. They cannot alter the capital statement of accounts without

65
bringing themselves into difficulties, and they never dream of doing it. The capital account is always brought forward as from last year, with the solitary exception of purchases and sales. The occasions upon which any corporation makes a revaluation of the whole of its holding are very rare. I do not suppose they are oftener than the number of years which the Attorney-General has put in, 15 or 30, as the case may be. I have never seen it done in all the limited companies which have come under my own knowledge. When the Government are trying to meet criticisms of this kind, it is futile to make excuses such as those which have been made by way of answer to the Amendment. They are founded upon ignorance of the facts, and the arguments which result from that ignorance are so astonishing that any business man cannot help feeling that the whole support of the clause is baseless.
Mr. MORRELL: May I ask whether the Amendment is in order at all? We have decided that where land belongs to a corporation it should be subject to this duty, and I submit that the present section does not deal with the amount of the duty, but merely with the occasions on which it could be paid. The Amendment, I understand, is an attempt to take out certain land from the operation of section 1.
The CHAIRMAN: I do not think there is anything out of order in this. In every Bill you lay down certain principles and the clauses dealing with the carrying out of the machinery are nearly always subject to a process of whittling away what you lay down in the first clause. But in this case I do not think that whittling away is at all out of order.
Sir E. CARSON: Everyone on this side is extremely anxious to redeem the promise made by my right hon. Friend the other morning, but I submit that on a matter of this kind we ought to have some specific answer. I think it is very much more important than appears at first sight. We ought always to keep in view in every Amendment we get the opportunity of moving the object which we have in view in this Amendment, namely, to prevent unnecessary valuations at too frequent intervals, thereby putting the owner of land to the expense of valuations which will turn out to be absolutely useless, or which may be more expensive than the tax which is imposed. What my hon. and gallant Friend says is that if, in the case of a cor-
66
poration, you have had within fifteen years such a dealing with the land that Increment Duty has been already collected, you ought not, upon the expiration of the fifteen years, demand another valuation and the incurring of the expense which this clause as it stands will involve. That is not taking away anything. You take away, perhaps, a period of five, four, three, or two years, or even one year, and you tell the corporation, "Although you have paid Increment Duty, it may be last year, we will put you to the expense of another valuation, which you must present because the period of fifteen years is up." What is the answer to that? I gather that the Attorney-General says that the companies have to do something analogous to that already. I want the Committee to realise that under the Customs Act of 1885, which requires certain companies to make returns, there is nothing at all analogous to what is intended to be done by this section. In the first place, all that the companies do, under that Act, is to make a return of annual profits. I suppose everybody who is carrying on an honest business keeps some kind of an account of annual profits. What has that got to do with the making of these valuations? If the Committee will realise that all we are attempting to do is to save the expense of valuations, I think they will see the force of the arguments which have been put forward. I want the Committee to realise, and I hope the country will realise, the class of persons whom you are now drawing in for the first time and compelling to make these returns, and who will therefore have to pay the expense of the valuations. The Customs Act exempts seven different classes of people and corporations. Under this Bill one or two of them are brought in, and some are left out. This return will have to be made by every friendly society, every savings' bank, every insurance company, and every building society through the whole country. Many of these bodies, like friendly societies, provident insurance societies, and savings banks, are owners of very small holdings in land, and to call upon people who, two, three, four, or five years before have paid Increment Duty—because the end of the 15 years has come round—to make a valuation which must be sent to the Revenue Department, whether there is an increment or not on their land, is a gross hardship, which will be greatly resented by all those bodies. I have not at all exhausted the enumeration of them. You will have questions arising, not only

67
in the case of corporations and great bodies owning large amounts of land, but in the case of every single corporate or un-incorporate body which in any way has invested its funds, or its reserves, in any interest of any kind in land. I hope we will be able to get some statement from the Government as to how far they have made up their minds to allow these bodies to come within the exemptions in the Bill. Suffice it to say at present that you are putting on these bodies an enormous and unnecessary expense out of all proportion to the Increment Duty you will get. You are even doing it unnecessarily, because admittedly, if you accept the Amendment, you will not lose a shilling of the Increment Duty you are to get under the Bill.
Mr. E. H. CARLILE: The Attorney-General based his argument in opposition to my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment chiefly on the ground that it did not matter how often these corporations or companies were called upon for valuations, because they had them already in their books, and were obliged to keep them for the purposes of their business. I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that many of these corporations and companies allow their lands to stand in their books at a merely nominal figure. That happens in the case of a very large number of corporations. They steadily write down from year to year the value of their freehold property, because from time to time they move their whole interests from one place to another, in order to obtain the opportunity of carrying on their business under the most favourable circumstances. The result is that the valuation at which their land stands in their books is no sort of guide to what that land might realise if sold. Therefore the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman rests upon a false basis. It takes for granted that every corporation has a detailed statement in its books of the amount estimated as the equivalent of the value of the land. That is absolutely untrue. The nominal sum at which the freehold property stands in the books does not at all represent the actual value, so that if this Amendment is rejected, and these corporations and companies are put to the expense of revaluation at the short interval suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman a very heavy burden will be placed upon them—a burden which will be very unjust and inequitable.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am rather surprised that the Government do not attempt any answer to the arguments which have been pressed with such force by my hon. Friends. I do not think it facilitates progress to give no answer when such serious arguments are produced. I will state one more consideration why the Government should accept this Amendment. My hon. Friends have spoken of the interest of the taxpayer. I would point out that the Government in their own interest had better accept the Amendment. They have provided that where on the occasion of any valuation the increment is less than 10 per cent. the land shall be franked without payment of the tax not merely for that valuation, but all subsequent valuations. If they multiply the occasions for valuations they will multiply the occasions for franking. If you allow a reasonable period to elapse between valuations you may get an increment of 10, 12, or 15 per cent, on which duty will be paid, but if you have -frequent valuations you may have the same total increment in a given period, though at each valuation the increment does not exceed 10 per cent. That being so, the Treasury will get no tax, but you will double the expense to the taxpayer by doubling the cost to him for valuations. It clearly is not in the interest of the taxpayer that he should be burdened with the expense of valuation where he has no tax to pay; but if a charge is to be put on the taxpayer it is in the interest of the Treasury to get as much of that charge as possible, and that it should not be spent on surveyors, lawyers, or professional valuers. The more frequent the valuations the greater will be the chance that the increment will not amount to 10 per cent, between one period and another. If the Government have no feeling for the taxpayer—and I do not think they have much—they might have some regard for the interest of the Treasury.
Sir W. ROBSON: It must not be assumed that frequency of assessment is always a disadvantage to the subject. It may be that where you get two assessments close together the land-owner will be put to the trouble of a valuation, though the increment is nothing like so great as the limit of the 10 per cent, margin. I have already pointed out that when replying to the hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Amendment to the Amendment being in manuscript, there was no lime to consider it generally in all its bearings. What does

69
it amount to? It asks that when the time comes for a valuation at the expiration of the period of 15 years there is to be exempted from the valuation any interest in land in respect of which there has been an occasion on which Increment Value Duty has been paid within the preceding 15 years—that is to say, if at any time within 15 years before the occasion on which this duty is to be collected for the purpose of the Bill, there has been a sale or transfer, and Increment Duty has been paid on that, the property is to be exempted from the re-valuation. At first sight the proposal appears to be that when the occasion comes for collecting the Increment Value Duty we should allow no less than 14 years' increment on particular parts of the property involved to pass without payment. Obviously, that is a proposition greatly in excess of what is fair or just. The view I suggest is that the 15 years is fixed as being analogous to the case of death with an individual. Where an individual dies, duty is collected upon his property, but no one has suggested that you should exempt from the cases in which such duty is collected cases of transfer of interest, or cases in which Increment Value Duty has been paid during a certain number of years. Why should it be suggested in the case of corporations? The selection of the 15 years is merely the selection of a period analogous to the occasion of death. Nobody thinks that the death of an individual should be made a ground for exempting from the account cases in which Increment Value Duty has been paid during the preceding seven years. We are only dealing with cases where there is a transfer of some interest in property which would give rise to increment. We are keeping the imposition of this duty strictly analogous to the case of individuals. We are not making it precisely, exactly, or mathematically the same for corporations as for individuals—but, at all events, we are doing substantial justice to corporations, just as to individuals, and this Amendment would give an exceptional benefit to corporations, to which we cannot agree.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I can hardly help thinking that the manner in which this matter has been dealt with is hardly fair to my hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman). We know perfectly well that, under the agreement, this clause is to be finished before dinner-time, but that is really no reason why the Government should be absolved from trying to meet the real practical diffi-
70
culties of the case by accepting the Amendment. The chief defence which the Government have made is that the Exchequer will get less under the Bill than it will get under our Amendment, and that is the reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer prefers a course which throws a great deal of unnecessary work upon the corporations. The throwing of this perfectly unusual, unnecessary burden upon the corporations, it is said, has the advantage of robbing the Exchequer. Was ever such a defence put forward by a Government for rejecting an Amendment which does not really interfere with the framework of the Bill, an Amendment which might be fully given without altering the substance of the Bill or its general propositions. What is the last additional defence of the Government? It is that the fixing of the 15 years is an endeavour to imitate in the case of corporations the accident of death which cuts short the tenure of individual property, and is the occasion on which these duties are to be levied. Does not the Attorney-General see such a fundamental difference in this respect between the immortal corporation and mortal people as to require just that kind of Amendment which my hon. Friend has proposed? At death you no doubt levy this tax upon the individual, and rightly, or at all events plausibly, because the property certainly changes hands. Very likely it is scattered among a large number of different owners; and it may change its character as well as its owner. But in the case of corporations the property changes neither its owner nor its character. It may be said that if you levy this tax every 15 years the corporation will know when it is going to be levied, and make its arrangements accordingly, and it will be able to make those arrangements in a manner most convenient and most economical to itself. That is perfectly true. But here and there, owing to the extraordinary revisions which the Government have introduced, a corporation may unexpectantly get off the one-fourteenth part of the duty, say that in the fourteenth year some transaction takes place which requires a valuation, then when the fifteenth year comes round there is a new valuation, but not a new duty unless the increment since the fourteenth year, as I understand it, has been over 10 per cent. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has now come into the House, though he has not heard the

71
greater portion of this argument, will see that there is no more substantial defence against this Amendment than the two defences which have been so far presented by the Attorney-General. These defences are in the first place a misreading or a misrecollection of the Act of 1885, and in the second place an entirely illusory analogy between the death of the individual and a 15-year period in the case of the corporation. These are the only two defences which have been entered. On the other side we pointed out two things to the Government; that to ask these corporations to go through a perpetual series of expensive valuations, very often when no duty is to be paid, is throwing upon them a perfectly unnecessary and onerous burden; and that the result of doing that, while it takes a great deal of money out of the pockets of the corporation, may really incidentally not merely give no money to the Exchequer, but give less money to the Exchequer than they would get under the Bill as we propose to amend it. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that no reply has been made to either of these arguments. The only reply made is that which I have given, and I ought perhaps, in perfect fairness to the Attorney-General, to add that he seems to think he has replied to our argument by saying that he stated them himself in his earlier speech. The mere fact that the Attorney-General agreed with our version of the fact is really, I venture to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no defence of the Bill as it stands. At this hour of the evening we did expect from the Government some knowledge of the Acts to which the Bill relates with specific reference, and some serious endeavour to reply to arguments which I am perfectly certain not a single Gentleman on the other side of the House who has heard the Debate will contend for one moment are without real weight or substance.
The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): The proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Pretyman), as far as I can see, is that if there is a grant of a lease—becuse it would not arise in the case of a sale—within the 15 years and Increment Duty were paid upon it then, that the corporation should be exempt in respect of that particular property from the payment of duty to the end of the 15 years.
Mr. PRETYMAN: Not exempt from the duty, but that that should not be an occasion upon which it should be paid. There is no diminution of the duty.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The payment should be postponed in that case for another 15 years.
Mr. PRETYMAN: Or until there was another transfer.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I really think that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) was a little unjust towards the arguments of the Attorney-General, whose answer is really a perfectly sound one—that it is an analogy to the case of duty which is paid on death. Suppose it is a case of an individual, and the lease is granted to an individual, say, five years before his death, then he pays Increment Duty upon the lease which is granted; and it is proposed by the Bill that in a case of that kind the executors should, on the occasion of death, pay the Death Duty increment, if there is an increment. That is really analogous to the present case. The only difference here is the payment every 15 years instead of payment at death, but the payments are analogous to Death Duty. Of course corporations do not die. Suppose there is a lease seven years before the expiration of the 15 years' period? There may be very considerable increment in the meantime. The hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes that you should postpone payment for 22 years simply because there is a lease in the meantime. With every desire to meet the hon. and gallant Gentleman—because I quite realise that this is brought forward in a perfectly fair spirit—and while we are really anxious to go out of our way to meet an opposition which is so very fairly conducted, on this particular clause, I really do not think it would be possible, without absolutely destroying the whole principle of the Bill, to accept this Amendment. I do not mean to say that it would result in leases being granted by the thousand—I do not think it would be worth while—but that could be done; and I do not think that it would be a sufficient justification for postponing payment for 22 years in the case of a corporation merely because a lease is given seven years before the expiration of the 15 years' period.
Question put, "That the words proposed be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 88; Noes, 245.

Division No. 313.]

AYES.

[6.15 p.m.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Balcarres, Lord

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

Baldwin, Stanley

Haddock, George B.

Percy, Earl

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

Hamilton, Marquess of

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Banbury Sir Frederick George

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Pretyman, E. G.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bertram, Julius

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Renton, Leslie

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hill, Sir Clement

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hills, J. W.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bull, Sir William James

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hunt, Rowland

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Carlile, E. Hildred

Joynson-Hicks, William

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kerry, Earl of

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Cave, George

Kimber, Sir Henry

Stanier, Beville

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Starkey, John R.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Clive, Percy Archer

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Winterton, Earl

Craik, Sir Henry

Lytteiton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

M'Arthur, Charles

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Faber, George Denison (York)

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

Fell, Arthur

Morrison-Bell, Captain

A. Acland-Hood and Viscount

Forster, Henry William

Newdegate, F. A.

Valentia.

Gardner, Ernest

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

NOES.

Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

Clynes, J. R.

Hayden, John Patrick

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Adkins, W. Ryland D

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hazleton, Richard

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Hedges, A. Paget

Agnew, George William

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Helme, Norval Watson

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cooper, G. J.

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

Aiden, Percy

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Henry, Charles S.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Ambrose, Robert

Cross, Alexander

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cullinan, J.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Atherley-Jones, L.

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hogan, Michael

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Delany, William

Horniman, Emslie John

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Barker, Sir John

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Donelan, Captain A.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Barnes, G. N.

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Joyce, Michael

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Beale, W. P.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Beauchamp, E.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Laidlaw, Robert

Beck, A. Cecil

Evans, Sir S. T.

Lambert, George

Bennett, E. N.

Everett, R. Lacey

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Berridge, T. H. D.

Fenwick, Charles

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Ferens, T. R.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Levy, Sir Maurice

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Flynn, James Christopher

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Black, Arthur W.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lundon, T.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Bowerman, C. W.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Brodie, H. C.

Ginnell, L.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

Macpherson, J. T.

Bryce, J. Annan

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Grant, Come

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

M'Micking, Major G.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Maddison, Frederick

Byles, William Pollard

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Cameron, Robert

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Marnham, F. J.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Massle, J.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hart-Davies, T.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Cleland, J. W.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Clough, William

Haworth, Arthur A.

Micklem, Nathaniel

74

75

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Mooney, J. J.

Reddy, M.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Morrell, Philip

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Redmond, William (Clare)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Thomasson, Franklin

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Napler, T. B.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Tomkinson, James

Nicholls, George

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Toulmin, George

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Verney, F. W.

Nolan, Joseph

Rowlands, J.

Walsh, Stephen

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Walton, Joseph

Nussey, Sir Wilians

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Nuttall, Harry

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Waterlow, D. S

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Sears, J. E.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Shackleton, David James

Weir, James Galloway

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Sheehy, David

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

O'Dowd, John

Simon, John Allsebrook

Whitehead, Rowland

Parker, James (Halifax)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Whittaker, Rt Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Snowden, P.

Wiles, Thomas

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Soares, Ernest J.

Williamson, Sir A.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Stanger, H. Y.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Steadman, W. C.

Winfrey, R.

Pirle, Duncan V.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Summerbell, T.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Radford, G. H.

Sutherland, J. E.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Sir EDWARD CARSONmoved, in section (2), to leave out the words in parentheses, "calculated, in cases where an interest in the land only is held, in accordance with the value of the interest."
I propose this Amendment to see if I can arrive at an understanding of what the meaning of these words is. How could you collect it in accordance with the value of the interest in the increment? I cannot make these words fit in with what we have already done in Clause 3, section (3): "When the Increment Value Duty is collected on the occasion of the grant of a lease, or on the transfer on passing on death of any interest in land, or on any periodical occasion in the case of an interest in land held by a body corporate or unincorporate, 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, transferred, passing on death, or held in accordance with the rules made by them for the purpose."
I want to know whether we are adding anything to what we have already done, and whether anybody has to pay more than the value of the interest in the land. It seems to me that we have already done this in Clauses 2 and 3, and that you had better use the words in those clauses
76
rather than retain those words of which I move the omission.
Sir W. ROBSON: I do not think it can be said that the words are quite useless. Remember we are imposing a duty which is the result of a calculation of what is the value of the whole site, and we are dealing with only a partial interest the value of which is taken. The words are explanatory.
Sir E. CARSON: What is the difference between this and section (3) of Clause 3? I think it is a most dangerous thing to put in words which have relation to one single interest or one owner, and not to put them in with regard to other owners.
Sir W. ROBSON: We have, already provisions in Clauses 2 and 3 dealing with individuals.
Sir E. CARSON: No.
Sir W. ROBSON: We are now dealing with corporations, and therefore we insert what really is the same provision as we have put in with reference to individuals. That is why the words are there. If they are useless, strike them out. But I do not think they are useless.
Sir E. CARSON: The hon. and learned Gentleman says we are now dealing with companies as we have dealt with individuals. That is not so. If the hon. and

77
learned Gentleman looks at section (3) of Clause 3 he will see the words, "On any periodical occasion in the case of any interest in land held by a body corporate or unincorporate." We have stated the process of valuation as regards death, transfer, fee simple, and the granting of leases, and why you should set up, in the middle of these, the words which I propose to omit I fail entirely to understand. The previous sections as to the way you get at the increment value are very complicated, and if you introduce these words and limit them to one occasion, you will create the greatest possible difficulty.
Sir W. ROBSON: The right hon. Gentleman argued before about the necessity of the words. Section (3) of Clause 3 says:—
"When the Increment Value Duty is collected……on any periodical occasion……such proportionate amount of the interest as is due shall be collected as may be determined by the Commissioners."
In Clause 6 the words really refer to what is described in section (3) of Clause 3. You are taking only a proportionate part, informing the corporation which is rendering its account that it must, in addition to the particulars given, described by the section of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1885, calculate the value in accordance with section (3) of Clause 3.
Sir E. CARSON: Will the Attorney-General agree, instead of these words, to the words of section (3) of Clause 3?
Sir W. ROBSON: I think the words are good enough.
Sir E. CARSON: Nobody can tell what they refer to. I offer to withdraw my Amendment if the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept words in accordance with those of section (3) of Clause 3.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: The unfortunate property owner has to calculate in accordance with section (3) of Clause 3, while the Commissioners decision is arrived at by a purely arbitrary fiat. They cannot know beforehand what the Commissioners will do, and therefore they are calculating on a pure shot as to what the Commissioners may determine. I would ask the learned Attorney-General how they are to arrive at what is in the mind of the Commissioners?
Mr. STEWART BOWLES: The point raised does seem to me to be of very great
78
substance and importance. The learned Attorney-General says that the words my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson) desires to strike out really mean that the amount which is to be rendered by a body corporate for the purpose of Increment Duty shall be the amount under the terms of section (3), Clause 3. That is to say, the amount setting forth not the total value of the lands, but the value of the increment for the purposes of taxation within the meaning of that section. As my hon. Friend (Mr. James Hope) pointed out by the terms of section (3), Clause 3, that amount is to be arrived at by the Commissioners according to rules. The obligation which the words proposed to impose not being an account of the total value does seem to me to be putting on an obligation which it will be totally impossible to perform, and it does seem to me to really make nonsense of this provision. I do not know whether the point has been considered, but I think the Government ought to give some account of what is the obligation they intend to put upon bodies corporate on these occasions.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We must really press the Government for an answer on this matter.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: They are practically the same words as those dealing with the occasion of death in Clause 2, section (2), sub-section (c), "where the occasion is the death of any person, and the fee simple of the land…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." Those words are used in reference to the death of an individual, and we only use similar words as to corporations as to the period, otherwise the real danger is the whole of the fee simple might be charged, while we only want to charge on the interest.
Sir E. CARSON: I really cannot accept the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. I am genuinely afraid that those words will be held to imply that you were doing something different from valuing the mere interest in the land. Anybody who reads section (3) of Clause 3 will see that this makes the matter extremely difficult, and I do not want to have it argued as I suggest.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: We are both striving to attain the same object, and it

79
is purely a matter of drafting. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has called our attention to these points, and if they would have such an effect of course we do not want them put in. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, having called our attention to the matter, will be satisfied when we promise to consider it carefully before the Report stage. We are still of opinion that it is necessary to have these words, but we promise to consider the matter.
Sir E. CARSON: I am afraid I will have to accept that. I do not think it holds out any hope, nor do I think I have got any answer.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir E. CARSONmoved to leave out after the word "interest" ["in accordance with the value of the interest"] to the end of section (2). This raises a very important issue. Anybody might easily gloss over these words without seeing their great importance and the wide extension of taxation that you are making upon the present occasion. Personally, I should have preferred to raise this question under Clause 25, as there are exceptions in that clause. The section provides, "that section shall apply for the purposes of Increment Value Duty whether the body corporate or unincorporate are chargeable with duty under Part II. of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, or not." [The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted the exemptions set forth in the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1885.] If anybody looks at the clause of the Customs Act of 1885 they will see that there are quite a number that are exempted. What I wish to point out is this: that the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1885, when it sought to levy taxes in lieu of Probate or Succession Duty upon corporate and unincorporate bodies, exempted every one of those particular classes of property which I have now enunciated. What the Committee want to have now clearly before them is, as to whether we are going to have these periodic valuations in the case of all those various classes, friendly societies, religious bodies, savings banks, and various other bodies such as insurance companies. That is a matter of very far-reaching importance, and I think it is time we had an explicit statement as to whether this is really sought to be meant, that when the Act passes every one of those voluntary societies and industrial societies are to
80
have their properties valued and returns made in regard to every little holding they may have and sent in to the Revenue Commissioners, and whether they are to be called upon every 15 years to have a revaluation of those properties. That raises a very large question. I am not at all sure that it ought not to be discussed in relation to the Bill as a whole, and not merely in relation to this question of periodic valuations. But the question is so very important, I fear, that now by passing these words we would be in effect passing an enactment to strike out, so far as these taxes are concerned, the various concessions and exemptions which I have read out from the Inland Revenue Act of 1885, and that we would be precluding ourselves afterwards from having any discussion whatsoever as regards the position industrial and friendly societies, savings banks and insurance companies are to have in relation to the land held by them once this Bill passes. I advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us plainly now whether it is intended that these matters should apply to those kind of companies and associations, because I think a good many people are of opinion that there is some doubt upon the question. The question can then be argued on the basis of the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think he will see it is an extremely important matter, which should be argued at the earliest moment.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I agree it is a very important matter, and I propose on behalf of the Government to deal with the position of those corporations and religious bodies. I was advised that the place to deal with those matters was Clause 25, and in order to safeguard the matter, and as the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want these words to be inserted as they might prejudice the question, then I would suggest to insert after the word "shall" the following: "subject to the provision of section 25 of this Act." That leaves it absolutely open to the Committee afterwards to discuss which of these corporations shall be excluded, because I agree that we ought to safeguard at any rate several of these corporations against being compelled to pay corporation Increment Duty. Therefore it ought to be open to the Committee to discuss the whole Question when we come to it.
Sir E. CARSON: Would it not be better to insert the words "save as in this Act is hereinafter provided"?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think those words would be better, because for one reason the section may not be number 25.
Mr. ROBERT DUNCAN: Is there a distinct understanding that this shall apply to trade partnerships and industrial organisations?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think we had better not go into that question at present. All we are doing now is to safeguard the position so that we shall be able to discuss all these questions on Clause 25.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is it quite clear that under Clause 25, which exempts land held for public or charitable purposes only, we shall be able to include all the bodies referred to by my right hon. Friend? The Amendment is to exempt from the provisions of this section all the various bodies included in section 15 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, which include friendly societies and railway companies, and various other commericial undertakings. If it is perfectly clear that we shall be able at some future time to discuss the exclusion of all these bodies I shall be satisfied.
Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I understand that the arrangement is not limited to the particular clause or the particular companies?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is very probable that we may have to move a separate clause altogether; therefore it would be better to accept the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Carson), which would cover all cases, including railway companies.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir E. CARSONmoved, to insert after "value of the interest," the words "save as in this Act is hereinafter provided."
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Mr. GEORGE CAVE: My next Amendment raises the very important question of appeals.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Before the hon. Member moves his Amendment, I have to make the same observation with regard to appeals as I made before. We propose to deal with the matter in another part of the Bill, and I trust that nothing will be done now to prejudge the discussion of the whole question on Clause 22. If the Amendment put on the Paper by the Go-
82
vernment does not go far enough, it will be quite open to hon. Gentlemen opposite to move any Amendment in respect of it.
Sir E. CARSON: If we pass this part of the Bill as it stands we shall at all events have negatived the idea of having such an appeal as is set out under the Customs Act, and that is the only appeal which we on this side are prepared to accept, namely, an appeal to the courts. If you now enact that those terms are not to apply, you will prevent our having an appeal to the courts afterwards. Therefore we really cannot pass this provision without Amendment, but that would not prevent the Government putting in an appeal applicable to all cases afterwards.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understand that there is nothing to prevent our afterwards incorporating a provision for any form of appeal the House thinks necessary; but it would be an appeal not under the Customs Act, but under this Act, and it would be an appeal applicable not merely to one duty, but to all the duties. We want an appeal which will be applicable to every case under this Act, and although it may be identical in form with the appeal under the Customs Act, yet it will be an appeal under this Act, and not under the Customs Act. All I am asking the Committee is not to prejudge the question at present one way or the other. I trust that the appeal we shall suggest will be satisfactory to all sections of the House.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is very much to our interest not to take this discussion now, as there is obviously inadequate time to do justice to it. Clearly the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not contemplate its being taken now, when he urged that we should fix a time limit to the discussion of this clause, because he mentioned two other points as being the only ones of consequence. Therefore both sides are agreed that it would be convenient to take this discussion later on, if possible. But can you tell us, Sir, whether the discussion would be in order on Clause 22? That clause gives an appeal to referees, but what we want is an appeal rather from referees—from the Commissioners to the courts.
Mr. CAVEmoved, to leave out of section (3) the words "eighteen of subsection (1) of section (19), and of section." To put the matter in order, I will move my Amendment. I have a strong feeling that

83
if you accept the clause as it stands you do in terms exclude an appeal to the courts. An appeal to the courts is what we want, and before I withdraw the Amendment I want to be perfectly sure that we shall have a chance afterwards of moving something which will give us an appeal in this case, as in others, to the courts, and not to a referee.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I submit that even if these words are inserted there is nothing to preclude any Member from moving on Clause 22 that there shall be a direct appeal to the courts. All this clause declares is that there shall be no appeal under section 20 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act; but there will be nothing to prevent an Amendment being moved on Clause 22, giving an appeal direct to the courts under the provisions of this Act, and in such form and manner as this Act shall provide.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: The precise point of order is this. I understand that it is the intention of Gentlemen on this side of the House to move an Amendment substantially identical with the clause in the Customs and Inland Revenue Act which it is now proposed to eliminate. The question is whether, although the appeal is precisely the same as in the clause you are going to eliminate, the fact that it is under a different Act enables you to get round a substantial identity of substance. In point of substance the two proposals are exactly alike. One is under the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, and the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that we should repropose precisely the same article, but instead of baptising it "Customs and Inland Revenue" we should baptise it "this Act." The point is whether we can in that way get round what would apparently on the face of it be a preliminary decision of the Committee.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It cannot be quite identical, because, in section 22, it will apply to all the duties. Here it applies to only one, and I submit it is a totally different thing to put it in Clause 22, where it will be applicable to the whole of the duties. It might very reasonably be excluded here, because it is intended to have an appeal applicable to all the duties and not merely to one.
The CHAIRMAN: In any decision I give it must be clearly understood that I
84
am not attempting to decide what might be a difficult point of law. As far as I understand the matter. I do not think that leaving the appeal sub-section here will prevent our putting in a provision dealing with appeals on Clause 22. It does not strike me (in the time I have been able to give to it) as saying that that appeal cannot be allowed. On the other hand, it seems to me to read that we are simply leaving that on one side for subsequent decision. As regards the point of order, that I can decide upon. I shall not refuse any Amendment on that point on Clause 22. But I cannot profess to say how the courts may deride the question eventually if these words are left in; that is not for me to decide at all. Does the hon. and learned Member wish to withdraw?
Mr. CAVE: I think on that ruling I must do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, "That Clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. CAVE: Is it quite clear that a corporation holding land only as a mortgagee would not be subject to this duty? There is an enormous amount of land held by corporations on mortgage. I understand that when we come to the definition of owner care will be taken that the word "owner" shall not be deemed to include mortgagee. In this clause you have not got the word "owner" at all. You simply deal with property "held" by a corporation.
Sir W. ROBSON: If the mortgagee has foreclosed, then the mortgagee would assume all the liabilities attaching to the land. If he has not foreclosed, I do not think that would come within the definition of the word "owner."
Mr. CAVE: The point is this: In this clause you have not got the word "owner" at all. The duty is thrown not upon the owner of land, but upon the corporation which holds the land. That is the term, "Held by the corporation." Now, I should have thought it more than arguable that land held on mortgage by a corporation is land held by a corporation. Is it quite clear, or will it be made clear, in some other part of the Bill, that this duty will not be imposed upon the corporation, which is merely a mortgagee?
Mr. HALDANE: About a fortnight ago a Committee agreed to the principle in-

85
volved, which is clear from the decision of the tribunals, that for the purpose of the Revenue Acts the mortgagee is simply ill the position of one holding a charge, and this whether it is a corporation or a private individual.
Sir EDWARD CARSON: The right hon. Gentleman did not hear the whole of the discussion. The point is there is no word about owner in this section. We admit he is not an owner. If he was the owner, I think we would agree on the application, but what is said is that the corporation should pay the tax, and it does not say anything about the owner. The question is whether the corporation is the owner of the land or whether the land is vested in it as a mortgagee.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The mortgagee may be in three positions with regard to property. He may be merely a mortgagee with interest paid, and the mortgagor in possession. In the next stage it may be the mortgagee is in possession, but that he has not foreclosed. There are a great many cases where the mortgagee is merely in possession of property, owned, at any rate, on the part of the mortgagor who pays interest or something of that sort, but in such a case the mortgagee has not foreclosed or become the owner of the property so as to render himself liable to any of the incidence of ownership. If you have the word "owner" in this Bill it would be fairly clear as to which category we were referring to. Take the case of a friendly society. Take, for instance, the case of the Liver Friendly Society, which has got some thousands of mortgages. There are plenty of cases where the society has been obliged to foreclose, and there are a good many where the Liver is in possession, and a great many more where they are not in possesssion at all. It would be interesting to know whether the land held by the Liver Society, as it has been distinctly conveyed by way of mortgage.
Mr. HALDANE: If you look at the group of sections I think you will find you are dealing right through with ownership. If you look at the beginning of Claue 4 it is ownership; Clause 5 it is ownership; in Clause 6 you are dealing with a body corporate, and it is varied in that case because a corporation never dies apart from this. The Corporation is on the same footing as to the definition of ownership as anybody else. It is quite clear that that being so, whether it is land, or interest in
86
land, the land must be held as an owner by the corporation before the tax can attach.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Interpretations of these matters, as given by learned Members of this House, are, I confess, a constant puzzle to laymen. They seem to have an infinite variety, an infinite elasticity, according to the needs of the lawyer who is speaking at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman says that in Clause 4 you are dealing expressly with the owners of land. In the next clause, you are dealing expressly, by terms, again with the owners of land. In the next clause the owners of land are nowhere mentioned; therefore the courts will know you mean the owners of land, because they have been mentioned in the two preceding sections On any other occasion where a layman has attempted to put forward an Amendment open to such an objection as that, I have never heard a lawyer spare him a castigation that he deserved.
Mr. HALDANEindicated dissent.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I would just like to call attention to rather a different point. Among the sections incorporated by section (3) is section 14 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, which we have been discussing. Now, that section 14 says, "that the old Corporation Duty shall be a first charge on all property in respect whereof the same shall be paid." That is to say, it has to come in front of encumbrances. Therefore, the effect will be to make the Increment Duty come in front of all encumbrances in all property; at any rate, in the case of corporations. The strongest objection is taken to that. I have had a remonstrance from the Sheffield Law Society against allowing this duty to come in front of existing encumbrances. It is felt that the position of the mortgagees will be very serious. The margin of the mortgagees will be, if held by anyone other than the individual, very seriously affected by this incorporating section which brings in section 14 of the earlier Act.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It was in order to make the point clear that I ventured to put this Amendment down. The matter is being left in a very unsatisfactory state.
Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 98.

Division No. 314.]

AYES.

[7.15 p.m.

Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Murphy, John (Kerry, E.)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Glover, Thomas

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Agnew, George William

Grant, Corrie

Napier, T. B.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Nicholls, George

Alden, Percy

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Nolan, Joseph

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Norman, Sir Henry

Astbury, John Meir

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Atherley-Jones, L.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Nussey, Sir Willans

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon, L. (Rossendale)

Nuttall, Harry

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Barker, Sir John

Hart-Davies, T.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Haworth, Arthur A.

O'Dowd, John

Barnes, G. N.

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Hazleton, Richard

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Beale, W. P.

Hedges, A. Paget

O'Malley, William

Beck, A. Cecil

Helme, Nerval Watson

Parker, James (Halifax)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Hemmerde, Edward George

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Bennett, E. N.

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Berridge, T. H. D

Henry, Charles S.

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Higham, John Sharp

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Black, Arthur W.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Boulton, A. C. F.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Bowerman, C. W.

Hogan, Michael

Pollard, Dr G. H.

Brooke, Stopford

Holland, Sir William Henry

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Horniman, Emslie John

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Bryce, J. Annan

Hudson, Walter

Radford, G. H.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Idris, T. H. W.

Reddy, M.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Byles, William Pollard

Joyce, Michael

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Chance, Frederick William

Laidlaw, Robert

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lambert, George

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Cleland, J. W.

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Clough, William

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Rowlands, J.

Clynes, J. R.

Lehmann, R. C.

Rutherlord, V. H. (Brentford)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Scarlsbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Lundon, T.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Sears, J. E.

Cross, Alexander

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Shackleton, David James

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Sheehy, David

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Macpherson, J. T.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Snowden, P.

Delany, William

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

M'Kean, John

Soares, Ernest J.

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Stanger, H. Y.

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Steadman, W. C.

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Micking, Major G.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Maddison, Frederick

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Marnham, F. J.

Summerbell, T.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Sutherland, J. E.

Evans, Sir S. T.

Massie, J.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Everett, R. Lacey

Masterman, C. F. G.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Fenwick, Charles

Meagher, Michael

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Ferens, T. R.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Micklem, Nathaniel

Thomasson, Franklin

Flynn, James Christopher

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Mooney, J. J.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Morrell, Philip

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Fullerton, Hugh

Morse, L. L.

Tomkinson, James

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Toulmin, George

88

89

Vivian, Henry

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Walsh, Stephen

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Walton, Joseph

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Winfrey, R.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Wiles, Thomas

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Waterlow, D. S.

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Watt, Henry A.

Williamson, Sir A.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fell, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Baldwin, Stanley

Foster, P. S.

Newdegate, F. A.

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

Gardner, Ernest

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Haddock, George B.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hamilton, Marquess of

Pretyman, E. G.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Renton, Leslie

Bull, Sir William James

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hill, Sir Clement

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hills, J. W.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hunt, Rowland

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Cave, George

Joynson-Hicks, William

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Kerry, Earl of

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)

Keswick, William

Stanier, Beville

Clive, Percy Archer

Kimber, Sir Henry

Starkey, John R.

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Thornton, Percy M.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent Mid)

Craik, Sir Henry

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Dairymple, Viscount

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Winterton, Earl

Doughty, Sir George

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Faber, George Denlson (York)

M'Arthur, Charles

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

A. Acland-Hood and Viscount

Fardell, Sir T. George

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Valentia.

CLAUSE 7.—(Reversion Duty.)
(1) On the determination of any lease of land there shall be charged, levied, and paid, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, on the value of the benefit accruing to the lessor by reason of the determination of the lease a duty, called Reversion Duty, at the rate of one pound for every full ten pounds at that value.
(2) For the purposes of this section the value of the benefit accruing to the lessor shall be deemed to be the amount (if any) by which the total value of the land at the time the lease determines exceeds the capital value of the consideration for the original grant of the lease; but where the lessor is not the freeholder the value of the benefit as so ascertained shall be reduced in proportion to the amount by which the value of his interest is less than the value of the freehold.
The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for York (Mr. G. D. Faber) to omit the sub-section 1 is not in order.
Mr. BALFOUR: I understand you gave a ruling upon an analogous subject upon an earlier portion of the Bill, but you gave it with considerable doubt and hesitation, being of opinion that each Amendment for the omission of the sub-section ought to be decided upon its merits. With regard to this particular Amendment, I should like to point out that this is the first time that we could have an opportunity of a discussion on the Reversion Duty in Committee, and we have a natural desire that when the discussion comes on on so vital a portion of the Bill it should come on at an hour when the discussion would be of some value, and when it would be able to be reported. Unless some other arrangement could be come to with the Government it would be a great advantage to have the discussion now. If it is your view that the discussion cannot be taken now I do hope some arrangement will be made to enable us to do what has not been done yet, that is to have some general discussion upon this very important question.
The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid my ruling upon other clauses applies equally to this clause. The question can be raised on the question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. BALFOUR: Then I would make an appeal to the Government, as we cannot have a chance of discussing this matter at this time, to give us a chance at some reasonable hour, and before any prolonged sitting.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The clause itself is a very short one, and I confess I thought we ought to get through it tonight, and proceed to Clause 8. I do not want to be unreasonable, and if the right hon. Gentleman is really anxious for a Debate I quite see the reason. I think it is a point that ought to be discussed, and we could meet his view either on Clause 7 or some other clause, so that we might have a discussion in broad daylight.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That might be at an early hour in the morning.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I beg to move the Amendment, standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, in section (1) to leave out the words "any lease of" ["On the determination of any lease of land"] in order to insert "the lease of any land other than agricultural."
This question of agricultural land, which is every day now increasing in importance, is one which ought to be settled one way or the other. It cannot be denied that at the present moment there is a great deal of ambiguity with regard to this question. I should like to have the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter, but if I cannot have his attention I should like to have that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Cleveland Division. The right hon. Gentleman has been returned to no office in order that he could take a leading part in the discussions upon the Budget. I ask him to attend to this question of agricultural land, which is of very great importance. By the insertion of these words put forward by my right hon. Friend a great deal of the anxiety felt upon both sides of the House would be relieved. Up to the present time the Government have taken no steps whatever, beyond a few very vague promises, to alleviate the anxiety that exists. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone so far as to assure us that he realises the
92
difficulty under which the owners of agricultural land have to exist, and the heavy burdens that have already been imposed upon them, and he has assured us that it is not his desire that any further undue burden should be placed upon the owners of agricultural land. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes so far as to accept this Amendment he will be carrying out those vague promises he has put forward, and I do not think he will in any way regret the boon he will confer upon owners of agricultural land. There are exemptions already in this clause which show that agricultural land will come within the clutches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In Clause 8, section (2), it is provided: "No Reversion Duty shall be charged on the determination of a lease the original term of which did not exceed 21 years." It is perfectly well known that there are at the present moment in certain parts of the country leases of 21 years which are bound to be hit by the action of this Bill. In various parts of the country there are a great many 19-year leases which contain a clause for renewal which under Clause 27 will come within the purview of leases over 21 years. All these questions require to be dealt with, and I think this is an ideal opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to give some tangible expression to those promises which he has already announced. I know I shall have the support of a great many hon. Gentlemen opposite when I say that the case of the exemption of agricultural land in this Bill is not clear, but, on the contrary, it is clothed in ambiguity, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he rises will take this opportunity of inserting this Amendment, which will remove the anxiety which exists on both sides of the House. I beg to move.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I can assure the Noble Lord that it is the intention of the Government to exclude agricultural land altogether from the operation of these clauses. In order to accomplish this object I think it will be better to insert later some other words. When we come to the clause where the exemptions are dealt with I shall be ready to propose on behalf of the Government words which will meet the Noble Lord's point, or the Noble Lord can move them himself.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I will put down the Amendment suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer later on, and I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. LANE-FOXmoved the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Ridsdale) to insert in section (1), after the word "land" the words "granted after the thirtieth day of April, 1909." The object of this Amendment is to prevent the tax being retrospective and affecting contracts made in the past. We have constantly been told that the Government do not intend to deal with existing contracts, and the Prime Minister and other Members of the Cabinet have declared that they only intend to deal with increment in the future. In view of that fact I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept this Amendment, or, at any rate, embody the principle of it in this clause. The arguments in support of this Amendment are countless. It must be obvious to everybody that these reversionary interests are part of existing contracts. A man makes the original contract upon the deliberate understanding that certain benefits will accrue to him at the end of the lease, and it is in consideration of those benefits that rents are fixed at a much lower rate. This system has been of the greatest use in promoting building, and facilitating contracts for building, and dealing with building land which would not otherwise have been entered into. If the intention of the Government is to facilitate building and improve the housing of the working classes, this Amendment would do much to promote that object. There is no need for me to elaborate all the instances which would tend to prove my case. All I need to say is that unless some such words as those are inserted to exempt contracts made before the passing of the Act, the Government will be going directly contrary to the assurances they have given not to deal with increment which has already occurred. I need not point out how this clause will affect not only the property of millionaires and dukes, which is fair game for the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends, but it will also affect the great friendly societies. The confiscation of the property of the rich is a principle gladly accepted by hon. Members opposite, but I think that when they realise the extent to which this proposal is going to carry them they will see that some such Amendment as this ought to be accepted. I beg to move.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This Amendment would render the tax quite inoperative. The first reversion would fall due
94
on April, 1931, and therefore the hon. Member is proposing to raise revenue for the year 1931. It is obvious that the Government could not accept such a proposal. This is not a question of existing contracts, but a question of taxing a form of property which we think is a fair subject for taxation.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has dismissed this Amendment very lightly. He does not appear to realise the issue which it raises. This Amendment proposes to limit the incidence of the tax to agreements entered into in the future for leases. If the Government persist in the principle embodied in this clause they are actually going to break existing contracts. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no."] Hon. Members opposite shake their heads. I am not surprised, because they cannot do otherwise when they remember the words used by the Prime Minister in 1907. I think the Prime Minister's words have a good deal to do with the form this tax has assumed. For some considerable time there has been some great nervousness amongst owners of reversions as to whether they were liable to taxation upon their ground rents, and it was when dealing with the taxation of existing ground rents, speaking to the officers of the United Kingdom Temperance and General Provident Institution, that the Prime Minister used these words:—
"He thought they need he under no apprehension whatever on this subject. As far as he was acquainted with the facts—and he supposed he ought to know—in any legislation likely to be proposed in regard to matters of that kind they must be certain that existing contracts would be rigidly respected as sacred. Then was no intention, under any pretext of public policy or otherwise, to rip up obligations entered into in good faith, and for value. Legislation must proceed from that starting point and upon that underlying assumption."
That is what the Prime Minister said in relation to taxation of ground rents. What are the Government doing under this particular clause? They are getting round this obligation, and they are simply waiting till the moment the lease comes in, and then they will take the tax from the accumulated total. Where is the difference if you take a part of the sum each year as it accrues or if you wait until the contract is completed and go back the whole currency of the lease and take a proportion of the ground rents in the form of a tax? There is no difference whatever. You are practically, although not technically, breaking existing contracts. You are breaking existing contracts in another sense. I suggest that

95
there are to every lease three parties. There is the lessor, there is the lessee, and the third party is the State. The State enters into the contract and takes money in the form of a stamp on an agreement for a lease or on the lease itself. That stamp is the imprimatur that the State places upon that document, and it is the guarantee of the lessor that he will receive all the benefits in which he is confirmed by the agreement. The State makes itself a party to the agreement. Not only does the lessor expect, and rightly expect, to receive the total consideration to which he is entitled under the lease or agreement, Tout he is also—and this is a point of the greatest practical importance—entitled to sell or to anticipate it in any form. If any proof of that statement is required you have only to look at section (1) of Clause 8. The Government there have actually put into their Bill that they propose to exempt from this duty any person who has bought a lease which is to fall in within 30 years of the passing of the Act. The principle which underlies that is perfectly clear. A contract has been entered into, and, under the terms of the contract, sanctioned by the State, the lessor has a realisable and saleable right to a certain property and to its full value under the terms of the lease. Recognising that, he has or may alienate his property legally and properly at any period. The Government realises the hardship of the purchaser, but what is the moral or legal difference between a lessor who has sold his property and a lessor who has mortgaged it? There is no exemption to a lessor who has mortgaged, and the mortgage is practically a sale. What is the difference between a lessor who has sold his property, and to whom absolute exemption is granted, and a lessor who has mortgaged his property and who is to have no exemption at all? Are there no other ways of anticipation?
Take a man of moderate income, whose whole property depends upon ground rents, to which he has a reversion which is likely to fall in at the end of four or five years. His income then will be largely increased. He may have a growing family, and he desires to give it a good education. According to his present means he can afford to give them an inferior education. He borrows money upon his reversion in order to give his children a better education. That is not at all an uncommon thing. He thereby anticipates the reversion to which, under the stamp affixed by the Inland Revenue
96

Commissioners, he has an absolute right, and the Government comes down and says, "No, if you had sold that reversion you would be exempt: but, because you have anticipated it in order to give your children a better education, we shall take away from you 10 per cent, of the profit." Upon what principle can that be defended? What difference is there between the man who has mortgaged or otherwise anticipated his reversion and the man who has sold it? I can see none. I have honestly looked at this as a matter of principle, as a matter of right and justice, and as one of fair dealing between man and man, and I cannot see upon what principle this differentiation set up in the Bill is to be justified. You have only to look at Clause 8, section (1), to find an absolute condemnation of the principle of this tax. You cannot exempt one equitably without exempting the other. You have, too, only to go back to the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Increment Value Duty to condemn this Reversion Duty. He told us the Government were most careful in no way to attempt to put the Increment Value Duty upon the site value which had accrued prior to the passing of the Act. That, he said, was quite outside their purview altogether. They only proposed to tax site value which accrued in the future, and any site value which had accrued in the past would be exempt from the tax. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell the Committee that there is not to be exacted 10 per cent. Reversion Duty upon the whole of the increment of any property back to as many as 99 years? Under this clause he is exacting 10 per cent, upon all increment of site value which has accrued during the whole currency of a lease. He undoubtedly departs from his original principle in regard to site value, and, in addition, he taxes another increment which may have accrued from buildings, entirely ignoring the fact that the very consideration for which the lease was granted was that those buildings should be erected. All that is lost sight of.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepts this Amendment, he will then bring this Reversion Duty into line with the Increment Value Duty. Whereas in the Increment Value Duty you are only dealing with the land itself, with the increased site value of the land, in the Reversion Duty you are dealing with the value of buildings, because by the wording of the section it deals with total value. The dif-

97
ference between the Increment Value Duty and the Reversion Duty is that the Increment Value Duty deals only with site value, whereas the Reversion Duty deals with total value, including the buildings. That would be an increased duty. It would follow, from a later part of Clause 8 or 9, that the Increment Value Duty would be paid upon the site at the rate of 20 per cent., and the Reversion Duty would be paid upon anything erected upon the site, not by the lessor, but by the lessee, and it would be paid at the rate of 10 per cent. That, as the clause now stands, would be a comparatively minor offence on the part of the Government, because they would not go back upon their own principles, so loudly enunciated on the Increment Value Duty; but, as the Reversion Duty is proposed, they are going back on their principles, and to all intents and purposes they are breaking existing contracts. They are levying a duty upon property which is actually in the possession of people and that has accrued already because, where the lease is now running, the value of it which has accrued up to date is the actual property of the lessor. You are going to do what has never been done before. You are going back for a very large number of years, and you are taking property which has accrued, which has been dealt with, which is being dealt with, and which is passing from hand to hand, and upon which all sorts of liabilities may have been entered into; you are going back upon all that, and are absolutely destroying the whole sense of security. If you go back and take away property from a man which he has anticipated and legally dealt with under the authority of a stamp imposed upon his document by the State, what may you not do? Although this is a shorter clause than the other, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has rather airily passed it off, yet, bad as the Increment Value Duty is and mischievous as it is, there is no principle so dangerous and no proposal so contrary to all accepted principles of taxation as that now under discussion; and, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot see his, way to accept the Amendment, he must stand by his clause and his Bill, and he will be liable to all the imputations I have suggested.
The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is usually so lucid and logical, has upon this occasion failed to do
98
justice to himself. Any objection which he has raised to this tax could apply to any tax of any sort or kind. Take the Death Duties. You violate expectations in the same way there, and yet, when he or, rather, his Leader sat on these benches and proposed various extensions and Amendments of the Death Duties he did not denounce them. On the contrary, he supported them. Look at this tax and see what it is. Has it anything in the world to do with the question which arose on the ground rents? It is quite true the Prime Minister and I think other Members of the Government, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said they were not going to interfere with existing contracts in the matter of taxation of ground rents. The reason why that line was taken was that it would be altering the terms of the contract to have imposed the duty then under discussion. That may or may not have been right, but it was a very different proposition from the one now under discussion. What contract comes into question here? The hon. and gallant Member invented the most astounding hypothesis. He said there were three parties to a lease—the lessor, the lessee, and the State. I wish the State were, but unfortunately it is not. The person who pays this duty is, according to all the canons of taxation, peculiarly well liable to taxation. The reversion is something which drops in, and it is of all property the most suitable for taxation. There is no question of ground rent in it. On the contrary, you deduct the ground rents. It is one of the things taken out in ascertaining the benefit which is the subject of taxation. What you tax is the benefit which accrues to the lessor on the termination of the lease, a benefit which is of a kind which makes it peculiarly free from that sense of hardship which in a great many cases unfortunately attends the imposition of taxation. That is the simple basis on which this tax rests, and I cannot find anything in the argument of the hon. and gallant Member or in the illustrations he has used which has the smallest bearing on this proposition.
Mr. BALFOUR: I think if there is no better answer than that which the right hon. Gentleman has given the Committee will be inclined to believe, as I certainly do believe, that this is not the least arbitrary portion of a very arbitrary Budget, and that the Government themselves have not made up their minds as to the principles on which they ought to levy

99
taxation on the subjects of the King. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer observed as one justification for this taxation that it was levied upon realised property and taken at an extremely convenient moment for the taxpayer to pay it. May I ask why he excepts in the very next clause the Reversion Duty from year to year? Is that not realised property, and does not reversion come in at an extremely convenient moment? It is obvious that a man who has bought a reversion at 30 years is precisely in the same position as the man who has bought a lease at 31 years. Just take the case of a man who has purchased a property and is desirous of developing it for building purposes. I do not know whether this actually happened in the well-known case of the Duke of Devonshire's property at Eastbourne, but it certainly has happened in a number of cases. Somebody comes forward and desires to build a house upon the land. The owner of the land says, "I am quite willing to meet you in any way you like; you shall have a lease for a certain length of time; you may have a perpetual ground rent, or you may buy the land outright. The arrangement with regard to the transfer of my land to you shall be made in order to suit your convenience." Now take the case of people who have used the privilege thus given by the owner of the land, according to their own wishes. One takes a lease, the other takes a perpetual ground rent or else buys outright. You tax the owner of the land on the price or rent given for that land. If the land is let on lease the man who builds gets it cheaper than if the land were let at a perpetual ground rent; and again, if it is sold outright the reversionary profit is discounted in the price given. Why are you going to tax the owner of a particular plot let at a terminable lease and not tax at all the land which is let on a perpetual lease or sold outright? It is suggested he is only to be taxed in proportion to his means, but he finds himself taxed at a different rate if the land is sold outright or let on a perpetual ground rent as contrasted with land let only on a building lease. In the last case he will find he has got to pay taxation on land which, if it had been sold outright or let on a perpetual ground rent, he would have paid nothing. On what possible principle is that to be done? Suppose the one owner had offered the land to different persons who wanted to build? Suppose to one he lets a plot of land on a terminable lease,
100
and to another he lets it on a perpetual lease, while the third buys outright? You tax one of these three: the other two get off scot free. On what principle do you do that? Or suppose one buys a reversion at 30 years, on what principle do you allow him to get off altogether? Evidently there is no principle underlying this Bill. The Government say that they have a perfect right to tax any property at a convenient moment to the person called upon to pay the tax, but they have no right to put an arbitrary tax and levy rates of different kinds on realised property. That is a thing which no Government has a right to do. They may have the right to say that a man with £10,000 shall be taxed at a different rate to a man with £1,000; they have a right possibly to say that the Death Duties shall be levied at different rates according to the magnitude and bulk of the property which passes at the time of death; but they have no right to select one kind of property, no matter whether it belongs to a rich man or a poor man, no matter whether the value of the reversion was absolutely discounted or disposed of beforehand; they have no right to choose arbitrarily a particular kind of property and say that, irrespective of the wealth of the man who owns that particular kind of realised property, they will tax it at a special rate. It is grossly unjust, and the Secretary of State for War has not made out the smallest justification either for the general principle or for the principle that is embodied in this Bill.
There is another point to which attention must be again drawn. In connection with one of the earlier clauses you deliberately said you would not go back upon the increment site value before 1909. In this clause, beyond dispute, without doubt, or shadow of question, you are reversing that process, and you are actually charging Increment Duty not merely upon buildings and upon reversions, but upon the portion of that value which is really and justly attributable to the site. It seems you are really interfering in every possible way with every principle of taxation. I do not intend at this moment to dwell at any length on the underlying principles of this clause. That will more properly come up on the Motion "that this Clause be added to the Bill," but I do earnestly ask the House whether they think it wise to tax a particular kind of property which, had the owner foreseen the arbitrary method of taxation which you are going to adopt, he would have dealt with on an entirely different method. The Chancellor of the

101
Exchequer dropped a phrase which really filled me with amazement. He said we tax not the man who built the house, but the man from whom the owner gets the land; the former ought to go scot free, while the man who owns the land should pay on reversion when he gets the property back. But surely all that was settled between the lessor and the lessee when the original arrangement was made. The arrangement was made at the outset on the understanding, as between the parties, that no public burden would be thrown upon this particular form of property more than on any other. On that the Government are deliberately going back. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) that this tax will probably give a great feeling of insecurity to the public at large in the Increment Tax. That can only be got rid of if the present Amendment is accepted, and even then it will only be partly got rid of. See at all events you do not go back without any justification or possible excuse upon contracts entered into years ago in the faith that future Governments of this country would be animated by those general principles of equity of taxation which have animated their predecessors in the past.
Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: We have had two extraordinary reasons given by the Government in defence of this tax. The first was advanced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was to the effect that if the Amendment were accepted the tax would be inoperative. I quite agree with him that it would be so, because no one in future would enter into building leases at all, because they would know that at the termination of the lease they would be taxed upon it. But that is no reason why an unjust tax should be imposed. The Secretary for War gave a still more startling reason why the tax should be adopted, namely, that the person who came into his interest in the lease was a well-qualified subject for taxation. He is well qualified, presumably, because he comes into the property. But what property does he come into? It is his own property, which lie leased, and when he granted the lease it was part of the bargain of granting it at a small ground rent that, at the end of the period, he should be entitled to have the whole property back again. That is part of the contract, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot get out of it in this way by saying that he is a well-qualified subject for taxation. Remember this is not a windfall. It is simply a case in which it
102
was part of a contract between lessor and lessee, when the lease was granted, that the payment should be spread over a long period of years, at a small ground rent, in consideration of the fact that the landlord at the end of the period would be entitled to the return of his property. It is a perfectly fair bargain. It is to the interest of the community that these building leases should be granted. The object of a building lease is to develop land for the housing of the working classes. That, I believe, also is the object of the Government, but if they persevere in this particular policy I venture to say they will be going quite contrary to their principles, and the result will be that the practice of granting these leases will cease altogether. Let me remind the House what experts say on this subject. I would refer to the evidence given before the Select Committee on Town Holdings in 1886, before which it was clearly proved that the leasehold building system had made the development of land more easy. Then we have the opinion of the Council of the Surveyors' Institution. They say that this system has been of great assistance to the cheaper housing of the population:—
"It seems certain that the Reversion Duty would have the effect of checking the present system of letting on building leases, and that a large amount of floating capital available for expenditure in bricks and mortar would be locked up in sites to the disadvantage of tenants, especially of the poorer classes."
That would be so because if the builder had to lay out his money in purchasing the land in the first instance he would have less money and less capital with which to build the houses, and that would in turn very greatly reduce the number of the poorer classes of houses put up, because the builder would not have the money with which to buy the site. This memorandum of the Surveyors' Institution gives some figures which show the very large amount which has been expended in this way. The figures are very extraordinary, and, therefore, I venture to give them to the Committee. During the years 1906, 1907, and 1908, which they remark were not busy years in the building trade, ground rents of the value of over two millions sterling were sold at the Auction Mart in the City of London alone. That is quite sufficient to show what a very large interest the Government are dealing with. It is no small matter, but it is one which will affect the population all over the country, and I am quite certain that it will affect them in a way which

103
they will feel to be a very grave injustice to them. The Government, by these land clauses, have said all through that their object was to try and develop land for building purposes for the working people, but the effect of this tax, I venture to say, will be just the reverse of that, because it will stop development, and it will stop builders investing in land schemes, and, therefore, the working classes will have less houses to live in in the future than they have at present. I hope that the Government will pay attention to the arguments which we have placed before them, and I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment of my Noble Friend.
Mr. WILLIAM PEEL: I most thoroughly support this Amendment, because I cannot think of any clause, which, if it applies to existing leases, will more deliberately conflict with the principles on which our taxation is based. These investments in reversions are peculiarly the investments of the poorer investing class. It is peculiarly the class of investment which the man who rises into the area of the investing public chooses for his security. I am not talking for the moment about building societies and institutions of that kind, but of the small man, who has saved a little money, and who is very anxious to invest it in a house in the street in which he lives, and, if he cannot get it in the same street, it is in the next street that he would prefer to have it in, so that it might be under his eye. These are the people who invest in these reversions. They lay by a certain amount of money for their families, and in that way are able to leave money for that purpose, and it is of great importance that we should do what we can to safeguard, if not future investors, at least those who have invested their money on the faith of these reversions not being tampered with. May I point out how extremely unfairly this will act with regard to reversions. These building leases are for 99, 80, and 60 years, and, of course, that is the reason why the right hon. Gentleman wishes to tax them, because there will be a great many of these leases falling in in the next 10 or 20 years. Many of these leases were granted at the time of the great struggle with France in 1810, and it is preposterous that you should go back 80 or 90 years and compare the value that was obtained then with what is obtained now. The right hon. Gentleman says, how are we to
104
get our increment? But he only gets it in the case of one man, although the increment is being reaped by the people who have dealt and are dealing with these properties. The great rise in towns has taken place in between the last 40 or 50 years, and not in the last 60, 80, or 90 years, and you are taking an extraordinary site value, to compare with the present value, in order to lay the basis of your tax. I heard of a case in London of a lease of 999 years which fell in the other day, and curiously enough the lessors and the lessees were the same parties. They were corporations, and you are going in that case actually to compare the present value of the property on reversion with the amount which it cost at a period some-think like 160 years before the Norman Conquest of England. This is not only a very harsh tax upon individuals, it is also an extraordinarily unequal tax upon localities, because we have different systems. There is the feu system in Scotland, the system of chief rents in the South of England, and in London and its surroundings; you have these tremendously long leases of 60, 80, or 90 years.
It is quite clear that this tax will fall with particular hardship upon that particular part of the country which has this long leasehold system, and that is to differentiate against one particular section or class of the community. Perhaps I may be allowed to say one word in regard to the unfortunate position in which London finds itself in regard to this tax, because London and its surroundings is peculiarly a district where the long leasehold system obtains, and you will be penalising London and its-surroundings as compared with the North and South of England or Scotland. The only argument that we have heard against the Amendment is, that these taxes would be to a great extent inoperative if proposals of this sort were accepted. The right hon. Gentleman said he must get a certain sum of money out of the tax, and he did not seem to care as to the justice or injustice of it. This is different to the other taxes, because it is not a tax upon land, stripped of everything else, and it is a tax upon houses and buildings as well. I thought the great energy of the Government was directed towards land and not towards buildings and houses. I thought their one great desire was to get taxation out of the land, so that buildings and everything on the land should be much more largely exempted, and that a great deal of capital might be freely spent upon developing buildings and that which stood

105
upon the land. Of course, there is no doubt at all that in London and the surroundings of London this leasehold system has been of enormous value in developing buildings.
There is no doubt that this division of capital—one man supplying the land and the other man supplying the capital—has been the cause of a vast deal more building than would have been the case had the whole of the capital been supplied by one particular individual, and it is quite clear that as far as this tax goes it must have the effect of discouraging the long leasehold system by attaching, as it were, this particular punishment to reversions. People would have much more tendency to build themselves as far as they could on the land, and this amalgamation of two capitals will make it very difficult except in the case of very rich people to build, and, in fact, as a large amount of building is done by people who have not very much capital, it will necessarily have the result of killing a great deal of the building which is done. Therefore in its social effects this tax must be extraordinarily bad and it is quite fair to appeal to the social effects of the tax, because so many of these taxes are entertained not on fiscal grounds at all, but with the idea that they may have some ulterior effect which may by its social advantages do away with some fiscal disadvantage. That is clearly, of course, the case with the Undeveloped Land Tax which is put forward mainly for that reason. Therefore it is very germane indeed to this particular Amendment if I show that it must necessarily result in restricting building through the difficulties it will put in the way of builders and owners of land. Of course, the tax itself entirely departs from the whole principle of the Increment Value Duty. It stops at existing values, and the whole of the Bill is argued on the very basis that it is to be restrospective. Here is a case which ranges over almost the whole past of English history, in which no lease is safe even if it has been entered into 900 years ago. No property can be safe, because this tax breaks existing contracts in a way which is absolutely indefensible, and takes away a portion of the increment which has accrued not to-day, but 50, 60, or 100 years ago.
Mr. HART-DAVIES: If one result of the tax happens to be that the leasehold system will receive a severe blow most land reformers, I suppose, would not have any strong objection to that. I have always
106
regarded the leasehold system as one of the worst with which you could possibly deal with land. I remember offering a man a lease of land in a Colonial town and he laughed at me. He said, "No, we do not want to introduce any of these institutions of the old country here," and I think he was perfectly right I object to this Amendment because we shall not get hold of those particular leases that we want to get hold of. These are all leases of 99 years or even longer, where the original lessor could not by any possibility have foreseen what enormous value his land would have in the years to come. It is a pure windfall to the man who made the lease in that remote period, and reaps the benefit of it now. It is a windfall which the State may very fairly and justly take a reasonable share of, and it is a very reasonable tax—only £1 in £10— and it is perfectly justifiable both on social and economic grounds. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Peel) mentioned the case of a lease for 999 years, which he said fell in the other day. I should like to know what the value of the land was at the time of the Norman Conquest. Think of the enormous increment which must have been reaped when the lease fell in. It can hardly be estimated in figures. The tax is perfectly fair and justifiable, and will have extremely valuable social results. I shall support it in every way I possibly can.
Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The hon. Member who has just spoken wishes to have a law which will deter the leasehold system. Whether that be a wise point of view or not he has a deterrent to the leasehold system whether the Amendment is accepted or not, because the only effect of it is to confine the clause to future leases. We have had two explanations from the Government. That of the Secretary of State for War was very much wanting in the lucidity which usually characterises his utterances. He says it is a convenient property to tax, and the argument that the tax will interfere between parties to a contract proves too much, and is fatal to all taxes. If it is fatal to all taxation, so also is this doctrine that the State may step in, and take a tithe of all kinds of property, and it is fatal also to the position of the 30 years' unexpired terms. You have no right to draw a distinction between the purchaser of the 30 years' term and the purchaser of the 35 years' term. He purchased longer ago, and will have a greater increment,

107
but he has been kept a longer time out of the interest. The right hon. Gentleman said this was a very convenient property to tax, but unfortunately to say that in this House is only another way of saying it is an inconvenient thing to stand by your promise that you would not step in between the parties to a contract. I know it is open to hon. Gentlemen opposite to say in a technical sense they are not breaking the contract because by the conditions supposed that contract is now arriving at the termination of its existence, but what are the moralities of the thing you are doing. You are saying to the lessee, who now by the conditions imposed is retiring altogether from the scene and ceasing to have any interest in the property, "You have received to the full everything which you contracted you should receive and paid for at the time the contract was made." To the other party to the transaction you are saying: "Although many years ago you contracted that at this moment you should receive certain benefits, we will step in, and, contrary to all expectation, we will take a tithe away from that property." In morals, in policy and in everything else that is an interference with contracts, and you cannot get out of the fact that you promised not to interfere with contracts. The right hon. Gentleman said: "If you pass this Amendment you will give us nothing to tax except upon the future leases." That may be very inconvenient, but we cannot help it. The cause is the promise he has given, and the necessary result of the tax he is proposing. Our position is that there can be no fulfilment of the promise not to interfere with contracts unless you confine the operation of the tax to future leases. That is the object of the Amendment, and that is why we support it.
Mr. G. N. BARNES: I think this is one of the most extraordinary of all the extraordinary Amendments that have been discussed on this Bill. The mere statement of the effect of it would be sufficient to warrant us in voting against it. As I understand, the proposal is that this tax should only be applied to leases entered into after the termination of this year. An hon. Member on the other side seems to think that this will have the effect of doing away with the leasehold system. I do not think it will have any such effect at all. Why should it? It seems to me that if this Amendment were" adopted, what
108
would happen would be that the tax would not come into operation until 80 or 90 years hence. We have been told that leases in London are for 60, 80, and 99 years. Why should I bother myself what is going to take place 60 years hence? I have heard no argument pat forward in favour of the Amendment except one, and that is that it would interfere with existing contracts. The Leader of the Opposition had a great deal to say about this particular tax on land as distinguished from other forms of property. I take it that that is a second reading sort of argument. We are past that stage. We have decided for good or ill that we are going to tax land values, and we have drawn a distinction between these values and other values. I hope that at no distant date we may tax other social values. [An HON. MEMBER: "What are social values? "] It seems to me that social values are values which have there origin in the efforts of the community who have created them and which do not belong to those who have got them, but who have not fairly earned them. That is the simple definition I would give. We have decided under this Bill to tax land values and to leave other values—I hope only for the time being. Let us put the case about the interference with existing contracts in this way: Reference was made to leases of 999 years ago. I am not going so far back as that. I take leases of a hundred years ago. At that time many towns in the North of England did not exist, and some of the larger towns throughout the country were very small places. Nobody could have had any idea of the value that would now attach to land at the time the leases were being drawn up. An hon. Member has said that the landlord at the termination of these leases was only coming into his own property. I venture to say that is not so. When a lease was entered into a hundred years ago it might be taken to be a pure gamble. The landlord did not know and the lessee did not know the wonderful development which was going to take place, for example, in the cotton industry. No one could have foreseen a hundred years ago that towns like Manchester, which were small places at that time, would undergo the wonderful development which has taken place, with the consequent increase in land value. That increase has not been due to anything done by the landlord, but to something done by the people who produced goods there. Therefore, I say it is fair and just that the community should

109
take a percentage of this added value, which has not been caused by the enterprise or labour of the man who owns the land.
Let us carry that argument a little further with regard to contracts. It seems to be assumed that there never was interference with contracts for the imposition of taxation. Is that so? Would it be so if a Budget were introduced embodying the principle of Tariff Reform? I venture to say it would not. Take the case of the men who are in the direct service of the Government. Is there no contract there? They are paid according to a scale, and it is a difficult thing to get that scale altered. In the event of a Tariff Reform Budget being introduced, you would increase the cost of living, and thereby alter the terms of contract existing with thousands of men up and down the country. Therefore, what is now proposed is no innovation at all. I justify it, firstly, on the ground of morality. I justify it also because this added value of the land is a value which has accrued by social work, and not by individual labour. I defend this tax on the ground that it simply embodies the principle carried out before in the taxes on tea, cocoa, and tobacco, when it has been found necessary to impose them. That principle would be further embodied in the taxes imposed on the community in any Tariff Reform Budget which might be introduced by the Gentlemen who are now opposing this tax.
Mr. REMNANT: I venture to say that it would take my hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes) all his time to show that this tax has anything to do with the question of Tariff Reform. As to the question of raising the cost of living, it would be out of order to discuss that now; but I wish to express my honest opinion that there would be no increase at all in the cost of living if we had Tariff Reform. I support this Amendment because I honestly believe it gives the Government an opportunity of dispelling, once and for all, the impression that has got abroad that they do not intend to respect contracts if by breaking them they can carry out the purposes they seek to accomplish by this Finance Bill. It is particularly interesting that we should have this discussion on the breach of existing contracts, because the Solicitor-General for Scotland, whom I see present, has himself assisted in the Select Committee, of which I was a Member, in passing a definite Motion that the breaking of existing contracts was defensible.
Mr. DEWARindicated dissent.
Mr. REMNANT: The hon. and learned Member shakes his head. I moved an Amendment in the Committee that it was indefensible to break existing contracts, and the Lord Advocate, who was Chairman of the Committee, opposed that. The Solicitor-General supported his senior officer, and, by the casting vote of the Lord Advocate, the Motion was carried. The Committee was composed of 10 Gentlemen belonging to the party represented on the other side of the House and four belonging to this side. I defy the hon. and learned Gentleman to get up and say he did not do that.
Mr. A. DEWAR: I never supported in my life the breaking of existing contracts.
Mr. REMNANT: It may be a legal technicality. All I can say is that I moved on the Committee words definitely stating that the breaking of existing contracts was indefensible, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman voted against it. I challenge him to show he did not do so, and it was carried on the Committee, composed of 10 Gentlemen on the-other side as against four, solely by the casting vote of the Lord Advocate, who was chairman. Yet the hon. and learned Gentleman gets up and says he never voted against the breaking of existing contracts, which is the most astounding statement that I ever heard from any hon. Member in a responsible position. He did do so, and I defy him to show he did not do so. And now, in reference to the question under discussion with regard to the breaking of existing contracts: When the original lease or sale took place every item was taken in consideration, and every possible deduction was made. All these things are of everyday occurrence in the City, and are done by experienced valuers and estate agents. They know exactly what deductions to make. Nobody had any idea, up to the year 1906 at all events, that anything in the shape of going back on the bargain that had legally taken place was ever likely to take place. We have had this most interesting Blue Book issued, but, with the exception of that Committee on which the hon. Gentleman and myself served, every single recommendation in this book is against breaking existing contracts as being a most indefensible measure. Here is one in which it goes deeply into this question of bargains, and says that it is not only indefensible and would be a direct breach of contract, but it

111
would aggravate existing evils by destroying providence and discouraging building enterprise. The hon. Gentleman must know what took place even on the Report of that 1906 Committee. He must know that it gave a very rude shock indeed to the whole of the feuing system. Feus used to be purchased within the last few years for something like thirty years' purchase. They have been sold within the last few months under 17½ years' purchase. Anybody who has had experience in these matters will tell you that this tinkering with contracts, this unbusinesslike procedure for the purpose of carrying out political objects, is having a most damaging effect upon the whole business community of this country. The Amendment gives a very fair opportunity to disillusion those who think that they do not mean to depart from legal contracts. It says that from this date only shall the new Reversion Duty take effect, so that they will know how to deal with it in the future. To say that you should go back to any cumulative benefits, if you like to call them so—though I think they are nothing of the sort—and that this increment of past years is to be taxed, is a thing which you will not agree to if you allow business principle to predominate.
Mr. E. A. RIDSDALE: I am sorry that I was not here when the Amendment which stands in my name was moved, and I speak under the disadvantage of not having heard the speech which I understand was made from the Treasury Bench against it. I understand that it is not the intention of the Government to accept the Amendment. I heard the hon Gentleman (Mr. Dewar) say just now that he never voted against breaking a contract. If he wishes to maintain that record it is certain that he must not go into the Government Lobby against my Amendment. The only speech against my Amendment which I have heard was that of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Barnes). He said that if the Amendment were adopted the tax would not produce any income for about 40 years. Quite true, it will not. But I did not suggest the tax. The Government suggested it. Although the Government proposal is unjust, I very much doubt whether, in this present year we are budgeting for, any considerable sum will result from this tax. No doubt during the series of years to come a tax of this kind may produce a very considerable income; but the same argument might apply to any sort of tax. I
112
gathered from the observations of the hon. Member for Glasgow that he thought the value which a lease at its expiry held for its owner was a value accumulated by social work. Surely he is mixing up increment value with reversion value; because I appreciate the Government position, with which I agree, that increment value is very often very largely due to the work of the community, and may properly be called value which has accrued by social work. But I entirely deny that that applies in any way to Reversion Duty. When a lease was originally granted by the owner every single factor was balanced between the two and every point in favour of the one or in favour of the other was canvassed as between the two parties, and reduced to terms of pounds, shillings, and pence; and because the lease was a long one, and because the value of the reversion would only fall in at a distant date, it was for that very reason that the immediate value of that sum of money was very small. It always is so. Compound interest makes it so. In the Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
"The reversion at tie end of a long building lease having no appreciable market value at the time the lease was granted, is, when the lease falls in of the nature of a windfall, and may be made to bear a reasonable tax without hardship."
According to that statement a reversion is a windfall. But there is nothing peculiar to land in the fact that a small sum of money at present will be worth a large sum of money later on. If I was to promise my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or rather his executors or legal heirs, a thousand pounds at 100 years hence, the value of that at 5 per cent, at the present day would amount to the sum of £7 12s.; and he would say that that is a negligible sum, and that because it does not appear on the face of a legal document as of considerable present value or of very large present magnitude, that sum is, therefore, an entirely different factor in the calculation from the £1,000 which is to accrue 100 years hence, and that the difference between the £1,000 and the £7 12s. is a windfall. It is nothing of the sort. It is the calculation of that original small sum at compound interest over a long series of years.
You are going to tax a contract between the two people who have entered into it, and you are going to tax one of the parties to that contract while you do not place the tax on the other party. I want you to draw the line at 30th April, 1909, and simply say that every person who enters

113
into a contract, whether for the letting of land on lease or the taking of land, by this Finance Bill, in future, when the reversions fall in, will pay 10 per cent. Then the people who make these contracts would know what they were doing. But that 10 per cent., though of small pecuniary value at the present time, would be taken into consideration by both parties. It would not have a large value if the lease was long, but if the lease was small it will have a distinct value. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself admitted that in Clause 8. He has made certain reservations. He has said in Clause 8 that if a reversion is purchased within 30 years of its determination it is exempt. The man who buys a reversion within 30 years of April, 1909, is to be exempt. Why? Because it would interfere with his contract. What is the difference between interfering with the contract of 30 years and a contract of 31 years? Interference with the latter is nearly as bad as interference with the man who has a 30 years' contract. Certainly, if principle is regarded in the matter, it should be insisted upon just as rigidly in the case of 31 years as in the case of 30 years. It seems to me that in Clause 8 the Government have abandoned the whole principle of the matter. Just think what you are doing. If this principle is to be adopted you are telling any man who is thinking of leasing his land to a tenant that he must exact the utmost farthing from him for his property, otherwise that man will be liable to the 10 per cent, tax at the end of his lease. Do you not want a tenant sometimes to have a kind landlord? Do you not want a tenant occasionally to be able to obtain something at a reasonable or a low price? Yet no future owner would make a lease for over 21 years for anything short of the utmost farthing he could exact from the tenant, because if he does, down comes the State upon him, and says that "10 per cent, of your good nature goes into the coffers of the State." It is tantamount to saying to every landlord, "Rack-rent your tenant for all he is worth." I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite eloquent in refusing to accept the Amendment. I do hope my hon. Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland will tell him that I am not in the least satisfied, and that I intend to press it to a Division.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has quite proved his point that reversionary interest in land simply expresses the original capital
114
plus the compound interest. If it were so, I should go into the Lobby with him, because I think, in that case, the Reversion Duty would be an unfair duty. But I would point out, whether it be right or wrong, I do not base my claim in favour of the Reversion Duty on that consideration at all. I have always acted on the principle that when you are dealing with land, either leasing land, selling land, or making contracts of any kind regarding land, you are dealing with two things which you cannot separate. You are dealing, first of all, with the fact that land is a monopoly, and that, therefore, the man who owns the land is in a superior economic position to that of the man who wants to use the land. Therefore, contracts regarding land are not free contracts at all. They are made under compulsion; I think the hon. Member must really see the weight of the point that these contracts must not be regarded as contracts made in the open market, and, consequently, subject to the moral considerations which he has urged with so much weight to the Committee. All land contracts have got monopoly economics mixed up with them, and they have also got unearned increment economics mixed up with them. If we try at all, as is done in this Bill, to differentiate our taxes according to certain economic sources, regulating the acquisition or accumulation of property, then I think we must recognise that which I have tried to point out.
There is a second point, and a very important one—are we or are we not breaking existing contracts? I am opposed to breaking contracts, and I shall always vote against it except under very special circumstances. I am on principle totally opposed to the breach of any eon-tract that has been made under conditions of freedom between two parties. My vote would be given in favour of honouring existing contracts so far as I understand the matter. Therefore, this is a very serious consideration—are we or are we not breaking contracts by this Clause 7, and the consequent clauses? I say we are not. You do not impose your Reversion Duty until the contract is complete. You are not upsetting any contractual arrangements; you are practically going to the owner and saying—"you will complete your contract, you will come into possession of the property provided for in your contract, and, when you have got possession of that property, we classify it along with those forms of property which we think ought to be the subject of a special

115
tax."That is all that is done. Supposing I invested money in Consols or Debentures, or in any other form of funds, five or six years ago. The businesses or the directors in whose hands I have put my money pay me my 4, 4½, or 5 per cent. as the case may be. They fulfil their contract. But the Government decided last year that when that contract was fulfilled I had to pay Is. Income Tax upon that form of income, whereas upon the part of my income that I have earned, I only pay ninepence. Did they or did they not break my contract with the companies in which I invested my money? I submit it is an abuse of language to say that the Unearned Increment Tax imposed last year, differentiating from the Earned Increment Tax, was a breach of contract. No, it is not. What the Government began last year is being carried out to a certain extent in the clause we are now discussing. What they did say was, "We have got to differentiate property for the purpose of imposing a light burden on this kind of property and a heavier burden on that kind of property." Clause 7 says that one of the kinds of property that ought to have a heavy burden placed upon it is the property which the landowner acquires on the completion of his contract, and not before the completion of his contract. Surely it is an abuse of lauguage to argue as if that were a breach of contract. It is open to the opponents of the clause to argue that this kind of property is an earned kind of property, and that it is a kind of property which ought not to be contemplated in imposing special taxes. I would not agree with them, but I think that would be a legitimate argument, which would be based upon the actual facts relating to the clause. If they continue to argue that it is a breach of contract, then I think they are arguing in the air, and that they are forgetting that the clause cannot possibly come into operation until the contract is fully completed, until the transference of the property has taken place, and until the man who bears the special duty has got the property in his possession. Therefore I am not going to vote in favour of a breach of contract, and I am not going to vote against legitimate capitalist operations, and therefore I am going to vote against this Amendment, and in support of the clause.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Rightly or wrongly, I differ from the hon. Member on most public questions, and I
116
never try to pretend that we agree where we were not agreed; but, right or wrong, the hon. Gentleman does habitually try to look at facts as they are, and does not draw on fine-spread theories on which to base their practical course. But surely that is what he has done in this case. No doubt it is technically true to say that when the lease is at an end and the landlord has resumed possession of his property, that the bargain is complete and the contract is finished, and that therefore what you do after that is not technically a breach of the contract which was made. Surely if that be technically true it is not true in any other aspect. It is purely a technicality which has no real correspondence with fact. What was in the minds of the landlord and the tenant when they made the original contract? It was that each of them should receive certain immediate advantages, and that at the conclusion of the contract the landlord should receive certain other advantages. The Government propose to step in at the moment when, it is true, the land has just technically obtained those advantages, and snatch 10 per cent, out of his hands; that is to say, 10 per cent, of the advantage for which he had bargained with his lessee, and 10 per cent, of the consideration which the lessee had agreed to give him for the lease which he obtained. I think he will see in this case that his defence is not of a kind which will appeal to people who deal with things as they are or to those who treat business affairs in a business spirit. It is nothing more, in fact, than saying that if A has agreed to pay B money, and that if you take the money from B and not from A then there has been no breach of contract. That is what it conies to. He admits that if at the moment before the lease was at an end you deduct this 10 per cent, from the lessee and allowed him to deduct from what he had to give to the lessor, that that would be a breach of contract; but provided the money gets into A's pocket, and you get it out of it again the next morning, he contends that there is no breach of contract.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to reply regarding earned and unearned Income Tax? Surely is not that on all fours with the argument which he says is not in a business spirit?
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am coming to that. I do not think it is on all fours. I do not think these analogies are very strong, or that they support the

117
arguments which they are introduced to benefit. Listening to the hon Member, this is how the case seemed to appear to him. He says that the Government last year differentiated between earned and unearned income, and he argues, "If we are right, might not the holder of Consols or of stocks in any other company complain that the Government had thereby broken faith with them?" No, I think not. The tax might be a good one or a bad one, but would not be open to the particular criticism we are applying to it now. Here you take out a particular form of property and subject it to a particular tax which you do not subject other property to in like circumstances The State has always been very jealous, and rightly so, of the care it displays to holders of Government securities, but if the hon. Gentleman or the Government were to propose a tax on holders of Consols to which no other form of property* was subject, then I think the State would be breaking faith with the holders of Consols. That has never been done in this country, and, I venture to hope, it never will. I feel anxious to know the length to which the analogy would carry. He did say it was exactly analogous with what might be done with an investor in Consols or any other form of property. That is the fear that I have and that I entertain. The Government for the present pick out a particular class whom they have thought to be not numerous and not popular, and impose upon them three different taxes not imposed upon any other form of property even when that form of property is receiving the same benefit. The suggested analogy has no basis in fact; and not only may some future Chancellor of the Exchequer be invited, but the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has been invited by the Prime Minister to trace windfalls and unearned increment in every other form of property, and in his next Budget to apply the principle of the present taxes to all forms of property. That might make the present taxes less inequitable, but it certainly would not make them more popular. The distinction between earned and unearned increment, however, does not appear to me to have any bearing on this particular point.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument to be this. He says that unearned income of all kinds is taxed—not income from Consols or from anything else, specifically and separately—but all
118
unearned income is taxed, therefore there is no breach of contract, because there is a 'breach of contract in respect of one kind of property in this case, it is unjustifiable; but if we broke contracts all around it would be perfectly justifiable.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, no. I say it would be most unfair to break contracts in any particular where the contract is a free contract. I admit there may be cases where a contract is not a free contract, and where, in the interests of the freedom of trade or of the liberty of the individual, the Treasury may step in and break the contract; but those occasions are very rare, and wherever one is alleged it should be most carefully examined and guarded. I am not prepared to say, however, that there is no contract which, under any circumstances, the State has not a right to break in the interests of the community, as a whole, or of the individuals who have not been free bargainers; but I say that the State has not a right to break contracts in the interests of the Treasury. My defence of the discrimination between earned and unearned income—as far as it was a defence, because I never thought it was a a very wise or prudent distinction — was based on the ground not that broke all contracts, but that it broke no contract. There is, I think, a tacit contract with the creditor of the State who holds Consols that you will not subject him to liabilities to which you do not subject other people in a similar position holding similar securities. But there is no contract that you will not raise his Income Tax, or alter the taxation, provided you apply it fairly to every kind of similar property. In that case I do not think it could be suggested that there was any breach of contract. In this case, for reasons I have already given, I think there is a breach of contract.
The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Ridsdale) pointed out that the so-called windfall is in fact nothing but interest accumulated on a present value existing at the granting of a lease, but which is not claimed by the lessor until the conclusion of the lease. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. R. Macdonald) doubted that. He said—and I welcomed the declaration, though I heard it with surprise —that if that could be proved he would vote for the Amendment; but he doubted it because of some mysterious property in the land connected with what is called its monopoly value. I think hon. Members are very much misled by a phrase when

119
they talk about the monopoly value of land. There is an enormous amount of land; there is always land in the market; if one particular man will not sell, there are others who will; and in the strict sense of the term, having regard to the number of owners, you cannot say that there is any monopoly at all. I should be very much surprised if there are not more holders of land than there are holders of Consols; and if the limited number of holders of land makes land a monopoly, you might just as well say that the still more limited number of holders of Consols makes Consols a monopoly. When one of these contracts is entered into, both parties consider as carefully as possible what advantages will accrue to either, and it is on that careful examination by those which are most interested in arriving at a correct result, and best able to do so, the bargain is struck. Of course the lessor and the lessee, as part of that examination, take account of the present value which the lessor gives to the lessee without present return, and of the future value which the lessee has to return to the lessor at the falling in of the lease in compensation for that present value not at once claimed by the lessor; and, though there may be an unexpected element of profit in some cases, in the great majority of cases undoubtedly the hon. Member for Brighton is perfectly correct when he says the benefit accruing at the end of the lease is nothing more than compound interest on the value surrendered without immediate consideration at the beginning of the lease. But the hon. Member could not expect that argument to carry weight with the Government; I am only surprised that it had any weight with the hon. Member for Leicester; because exactly the same point was raised in connection with the Income Tax. I stated on the second reading of the Bill or even earlier that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer called unearned increment and then levied toll upon it, was in fact nothing more than deferred interest. I raised the matter more specifically on a particular Amendment which, whatever may be the general argument against "unearned increment," "unexpected value," or "windfalls," confined the point then before the Committee absolutely to interest. It was moved that compound interest should be allowed on the site value before increment value began to be recovered. Simple interest is allowed in the Frankfort case, of
120
which we have heard so much. But the Government refused to allow any interest, simple or compound, under any circumstances whatever. And for what reason? I imagine the hon. Member for Brighton was not in the House at that time. I do not know whether he heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer's reply to him. No, he did not. It was very significant and conclusive from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but absolutely fatal to the justice of the tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that it was obvious that he could not accept that view, because if he did this tax would produce nothing. What becomes of the windfall? The whole of the windfall argument is gone! By the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own admission what was described as a windfall becomes merely-well, of course, if he would not accept the interest on the tax under those circumstances, neither was it to be expected that he would accept the interest on the tax under the Reversion Duties. I am surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not feel it necessary to inquire into the niceness, justice, and equity of the case. But he said, "If I do right, I get no money; therefore, I cannot afford to do right: I must take my tax where I can get it." We must not be surprised if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, under those circumstances, refuses to admit that it is a real breach of existing contracts—a taking away from a man, not the unexpected, hidden, problematical windfall which has accrued to him without any anticipation or calculation on his part. It is, in fact, depriving him of a share of the interest in a property which he has always had.
Mr. J. F. MASON: I do not agree with the reason given by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. J. B,. Macdonald) as to why his conscience will allow him to vote against this Amendment, whilst at the same time he is against breaking contracts. I should like to ask why a man who takes a piece of land upon a certain lease is less free in making that contract than a man who takes a piece of land at a rental? I cannot quite follow the injustice in the one case and the justice in the other. Between two cases, in one of which, we will say, 40 or 45 years ago, the owner let a piece of land at £5 a year on condition that the man who took it built a house on it worth £1,000, and another where the land was let for £15, the owner himself building a house. In the first case the owner

121
took £5 a year from the plot of land because he expected that at the end of the period he would become the owner of the house, whereas in the other case he built the house himself, and charged the higher rental for the land. So far as I can see there was no compulsion to take the land in either case. If the one form of contract is just, then the other form is just too. I cannot see either why there should be any difficulty thrown in the way of building leases, which is apparently the object of this tax. You want to reduce the term of leases to less than 21 years. You make it extremely difficult in the future to make long building leases. That seems to me to create a very great difficulty in the general building trade, because a builder has not usually got the money to invest in the land. It pays him much better to pay a ground rent than to sink his capital in the purchase of land. At the same time in many cases the owner of the land has not got the money to develop it. If you are going to do anything to destroy the system of building leases it seems to me that you will be doing a great deal to interfere with the general building trade of the country. It is very difficult to say that the Bill, as it stands, does not propose to break contracts, or, at any rate, to go back upon the well-known statement of the Prime Minister, who pledged himself that all existing contracts would be rigidly respected. The fact is, I suppose, that the Prime Minister at that time meant to infer that ground rents and feu duties, as such, could not be taxed. That is quite possible. But in this Reversionary Tax, although he does not tax the ground rents while running, he practically taxes them at the end of their lease by taxing their capital value.
Bear in mind that the value which he is going to tax is not that which will accrue from to-day onward. He proposes to tax the increased value which will have accrued under these leases from the beginning—it may be 98 years ago. If that is so, it seems certain that this Land Tax —unlike the other, that starts from this day onwards—is going back to the beginning, however far back it may go. But, of course, when the land, as is very frequently the case, changes hands during the currency of the lease, it is quite evident that a portion of the price paid for the lease has been partly paid for the lease and partly for the Reversion Duty. The amount which has been paid for the reversion is perfectly well known. It
122
amounts to a regular tabulated amount, according to the number of years the lease has still to run. But we must not lose sight of the effect which this tax, without the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton, and as proposed in the Bill, is going to have. It seems to me to be dangerous, inasmuch as it must create a very general feeling of insecurity. I think that the disturbance which must accrue in the making of contracts in general, and especially the disturbance which will take place in the building trade—in the making of contracts for building leases—is a matter which ought to be very seriously considered, and which I think only very dire distress in the case of the public purse should justify in anything like the contemplated taxation. This tax is not going to yield a very large amount. There has been put forward no sufficient excuse, no excuse at all in fact, for a proposal which not only seems unfair and unjust to those concerned, but seems likely to disturb to an enormous degree the prosperity and future continuance of a most important industry—that of building.
Viscount MORPETH: No speaker, so far as I have heard, has defended this tax as being especially justifiable on the ground of quasi-monopoly value, because the leasehold is not distinct from sale or annual letting by any special characteristics of monopoly. It is true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day, when he introduced his Bill, defended this tax on the ground that he was going to put an end to the leasehold system, as though there was something morally wrong about leasehold. It seems to me to be a business transaction on exactly the same plane as either selling or letting land. It is a question of convenience on the side of the landlord or the tenant whether it is to take the form of purchase or leasing. It is a fact that in many cases the leasehold system is vastly more convenient than out-and-out purchase, because payments are made by small annual amounts instead of by a big capital sum. And, what is more astonishing, it is often found that certain quasi-corporations—if a club may be called such—which looks forward to permanent existence—institutions of that kind have in many instances found it desirable to build their club houses on leasehold property and to make provision for the renewal of the lease when it falls in rather than remove to freehold plots. It is for that reason that I am unable to understand how it is that hon. Members attempt to

123
justify this tax on the ground of its being a general attack on land monopoly. The hon. Member for Leicester told the Committee that if it could be proved to him that all that came back at the termination of the lease was the lease plus compound interest he would not object to this special tax; but he said that was not the case, and for a rather peculiar reason, that the landlord in granting the lease had a superior economic advantage over the man who took it—that is to say, there is no open market. That will appear astonishing to anybody who has dealing with houses either as a seller or purchaser in big towns. It is notorious that if you desire to take a lease of the house, and there are many empty houses in the district, that so far from there being any monopoly value on the part of the landlord or any conditions restricting the market, the conditions are against the owner who desires to lease the house, and very much on the side of the tenant. That process is to be seen in every direction in London and large provincial towns. Not many years ago the same phenomenon manifested itself in agricultural land. In many cases the landlord found it impossible to get applicants for the farms and had to take the land into his own hands, and that is a direct proof that there was no monopoly value. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Leicester to tell us that partly because of this monopoly value and partly because of increment value that an Increment Value Tax should be imposed. I thought we had finished with Increment Taxes, and that the Committee had already imposed an Increment Tax, which is in no sense to be mixed up with the Leasehold Reversionary Tax.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his opening speech told us this was in the nature of a windfall, but it would be just as reasonable to tax an Ambassador who retires from the service and who is taking part of his salary in the shape of deferred pay, or to tax a soldier who retired from the service after long years of service and to put a special Super-tax upon what fell to him at the close of his service, and say it was a windfall which he has not earned at the moment. We were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the sums received by the landlord does not represent the real value of the land; that is the value that will be given by a willing buyer to a willing seller. Then we were told that
124
every seller of a lease demands an exorbitant rack rent from those who desire to purchase. The Chancellor certainly must know that in the most fashionable quarters of London and in the most important estates of this city there are ground rents running as low as 10s. 6d. per year. Can anyone suggest that ground rents of that kind can be called exorbitant, and is it not obvious that by the very smallness of the ground rent that the consideration for the granting of the lease was obviously and entirely the consideration which would be received by the landlord when the lease fell in? It is that expectation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to tax at the rate of 10 per cent. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposes such a tax as that he may well claim that he is anxious to put an end to the leasehold system, and that he regards, as the. Prime Minister did, as putting an end to a system which he regarded as vicious, but which is really taking from the pockets of the taxpayers money really due to them.
Mr. HAROLD COX: I hope that the representatives of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will appreciate the importance of this matter. I can perfectly understand, though I do not agree with the operation, that you should penalise a particular form of lease. I do not agree with it. I do not think it is the duty of the State to interfere with particular transactions. In this particular case that is not what you are doing. What you are doing is, you are picking out certain individuals and taking a proportion of their property away from them, apparently upon the theory that it is a windfall. I do not know whether the Attorney-General has accepted that theory, which was put forward by Professor Pigou, and was actually embraced by the Prime Minister and the "Westminster Gazette." It is unfortunate, surely, that after that theory was put forward by Professor Pigou the learned Professor should have withdrawn it altogether, and suggested that the Government should withdraw their tax upon more mature consideration. Since that day, as far as I have been able to observe, the name of Pigou was pronounced no more. What the Government are now proposing to do if they reject this Amendment is to say to certain persons, "You have accepted a certain benefit, you have paid for that benefit, we are going to take 10 per cent away from you." Let me give a case which came under my own

125
observation a few days ago. A friend of mine happened to be trustee for a numerically large but financially poor family, and he told me about 10 years ago he became trustee of property in Mayfair with a ground rental of £3 running for 700 years. The house was dilapidated, and the family had not enough money to rebuild. They therefore turned to some capitalist and said, "If you will put a good house on this site we will give you a low rent for 50 years." Forty of those years had yet to run. The prospect of value has been absolutely and scientifically discounted. By what reason can that be called a windfall? By what argument can you justify taking 10 per cent, from those people rather than taking it off the value of a deferred annuity which a man has purchased in the Post Office, and which people are investing in every day? Does the Attorney-General contend that this kind of property ought to be treated as a windfall? Where is the difference between the two cases? I hope the Attorney-General will direct himself to that fundamental point, and not deal with the purely legal aspect of the question. By this proposal you are picking out certain fellow-citizens and saying they shall be taxed without regard to the ordinary rules of equity. Although the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) argued ingeniously that this is not a breach of contract, I think he was quite beside the point; in fact, the phrase, "breach of contract," ought not to have been used at all. This is a question of doing an injustice to a certain number of our fellow-citizens, and I think it is the duty of this House to protest against that. I cannot see that you are justified in doing this injustice when you Bay land is different to other forms of property. We all admit that it is different, and that is why you treat land itself as a thing apart and subject it to obligations to which you do not subject other forms of property. There is no reason why you should say that the income derived from land should be subject to penal taxation, which is not imposed upon other forms of property. This particular tax is not one of your sacred Henry Georgite taxes, because it applies to houses as well as land. To a man who has expected benefit from a house you say, "We will take this from you because in past years you were foolish enough to make a lease."
Mr. H. W. FORSTER: I am not the least surprised that the speech we have just
126
heard from the hon. Member for Preston has failed to elicit any reply from the Front Bench opposite. The hon. Member for Preston gave a concrete instance of the way in which a tax under this Bill must work hardship and injustice upon a class of the community who are not wholly undeserving. I will ask the Committee to allow me to give one or two concrete instances in order to show that the imposition of the tax proposed will inflict a very great hardship indeed. I will take the case of three small properties in the South-East of London. The first property consists of 17½ acres of land. The lease was created 50 odd years ago; the ground rent payable is £315 a year, with a rateable value of £5,000. The ground rent is one-sixteenth of the rateable value, and I am told that that is not exorbitant, but, on the contrary, it is a very low figure. The second property consists of seven acres, with a ground rent of £126, and a rateable value of £1,226. In this case the ground rent is, roughly, one-tenth. In the third instance there is 10½ acres of ground, with a ground rent of £250 a year, and a rateable value of £4,000. In this case the ground rent amounts, roughly, to one-fifteenth. I mention the ratio of the ground rent to the rateable value in order to show that the ground rents are not excessive. What will be the effect of the proposal of this Bill at the end of the lease? We are told the way in which you are to arrive at the amount on which the tax is to be levied is to take the capital value of the consideration for the lease and deduct that from the total value of the land as it is at the determination of the lease and charge 10 per cent, upon the difference. I will suppose, for the sake of argument, that you will arrive at the capital value of the consideration for the lease by so many years' purchase. There are other considerations which arise under the considerations contained in the original lease, but those will not enter into the case. You arrive at the capital value of the consideration by taking so many years' purchase of the ground. I will take 20 years' purchase of the ground rent as being not an unreasonable number of years by which to multiply. I imagine you will arrive at the total value of the land by applying so many years' purchase to the rateable value, and I take 20 years' purchase in this case also, and it seems to me quite fair to apply the same number to one as to the other. The result is that, taking 20 years of the ground

127
rent on the first property, the amount is £6,300; 20 years' rateable value produces £100,000, and on £100,000 a Reversion Duty would amount to £10,000, or nearly 50 per cent, more than the amount of the capitalised value of the consideration in the lease. In the case of the second property the 20 years' purchase ground rent amounts to £2,500, and the rateable value to £24,000. The Reversion Duty would be £2,200, or again nearly equal to the whole of the capitalised value of the consideration in the original lease. In the third property, the Reversion Duty on the same basis would amount to 50 per cent, more than the capitalised value of the consideration of the original lease. How do you justify this? How does the Government justify that proposal? What does it lead to and what does it mean? It means that the more liberal the landlord when he created the lease, the heavier is the tax which his successors have to pay; and the more grasping the landlord in the first instance, the more lightly are his successors dealt with under the Bill. It means the extinction of the leasehold system. The Government cannot suppose that any owner of land is going to deal with it on the leasehold system if this is the kind of treatment he or his successors are going to meet with in the future. The Government are not imposing this duty on the reversion of property. They are imposing a tax upon specially selected individuals. I do not think it is fair, or that it can be justified. The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Haldane) explained the basis of the tax as being one that was properly levied upon persons peculiarly well qualified to bear it. I suppose they are peculiarly well qualified to bear it because they happen to have got money in their pockets. Is a man who is largely interested in South African mines, who goes on a sea voyage for his health, and who comes back finding himself very much richer at the end of his journey than he was before, less peculiarly well qualified to bear spoliation than the subject of the tax which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd-George) proposes to impose? I cannot for the life of me see upon what principle the Government are proceeding. I very much doubt whether they are proceeding upon any principle at all. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has surveyed his fiscal horizon, and, seeing the obnoxious figure of a landlord, has said to himself: "Here is a landowner with
128
money in his pocket! This is a very suitable occasion on which the State may share it with him." If the right hon. Gentleman himself had recently cashed a cheque for £20, and he was assailed by a man stronger than himself, who proceeded upon the same principle, I think he would very naturally, and, as I think, very properly, raise a loud outcry, and I can well imagine the columns in the daily Press the following morning containing headlines "Taffy's Opinions of Bill Sykes." I honestly think the tax which the Government is proposing to put on these reversions is clear confiscation. I cannot see that it is founded on principle. I cannot see why it is to be confined to one small class of the community. Under these circumstances it seems to me to be robbery, and I do not hesitate to say so. The right hon. Gentleman will effectually destroy a system which has done a great deal to provide cheap houses in the past. He has done a great deal to make it infinitely more difficult to get land for the creation of small houses in the future, and, while he does that, he inflicts, as I think, a gross hardship and a great injustice upon people who have not in any way deserved it.
Mr. A. LYULPH STANLEY: I think it would solve a good many of our difficulties if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain the exact purport of this clause. If I read it rightly, the reversioner is entitled, when the property reverts to him, to deduct the value of the house upon the land, and it is the extent by which the value of the land exceeds the value of the lease which is being taxed. That seems to me to be the true increment. If, on the other hand, the proposal is to take the value of the house and the land as the subject for taxation, you are taxing what a man has contracted for, viz., the improvement in the property on consideration of which he granted a reduced ground rent. I think it would be inequitable because a man has granted a lease of his property at a reduced ground rent to tax him on the reversion value of the house which is put upon the land under the contract between him and the lessee. If, however, he is allowed to deduct from the value of that reversionary property the value of what he contracted to have put upon it, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer only taxes the increased value of the land, as apart from the buildings, then I should be very ready to vote for the clause and against the Amendment. But I think we ought to have it made clear

129
what exactly the Government proposes to tax, whether it is the value of the land and houses, or merely the reversion of the value of the land.
Mr. REMNANT: When I was complaining just now that this Amendment was a safeguard against violating existing contracts, the Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. A. Dewar) stated that it was not, and that in the course of his existence, so far as he knew, he had always voted against violating existing contracts. I alluded to the Select Committee of 1906 for the taxation of land values in Scotland, of which we were both Members, and he denied having done anything of the sort of which I taxed him. I have looked it up, and I find the Amendment which I stated I had moved was to this effect: "And are of opinion that the violation of existing contracts relating to the payment of rates would be indefensible." That was supported by a Member of the present Government, and I find heading the list of those voting against that is the name of Mr. Arthur Dewar. I thought it was only fair to state that this was so, and I am quite sure the Solicitor-General for Scotland has forgotten it. It shows at all events the extreme spirit of levity with which these serious matters have been approached, and the lightness with which they have been taken in hand must impress itself upon those outside the House and deepen the general impression that the Government are not doing their best to make existing contracts secure.
Mr. P. THORNTON: It seems to me we have reached what we may almost say is the parting of the ways in the matter of contracts. This controversy has narrowed itself down to a question as to what is the meaning of a windfall. I was not in the House when the Attorney-General made his speech, but I cannot accept his contention. So far as I can understand it, a windfall is generally described as an unexpected gain or an advantage. It cannot be an unexpected gain or an advantage when yourself or your heirs have a right not to have their agreements taxed, and therefore I maintain that the question of a windfall does not arise here. In my opinion it will be very much more difficult in the future to lease land in the
suburban districts of London, and, as a consequence, the working classes will have to pay more for their homes if this principle is maintained in the Bill. It is for the Government to prove that they will have nothing to do with breaking contracts, but I must say there does seem to be in this matter a new departure.
Mr. C. J. O'DONNELL: I rise to support this clause. If there is any portion of the taxation of land which is eminently desirable it seems to me it is this. I am opposed to the valuation of land because the cost is excessive. I am opposed to the Death Duties also because they are excessive. But when we are brought face to face with the immense profits that result from the renewal of leases I think it is absolutely necessary that the Liberal party should be entirely unanimous. My Friend the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Harold Cox) regards all taxation of land as spoliation and unjust. I should like to cite three cases, and get his opinion upon them. I will take the case, first, of a house in the West End of London. It is a palatial place; the ground rent was £250 per year; the lease came to an end; the rent was raised to £2,000, and there was besides a fine of £10,000—
The CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The question under discussion is the exemption of leases now in existence. The point raised by the hon. Member would come under the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. C. J. O'DONNELL: I regret I am unable to develop my argument. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have brought forward cases in their knowledge where injustice has been done. [An HON. MEMBER: "Under existing leases."] I will not, however, pursue this point. I hope that, on this clause, the Liberal party will insist upon what it has been trying to do for the last quarter of a century, namely, that some portion of the enormous profit on ground leases shall be acquired by the State.
Question put, "That these words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 91; Noes, 260.

Division No. 315.]

AYES.

[10.14 p.m.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Balcarres, Lord

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Baldwin, Stanley

Beck, A, Cecil

Bull, Sir William James

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Carlile, E. Hildred

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

Cave, George

Haddock, George G.

Percy, Earl

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hamilton, Marquess of

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Pretyman, E. G.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Clive, Percy Archer

Helmsley, Viscount

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Courthope, G. Loyd

Hill, Sir Clement

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Cox, Harold

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Craig, Captain James (Down E.)

Kerry, Earl of

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Craik, Sir Henry

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Stanier, Beville

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Doughty, Sir George

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Starkey, John R.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Du Cros, Arthur

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Thornton, Percy M.

Faber, George Denison (York)

M'Arthur, Charles

Valentia, Viscount

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

Fell, Arthur

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Winterton, Earl

Forster, Henry William

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Foster, P. S.

Morpeth, Viscount

Gardner, Ernest

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Newdegate, F. A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Ridsdale and Mr. Remnant.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Oddy, John James

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

NOES.

Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Hodge, John

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hogan, Michael

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Cross, Alexander

Holt, Richard Durning

Agnew, George William

Cullinan, J.

Hooper, A. G

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

Horniman, Emslie John

Alden, Percy

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hudson, Walter

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Armitage, R.

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dillon, John

Idris, T. H. W.

Astbury, John Meir

Donelan, Captain A.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Jackson, R. S.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Joyce, Michael

Barker, Sir John

Esslemont, George Birnie

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Evans, Sir S. T.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Everett, R. Lacey

Lambert, George

Barnes, G. N.

Fenwick, Charles

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lehmann, R. C.

Beale, W. P.

Flynn, James Christopher

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Ball, Richard

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Levy, Sir Maurice

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Bennett, E. N.

Fullerton, Hugh

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Berrigde, T. H. D.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Gill, A. H.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Black, Arthur W.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Glover, Thomas

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Bowerman, C. W.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Maclean, Donald

Brace, William

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Brodle, H. C.

Griffith, Ellis J.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Brooke, Stopford

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Bryce, J. Annan

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Maddison, Frederick

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hart-Davies, T.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Marnham, F. J.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Massie, J.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Haworth, Arthur A.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Hayden, John Patrick

Meagher, Michael

Byles, William Pollard

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hazleton, Richard

Micklem, Nathaniel

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hedges, A. Paget

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Helme, Norval Watson

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Mooney, J. J.

Cleland, J. W.

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

Morrell, Philip

Clough, William

Henry, Charles S.

Morse, L. L.

Clynes, J. R.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

132

133

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Thomasson, Franklin

Napier, T. B.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Nicholls, George

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Nolan, Joseph

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Toulmin, George

Norman, Sir Henry

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Verney, F. W.

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Vivian, Henry

Nussey, Sir Willans

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Walsh, Stephen

Nuttall, Harry

Rowlands, J.

Walton, Joseph

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Waterlow, D. S.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Watt, Henry A.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Seely, Colonel

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Shackleton, David James

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Phillipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Simon, John Ailsebrook

Wiles, Thomas

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wilkie, Alexander

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Snowden, P.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Soares, Ernest J.

Williamson, Sir A.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Stanger, H. Y.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Steadman, W. C.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Radford, G. H.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Winfrey, R.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Summerbell, T.

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Reddy, M.

Sutherland, J. E.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Rendall, Athelstan

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Mr. LAURENCE HARDYmoved, after "land," to insert "other than a mining lease." I have very considerable doubt whether this tax will affect minerals, because it may be said there are very few cases in which a Reversion Duty would actually fall on the determination of a mineral lease. Even if that is so, I think it is most desirable that the point should be cleared up, and it can be done in the most easy way by the acceptance of the Amendment. There are cases where it will be found it might be possible that this tax should be applied to minerals, though they are not very frequent. There are cases where small mineral properties have been taken by a lessee in connection with a larger mineral field, and have not been worked during continuance of the lease, and the actual value to the lessee would be in excess of the value under section (2). If the reversion was insisted upon, it would conflict with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he did not desire that any duty upon minerals should fall upon the industry, because the only person really interested in such minerals would be the actual lessee. It would probably be impossible for any other person to work them if he abandoned them. Therefore, while it would be a very great advantage that he should be able to do as he does now and get a renewal of the lease from the lessor in order to work out
134
the minerals he had already paid for, if this Reversion Duty were inserted he would have to pay the Reversion Duty altogether, and it would fall upon the industry, and it would conflict with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put forward. Then there is the case where minerals have been left unworked and been relet at a large royalty at the conclusion of the lease—not a frequent case, but one which may happen. These cases are all rather complicated. They would all involve that the tax would fall upon the lessee and not upon the lessor, and I would ask the Government, though we are considering a very small number of cases which will be affected, whether it would not be much better to clear up the point and exclude mineral leases altogether from the Reversion Duty?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the Reversion Duty is to apply at all, I do not see on what ground there can be any distinction between a building reversion and the reversion of a mineral lease. It would only apply where a higher royalty was exacted by the reversioner at the end of the lease. If he cannot renew the lease on better terms at the end of the lease, no Reversion Duty would be payable at all. It is only when higher and more onerous terms are to be exacted from the colliery proprietor that the duty will apply, and it is only then a tenth of the improved rent that will

135
be paid. It may be assumed that the owner will get the best terms he can, and if he is not getting a higher royalty or rent you cannot exact the tax. Whatever the value is the tax simply applies to the capital value of the rent and royalty over and above the old lease. If he is only getting the same rent and royalty, there is not then the 10 per cent, tax to pay. If a colliery proprietor spends an enormous sum of money in developing the property and the lease expires before he has worked out all the minerals, the reversioner steps in and takes full advantage of the enormous sum spent by the colliery proprietor in developing the property. In that case I do not see why he should not pay this 10 per cent. For that reason I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. F. A. NEWDEGATE: The right hon. Gentleman has told us of the colliery proprietor who spends an enormous sum in developing a colliery. I wish to point out how very complicated this question is. I think anybody who has had experience in mining will know that very often in the first instance the original proprietor starts to develop a colliery, and he finds that he has not capital enough to pull it through. He will then lease the colliery for a certain number of years to a company to pull it through. Possibly he may give very advantageous terms to get it leased at all. It would be a hardship if at the end of the lease, when the owner of the minerals may have spent an enormous sum in developing them, he should have to pay to the reversioner duty when the lease lapses and falls into the hands of the owner. I mention this to show that the whole question of minerals is immensely complicated. I venture with all respect to say that the Government have with a very light heart gone into this question of minerals without thoroughly considering it in all its bearings. There is another point in regard to which I see no protection in the clause as it stands. I know an instance of this kind. Supposing a stone quarry is being worked and the lessee is not doing very well, he throws the quarry on to the hands of the owner, and it is found afterwards that the stone is of most excellent quality. It was only owing to the fact that it was badly worked that the quarry had not paid. Is there any protection at all in this Bill that the owner will not have to pay a heavy Reversion Duty, because it was owing to the fault of the
136
lessee that the quarry is badly worked? I know that that is a case in point. There was another case some time ago of lime kilns in the North of Ireland. The lime was of excellent quality, but was not worked at a profit by the lessee, and the lessor had to take those lime kilns into his own hands, and by seeing that they were properly worked the lime became a valuable property. According to this the Commissioners could come down and say to the lessor that the lime was much more valuable shortly after he took it over from the lessee than it was before that. In everything which the Government had: said they have always spoken as if the owner of the land had done nothing whatever to develop the minerals, and that it was all done by the lessee. That is hardly accurate. Very often in the first instance it is upon the lessor that the loss of proving the minerals falls. He leases the minerals for a certain number of years. There are probably a certain number of breaks in the mineral leases, and in those breaks there is a clause put in to the effect that if the lessor chooses to pay a certain large sum of money for the use of the machinery in that case the lessor may resume the mine. According to this Bill it seems to me that the lessor would have to pay a very heavy duty for doing so, although it may be part of the original bargain. That seems to me to be a hardship.
I should specially like to point out the case of my own county (Warwickshire), where a few years ago the coal was considered to be of a very inferior quality. Of late years it has been proved in certain places to be of superior quality. According to this Bill it is quite possible that on a lease coming to an end it might be urged by the Commissioners that the coal which was leased was very much more valuable at the time the lease came to an end than at the time that the coal was leased, so that the unfortunate owner would have to pay a very heavy Reversion Duty if the lease came to an end. Another point is that the owner of minerals in order to get minerals together will lease his coal on very easy terms, and he will do it with his eyes open in order to develop coal or to develop minerals; and when the lease comes to an end it might be possible for the owner to get very much better terms than he did before when the original lease was made. If the owner has been public spirited enough in order to develop coal fields, or in order to develop the district to lease those minerals

137
on advantageous terms, it is a hardship for him on account of his public spirit that he should have to pay heavy Reversion Duty whenever the lease came to an end or was broken. I venture to point out those two matters in a practical spirit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am perfectly certain that he does not wish to do injustice, yet I do say with all solemnity that the heavy tax on minerals and this heavy Increment Duty on minerals, which we are not discussing now, and the heavy Reversion Duty which may come on by this clause, might effect very great injustice on people who did not deserve it; and I would beg him, even at the eleventh hour, to be very careful how he gambles with minerals.
Mr. F. W. LAMBTON: I gather from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has not been paying much attention to the remarks of my hon. Friend (Mr. Newdegate) who has just spoken. The right hon. Gentleman says that he does not see why mines should be treated differently from ordinary land. He pointed to the increment value and so on. It is impossible to estimate the value of the mining lease. That depends on the coals to be got in the future, and not upon the way it stands in the market. The same remark applies to the Reversion Duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it would not be fair that the Reversion Duty should be charged on the lease if the royalty was a higher royalty than the previous one. If you take the Reversion Duty as the fair measure with regard to other leases granted, it ought to be fair with regard to mining leases. According to this Bill, you will have very great difficulty in working it out. Section (2) of this clause says: "For the purposes of this section the value of the benefit accruing to the lessor shall be deemed to be the amount (if any) by which the total value of the land at the time the lease determines exceeds the capital value of the consideration for the original grant of the lease."
Does the right hon. Gentleman know how that will work out in the case of mining leases? The right hon. Gentleman says that, of course, if the lease is renewed and the rent is the same there will be no Reversion Duty. If the lease is renewed and there is an increased royalty, then the Reversion Duty may be charged, and although the royalty may be an increased one, it does not mean that the owner has got any more into his pocket. The rate per ton may be higher, and the coal
138
to be worked may be a diminishing quantity, because already our coalfields are being more or less worked out. In the counties of Northumberland and Durham when a lease falls in it is invariably renewed to the then lessee or to his successor at the same rent. No charges are made in either of those counties such as were described by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the heavy expenditure of the colliery owner. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Durham and Northumberland buildings, colliery equipments, and even the workmen's houses are not taken into consideration on the lease being granted. Yet, under section (2), the workmen's cottages would be the capital value of the land, and, therefore, would be valued for Reversion Duty, although the owner only gets the reversionary increase upon the lease itself. I do not know how that would work out with regard to ordinary land, but it cannot possibly work out fairly with regard to mineral leases. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is familiar with the conditions of mineral leases in Wales, but I can assure him that the provisions of this Bill cannot be worked out successfully in the conditions which obtain in Durham and Northumberland.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I think the large majority of this Committee are not experts in mining leases, and I would ask the Government to kindly explain how the words of this clause which govern leases under section (2) can apply to mining leases. The way I think the duty is to be levied is that you are first of all to say what was the capital value in consideration for the original grant of the lease. As I understand, a mining lease is not a lease at all in the ordinary acceptation of the word. What is meant, I understand, and what Clauses 7, 8, and 9 are intended to cover, is where you have a particular property which remains the same or may increase in value, and which is let for a term of years. A mining lease, as I understand it, is called a lease, but it is not a lease in the ordinary sense of the term, It is really a sale of minerals, or else merely implies that the sale, instead of being a sale, and paid for in one block, is to be worked out in a term of years. It is not a lease in the sense in which this clause applies at all, as far as I can discover. These provisions, therefore, do not seem to apply and I think so still more when I turn to the words. I think it is very important to know what the words mean.

139
Does capital value of the consideration from the original grant of the lease mean the whole full value of the minerals at that time, or, if not, what does it mean? If it means the whole capital value of the minerals at the time the lease was granted, it is perfectly obvious that the total value at a subsequent period must be less; and therefore there may be no increment at all. If it is not total value, what does it mean, and with what has it to be compared? Is it to be compared with the total value of the land at the time the lease determined, reading the word "minerals" for "land" in the case of mineral leases? If you are going to compare with the total value at the beginning it is clear that the latter must be the greater. You cannot get away from that unless fresh minerals have been discovered. I think we ought to have some explanation as to how a mineral lease can be accurately described as a lease in the sense of this section, and how it can be dealt with as land at all, and how these two things are to be compared.
Sir W. ROBSON: Section (2) of Clause 16 provides, "Where land comprises minerals a separate return shall be made under this section of the value of the minerals." Under Section 7 we are to apply the principles of the Reversion Duty. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) has shown rather conclusively that in a great many cases no Reversion Duty is likely to arise in the case of minerals, because you have a wasting security. The chances are, therefore, that that which corresponds to the original site value to the value of the land at the time at which these occasions are likely to arise will be much in excess of the value at the time it comes to be assessed. Therefore there will be no improvement or any increase in value upon which Reversion Duty could be assessed. It may be so, but it does not by any means follow that that will always be the case. You may have a lease which is not wasting in value. That would apply in the case of many high qualities of coal which are common in the country to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer belongs. There was at one time a dispute as to Welsh and Northumbrian coal, which was finally determined, I am sorry to say, in favour of Wales. There was a considerable increase of royalties of Welsh coal, particularly in certain seams which were very valuable. You might get a very large increase in that way.
Mr. PRETYMAN: You get that as increment.
Sir W. ROBSON: I am only talking of that as Reversion Duty. That is a special case. They fall under Reversion Duty wherever, under circumstances such as those to which I have referred—and there are many others—you have an increase in royalties, so that at the determination of the lease the lessor is able to get a better bargain for the mineral rights than he got from the lessee whose lease has just determined. There are many cases in which there is no probability whatever of any Reversion Duty ever attaching to the lease; but those cases where it does fall are cases in which I think it is singularly just.
Mr. GEORGE CAVE: I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman has quite dealt with the point. Take a mineral field worth £100,000, and assume a mineral lease at a dead rent of £500 merging in a royalty. The price at which you could put the consideration for the lease might not be more than £10.000. When the lease falls in, on what is Reversion Duty to be paid? On the total value of the land, £100,000, less the depreciation during the term (say £10,000) and less the consideration for the lease, £10,000; therefore you might have to pay Reversion Duty, one-tenth, on £80,000, although the property had not increased in value at all, but simply because you have under this system of mining leases granted a lease the consideration for which was necessarily, because the lease was for a limited time, much below the total value of the land. You have done it in the ordinary course of business. The minerals have not gone up a penny in value; and yet you have to pay to the State one-tenth of the value of the minerals which are left. The injustice is so gross that I do not think it can be intended; and yet, if the Attorney-General's explanation is correct, that is the effect of the Bill. I do not see how otherwise you can construe the Bill when you apply it to mining leases.
Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a perfectly good point upon a particular construction of the Bill to which I am bound to admit that, as now drafted, it is open. It is a point we have considered, and we propose to deal with it later on. The point expressly arises on an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Clavell Salter); at all events, we

141
think that is the Amendment upon which it can be best dealt with. As the wording now stands, we have a comparison made between the total value of the land at the time the lease determines and the capital value of the consideration for the grant of the lease. I propose, in due course, to delete the words "the capital value of the consideration for the grant of the lease"—because they do bear the construction put upon them by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cave), though it may be contended that they bear another construction also—and to substitute the words, "the total value of the land at the time of the original grant of the lease, to be ascertained on the basis of the rent reserved and payments in consideration of the lease." So that the comparison would be between the total value of the land at the end of the lease with the total value of the land at the beginning of the lease. I will read what follows the word "exceeds"—but perhaps I had better read the whole of the section:—"For the purposes of this section the value of the benefit accruing to the lessor shall be deemed to be the amount (if any) by which the total value of the land at the time the lease determines exceeds "—now follows the addition —"'the total value of the land at the time of the original grant of the lease, by ascertaining, on the basis of the rent reserve and the payments made in consideration of the lease.'"
On the consideration which has just been pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman the comparison would be made between the total value of the land on the determination of the lease with the capital value on the consideration for the lease. Now the consideration for the lease might very well be less than the total value. But it is the consideration for the lease here which is the deduction from the taxable value. The lower you make that consideration the higher you make the taxable value; therefore it was quite open to the construction suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman that you might be taking more consideration from the lease —to take a figure so low as that you would do a great injustice to the lessor.
I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that these words exactly embody the principle of the tax, which is to compare what the lessor gave for the rents reserved in the lease with what the lessor is getting at the end of the lease. If at the end of the lease he is getting more than
142
that which he gave—if, for instance, a house has been put on the land, and machinery and equipment for mining purposes—then to that excess we apply our 10 per cent, value.
Mr. CAVE: How are these words to apply in the case of mining? How can you ascertain the value of the land at the time of the granting of the lease on the basis of the rent reserved under the mining lease? Would you take it on the dead rent, or royalty, or what?
Sir W. ROBSON: I do not think that a mining lease provides any more difficulties than a surface lease. The later Clause (21) will also require Amendment in the sense I have indicated. There may be a less likelihood of us getting taxes in the mining lease; that is another matter.
Sir EDWARD CARSON: I know nothing about mining leases, but I do not believe you will be able to value, in the way the Attorney-General says, the considerations for the lease, taking the value at the time the lease was made and the value subsequently. We do not accept at all the statement that the Attorney-General makes as to the Amendment he proposes for the purpose of making this valuation, because, as I gathered from what he said, he said nothing whatever about other considerations of the lease in addition to the payment made. Clause 21, to which he referred, appears to give to the Commissioners power to take other considerations into account based upon subsection 2 as it at present stands. You are leaving that out now, which will mean another alteration. Might we not have these Amendments before us, so that we might have time to consider them. This will necessitate the recasting of the whole system of valuation, and it will also necessitate the recasting of section 21. As far as I can see, the Government never yet put down a single Amendment. They promised many, but put none down—
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: One.
Sir E. CARSON: Well, that one is the exception. I have never seen a complicated Bill of this kind discussed in Committee without Amendments which the Government promised being put down. It is very difficult to carry these matters in one's head. Now, at nearly eleven o'clock, we are told we are to have an Amendment of nearly the whole basis of the valuation, and we have to take the Amendments as read out and make what we can out of

143
them. The Bill is drafted in such a way that you have to pass over seven or eight clauses to come on a provision which is absolutely germane to an earlier clause under discussion. For instance, in this particular clause, when you come to the method of valuation and the consideration for the original granting of the lease, you do not know what that consideration is or how it is treated until you come to Clause 21, which is entirely germane to this particular clause. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General will take the earliest opportunity of letting us have these Amendments. I am sure the Attorney-General has not drafted this Amendment since the discussion came on. I do not think it is really possible to go on with complicated discussions of this kind without having some time to consider the proposals made by the Government.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I confess that personally I am utterly puzzled as to how this proposal is going to work out. This is a retrospective tax. You may have a lease which has run 25 years at the time this Act comes into force, and you will have to go back to see how much coal there was in the ground 25 years ago. How are you going to do that? You have to calculate the total value 25 years ago, and you can only do that by ascertaining how much coal there was there then. You must have a record of every ton of coal sold during that time. I cannot imagine how you are going to get the total value of the land 25 years before the Act came into force. When you have ascertained that factor you have to apply it and consider how it is to be used in connection with the dead rent on one side and the royalties on the other. The calculations will be of the utmost possible difficulty, and uncertain. Instead of patching up this Bill at the last moment when a fatal flaw has been pointed out—
Sir W. ROBSON: It is not a fatal flaw.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Here is an Amendment proposed at the last moment of immense importance, and I do not see how it is practicable or workable in reference to a mining lease.
Mr. J. S. AINSWORTH: I hope the Government will be careful before they agree to alter the words of this clause. I happen to know something about mining, and I do not know of any reason why the
144
appreciation or depreciation of a mining lease cannot be treated in the same way as the appreciation or the depreciation of any other kind of property. Hon. Members opposite are under the impression that no mining lease can appreciate at all. They seem to have got it into their minds that there is not so much minerals left as there was at the beginning, and, therefore, the latter part of the period must be of less value than the first part. I would also like hon. Gentlemen to look at it from this point of view. Supposing you take a lease for 21 years, and have to overcome a great deal of difficulty in boring and other operations, it is quite possible that just at the end of the lease you have got the mine in a paying condition, and have a chance of recovering the money you have spent, who does that mine belong to at the end of the 21 years? Does it belong to the lessee? No, it belongs to the lessor. A man who has not spent a halfpenny on the mine, but who has had the good fortune to have a piece of land in which minerals were believed to exist, and so believed to exist, that someone was prepared to take a lease and spend money on it, may find himself in possession of a place worth from £20,000 to £100,000. Is not that one of the strongest cases? Instead of wanting to exclude leases, they constitute the strongest possible case you could have of one man benefiting enormously by the expenditure of another. Under certain circumstances the lessor at the end of a lapse of time is in possession of the whole remunerative property created by the enterprising expenditure of another man, and yet you say those people should be excluded from the tax altogether. I think they are exactly the people who ought to be called upon to pay the tax.
Viscount HELMSLEY: The tax seems to me to be levied at the wrong moment and upon the wrong things. It makes it compulsory upon the lessor, when he can renew the lease, to charge a higher rent than he did before. It absolutely takes it out of his power to renew the lease on the same terms. That is very important. The value of the land is improved, of course, by the shaft and machinery upon it. It might also be improved by something else. It might be improved by a railway tapping the coalfield. There is a case of that kind in Ireland where there is a projected railway to Castlecomer. If that line goes through the coalfield its capital value will be very much improved. It might suit the lessor to let those

145
mining rights at the same rent as hitherto, so as they would contribute largely to the success of the railway; but under the Bill you make that impossible. You force the lessor, whether he wishes or not, to charge a higher rent than he did in the previous lease. There would be an increment in the value of the land by the value contributed to it by the building of the railway, and in order to recoup himself the owner will have to charge a higher rent. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that desirable? Does it not break down his argument that the owner would invariably charge a rack rent—a rent according to the increased value? I contend that, even if it suited his interest not to do so, he would be compelled to do so.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The hon. Member for Argyllshire has drawn a picture of what happens in connection with the Argyllshire mines.
Mr. AINSWORTH: I was referring to the North of England.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Well, the instances cited by the hon. Member differ from our experience in Lancashire, where in 99 cases out of 100, under the leases the ownership in coal is entirely severed from the ownership of the surface. The Attorney-General used the words, "compare like with like." I take it that that is to be the basis of this tax. It may be possible to apply that principle to a piece of land on which a house may be built, but you cannot apply it to a mining lease. In the latter case the coal is leased, and at the end of the lease the coal, or a very large proportion of it, is gone, and any new lease can only deal with what may remain. The Lancashire coal leases are usually made to cover a certain mileage. We have maps showing the seams, and these are what really are leased; the land is leased for the privilege of getting the coal underneath, and when the lease has expired the coal has gone, and the royalties on it have been paid. It is obvious that this clause, together with the Amendment of the Attorney-General, implying a comparison of like with like, is absolutely inapplicable to mining leases, because the subject matter of it has ceased to exist.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I want the Government to be good enough to answer another question. I admit I have no experience in mining matters, and indeed very little knowledge except from correspondence arising out of this Budget. I gather from that correspondence that in
146
parts of the country mining leases are not let for a term of years, but are, as a matter of fact, leases of coal under so many acres of land. How do the Government propose to deal with this under this provision? I had sent to me for quite another purpose a specific case of the kind, where the lease was of the coal under the land at so much per acre. That lease never expires until the whole of the coal is got.
Sir WILLIAM ROBSON: There is no reversion to it.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Then if there is to be no reversion there is to be no tax, and I think the Government may pretty well satisfy their minds that after this Bill is passed there will be no leases for terms of years for coal mines exceeding 21 years, and in as many cases as possible people will give leases per acre instead of for a term of years. It only shows that at the very first point at which we touch the machinery of these new taxes that machinery wholly breaks down, and it shows how ill-considered the proposals in connection with them are.
Mr. HALDANE: I never heard a more extraordinary speech than that to which we have just listened. The right hon. Gentleman said just now that there were no leases, there were no reversions, and no tax, and that is an observation which applies not only to mining leases, but to every other form of lease. Why do we anticipate that the leasehold system will continue? I will tell him.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I was dealing with a form of mining lease.
Mr. HALDANE: That is a grant of the fee simple of the coal under a certain acreage. It is not a grant for a term of years, but a grant of the fee simple of the coal, and is distinguishable. There is no term, and no lease, and no reversion. That may happen, and does happen, with very different and other forms of landed property. Why is it we have selected this Beversion Duty as the proper duty applied to a subject which exists and will continue to exist? I will tell you why. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to buy land for building, and he wants to get the most advantageous tenure for himself, he will do what is done in some parts of the country every day, he will ask for the fee simple for a lump sum down, or for a fee simple for a perpetual rent—it may be a

147
feu or a perpetual rent such as is levied in the North of England. But he will not get that, because the majority of the owners of land prefer to let on lease, knowing that the reversion will some day come into their possession, in respect of which they will get a chance of increased value. It is that increased value of the land which we propose to tax, and the reason why leaseholds exist to-day in regard to minerals, as well as in respect of every other kind of land, is this, that it is a form of transaction which gives a little chance on which the owners set store of a value, which might be very valuable. We do not take the whole of it; we take ten per cent of it, and we believe that the landlords will continue in their own interests to say that this is a beneficial form of transaction, and they will stick to it. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, we shall see who is right on that subject. I wish to point out that every word that the right hon. Gentleman said was descriptive of a grant of the fee simple in land in a multitude of other forms. We are dealing, not with the kind of transaction which the right hon. Gentleman described, but with the leasehold system, where there is a fixed term and a reversion at the expiration of the lease— a reversion which does in a great many cases carry an increased value, and it is that increased value, and that alone, we are trying to tax.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: When the amount was first put to us the Chancellor of the Exchequer passed it lightly aside, and said mining leases were on exactly the same footing as other leases. Since that the hon. Member (Mr. Cave) came forward and exposed what the Attorney-General admitted was an obvious flaw in the Bill. To remedy it the hon. and learned Gentleman comes forward with an Amendment. I do not know whether he had it in his pocket the whole time, but if he had it ought to have been on the Paper. If not, there is a wide divergence of opinion between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General. As the Amendment which the Attorney-General is going to move involves far-reaching consequences, it is of the greatest importance that it should be down on the Paper, and that we should have an opportunity of considering it before we are asked to pass our opinion upon it.
Mr. S. WALSH: It has been assumed that the class of security that the Govern-
148
ment propose to tax is a security that is wasted at the determination of the lease. That is to say, it is no longer in existence when the term of the lease is expired. But that is exactly the reverse of the facts, even in Lancashire. I will give the case of one of the largest mining firms in the United Kingdom, and the case of an authority whose name, if quoted, would carry conviction in every part of the House. In order to deal with the mining industry you must take large areas of land. In the case I speak of there are 200 leases, and you may go on for years and years and never be able to touch the coal in some of the leases. In this case the company had overpaid to the Landowners, for coal they had never been able to touch, £313,000. But if it were true that every year of the duration of your lease gave you a year's working of the lease, where would your over-payment be? The mere fact of that immense over-payment went to prove that a great deal of the coal had never been touched at all. This very authority of whom I speak gave a case where they had not only been overpaid, but where they had to write off as a bad debt £60,454. There was one case where between £16,000 and £17,000 was written off entirely because the landowner came forward in the case of a lease that might have gone on for 70 years, but was determinable by either party at the end of 35 years. Upon the strength of that lease and in the hope that the lessor would be willing to continue, the company had built houses for the workmen to the extent of nearly £10,000. Then they built workhouses and other erections at a cost of £6,000. Altogether upon that lease alone they had spent.nearly £16,000. They were desirous of going on on their old terms. "Oh!" said the lessor, "my rights under this lease enable me to cut off, and unless you are prepared to pay to me a higher value than you have hitherto paid I am going to take it all," and he took it. That is exactly the kind of case with which the Government hope to deal. This property with its workhouses and other erections and costly shafts, should at least be charged 10 per cent, duty. I do not know why the hon. Member for Liverpool should laugh at this.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I never was more solemn in my life.
Mr. WALSH: In the case I am quoting the lessee was perfectly willing to continue working on that lease, and to pay the proper figures for 35 years. I take it that

149
in ordinary open competition at the beginning of the lease the landlord got the best price he could in the open market. During the 35 years the landowner had done nothing but remain quiescent, receiving the benefits of his lease. He comes forward and determines the lease, and takes over all the added value which the company had created. Surely that is a case covered by the proposal that 10 per cent. Reversion Duty ought to come to the State. I am not saying that it will cure the evil. Perhaps some of us would like to make a larger exaction, but 10 per cent, is a little on the way. I would instance another case in point. In the case of the Dolcoath mine in Cornwall, the lease was determined when it had still three years to run. The lessees being desirous of continuing their industry, out of which they were making a reasonable profit, and out of which they had paid an immense profit to the landlord, went to the landlord three years before the time for the lease determining, and said, "We are desirous of continuing the lease." "Oh! yes," was the reply. "You can continue your lease if you will give me the three years you have in hand and one-fifteenth of your net profits as against one-eighteenth in the past, and a £40,000 fine." Surely that is the kind of case this clause will deal with. What are the terms which they agreed upon? The lessees agreed to forfeit the three years of the old lease, and a new lease was granted, the lessees agreeing to give one-fifteenth of the profits as against one-eighteenth under the former lease, and to pay a £25,000 fine. That is a case which we are—I use the word "we" in the collective sense—endeavouring to bring under the operation of the clause. The company I referred to was the Wigan Coal and Iron Company, and in 1891, according to Mr. Alfred Hewlett—and there is no greater authority than he in the Kingdom—they had overpaid £315,000 in rents, and they had written off as bad debts, under the conditions I have already described, £60,454. Surely when these immense values come in to people who did nothing to create them, the State has a right to step in and determine that some of these profits, at least, should come to the State.
Lord BALCARRES: The hon. Member (Mr. Walsh) has referred to the Wigan Coal and Iron Company, with which I happen to be connected. I understood from the earlier part of his speech that this company overpaid mining rents to the tune of £300,000, and that on the determination
150
of the agreement which would come under this Reversion Duty the proprietors of the land would have gained substantially over the transaction; and that under these conditions the hon. Member thinks that the State would soon step in and take a Reversion Duty of 10 per cent.
Mr. WALSH: Not upon the overpaid rents, but upon those cases where the amounts had been written off as bad debts, and where the whole thing has gone into the hands of the landowner.
Lord BALCARRES: I know the case on both sides. The lease of this particular company began in the sixties, and up to the present moment the lease has not terminated. It is in operation to-day, and will continue in operation for some little time to come. The statement of the hon. Member is founded on a complete, total, and, to my mind, as fully conversant with the facts, an extraordinary misapprehension of the situation. The bad debts to which the hon. Member referred to do not refer to any act of injustice either on the part of the lessor or that of the company. If I understood the hon. Member properly, he suggested that injustice had been done, and that possibly more would be done, and that although the proposal in this clause of the Budget Bill would not provide a complete remedy, yet, at any rate, it would be some compensation, and that under these painful conditions perhaps the whole of it should go to the National Exchequer. But I would urge this point to the Committee at large, that there is very little use in bringing forward any individual cases—transactions are so large and so complicated and the number of interests involved is really so enormous. Some of these single cases involve subordinate leases to the extent of 60, 80, and even 100; and in many cases, certainly all over Lancashire, with which I am familiar, it is impossible for the landlord to do an act of injustice from the very fact that his coal can only be worked in one single shaft. In a very large number of cases, owing to the want of inclination and various technical causes, the land on which the shaft has to be placed, the only shaft through which the mine can be worked, is the freehold property of the company. That, of course, cannot be subjected to this particular reversion from the landlord's point of view. There is thus a strong inducement to both sides to make an equitable agreement. I merely rise, however, to say that statements about particular concerns which may be made by

151
Members on either side of the House, taking either view, are not altogether suitable guides when we are dealing with the very large interests concerned.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: With reference to individual cases of hardship, I think only limited attention has been paid to the argument put forward by this side of the House, namely, that in putting on a Reversion Duty you are practically taxing industry, which is the very thing the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he does not desire. It is quite clear that the landlord in making a new agreement will ensure that the 10 per cent, duty is placed on the rent. I repeat that is entirely contrary to the views expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the deputation which he received a little while ago. With reference to what was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman earlier in the debate, I would point out that in a lease of minerals a term of years is put in, not with the idea of the landlord getting any advantage, but to limit the decrement of his land by the fact that minerals are being got out. The land is depreciated by the fact of an unlimited period for getting minerals, because he cannot deal with his land for other purposes at all. One very useful matter has been evolved in connection with the Amendment which has now been promised, and which to some extent illustrates the reading of the section. I should like very much to get perfectly clearly from the Attorney-General what he did mean. He said that in obtaining the total value of minerals we were to turn to Clause 16, where there was a separate return made of minerals. But we must remember that the separate return of minerals applies only to the minerals sold, but not to the expenditure in connection with sinking the shaft or machinery. Now we are told that the valuation is to include all those matters. There is certainly nothing in the Bill which in any way indicates it, but this proposal does introduce a new complication in the valuation of minerals which has been entirely unforseen. Whereas a large proportion of the minerals might be worked out, the shafts, machinery, and other things included at the end of the lease will produce an excessive value in proportion to the amount that has been wasted in getting the minerals. Even if that be the case, I do not see how the two things are to be compared. We are told that they are to be compared on exactly parallel
152
lines. If the one valuation is to be compared with that including machinery and other matters connected with the working of the minerals, I cannot see exactly how the parallel lines will enable us to carry out the valuation in any way. I still think much the simpler way would have been to exclude minerals altogether.
Mr. WALSH: The Noble Lord (Lord Balcarres) seemed to give a direct contradiction to the statement I made. On a point of that importance I have not only no desire to mislead the House, but I felt I had an accurate memory of the matter. If not, it is only right I should fetch the volume upon which I founded the statement, and if the House will permit me, I think it is only right to read the exact statement. This volume is the volume of the Royal Commission on Royalty Rents instituted by the Conservative Government of 1890. The evidence I am about to read from now is on page 109, and is the evidence of Mr. A. Hewlett. The questions are being submitted to him by Mr. Rhodes, who was a Member of the Royal Commission of that year.
"You are anxious, I believe, to give some details as to the amount of money which your company have paid for the coal which they have been unable to get, and which they have had to surrender?—Yes, I have taken them out."
The name of the company is the Wigan Coal and Iron Company.
"The total amount that your company have paid for the coal, under the minimum rent clause in your lease, which you have been unable to work, is £60,454, is it not?—That is so."
"Is that£860,454 included in the £313.642?—No."
"Is it in addition to that, amount?—It was written off as loss. As it was lost it was written off for the company's assets."
"I will take one or two leases as instances of the whole without taking you through them all. You held one lease for a term of forty years?—That was so."
"Which was terminable on notice by either party?—Yes."
"At the end of the first half of the term?—Yes."
"That is, at the end of thirty-five years?—Yes."
"Did the landlord avail himself of that right and determine the lease on 30th June, 180?—He did."
"Had you overpaid on that lease for coal which you did not get,£9,849?—We have."
"Did you also build cottages on the tenure of the colliery tease amounting ill value to £5,520?—We did."
"And had you also workshops for workmen, valued at £300—Yes."
"Was all that forfeited?—Yes."
"That would mean a total sum of £15,660 forfeited on that lease, would it not?—That is so."
"Are there other similar cases that, you can give which go to make the total of £60,454?—Yes."
Mr. A. B. MARKHAM: I do not think it desirable to follow individual cases of bad landlords or the case which the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) has brought before the Committee; all I can say is that, as far as my knowledge of mining leases goes, a case of that kind is very excep-

153
tional. It is a matter of very great difficulty to arrive at the value of a lease. The valuer has to calculate not only the actual quantity of coal in any given lease, but the time in which the coal can be worked. When an estate is being valued for Death Duties, only those seams of coal which are actually being worked are valued. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury officials take the contrary view; but I have consulted many of the leading mining engineers who value on behalf of the Treasury, and I am assured that no seams of coal other than those actually being worked have been valued for the purpose of Death Duties. How are you going to arrive at the capital value for the purpose of Reversion Duty? The value of a mineral estate depends upon the speed with which the minerals are worked. Take, as an illustration, an estate of 1,000 acres, underlying which there is a seam of coal 5 ft. 6 in think. As every inch of coal represents 100 tons per acre, you have 6,600 tons per acre, which, after deducting 10 per cent, for faults, makes 6,000,000 tons on the whole estate. The capital value for the purpose of Estate Duty depends entirely on the speed with which the lessee works the minerals. Assume that a colliery company enters into an agreement with the landlord to work the minerals for a period of 60 years, and pay a rent of £2 an acre, or £2,000 a year. The lessee then proceeds to spend £100,000 in developing. Taking the average royalty at 6d. per ton, you have 80,000 tons of coal to be worked annually to pay the minimum rent. What is an estate containing 6,000,000 tons of coal, on a lease for 60 years, with a guaranteed rent of £2,000 a year, worth? That is case A. Suppose the lessee says, "I am going to work more than my minimum rent; I will work 1,000 tons a day." At five working days a week, that is 5,000 tons, or 250,000 tons in a year of 50 working weeks. At 6d. a ton royalty that represents £6,250, and he would work out the coal in 24 years. But assume that he is an energetic man, and works night and day shifts, he would work it out in 12 years. Thus there are three considerations with which the lessor has absolutely nothing to do. In the first case he is bound to receive £2,000 a year for 60 years, but if the lessee works the coal in 24 or 12 years the position is entirely altered. What is, therefore, the capital value of this coal estate under these three propositions? The valuation is entirely different according as the man receives the £150,000 I have mentioned in 12, 24, or 60
154
years. I have had these values discounted for me by an accountant. I discount them at the rate of 80 per cent., for you must allow in all mining operations for the "wash out," etc. The value of the coal products where the minerals are worked out in 12 years instead of 60 years is just double. If the man gets his £150,000 in, 12 years, the capital value is enormously enhanced. It seems impossible to arrive at this capital value in the form in which it is drawn in the Bill. So far as the Bill stands to-day, on the principle of working undeveloped minerals it is absolutely impracticable to arrive at any increment value whatever, having regard to any justice to-the lessor in the case, because the lessor has nothing whatever to do with the position. He has let the minerals, and it is the lessee who determines the value. The lessor is absolutely unable to say what the value of these minerals is, because it depends on the speed of working. So far as Wales, Warwickshire, Leicestershire, Derbyshire, and Yorkshire are concerned—I cannot speak about Lancashire and the North of England—in every case in my mind there are 10 or 12 different seams of coal to be worked.
I should not be in order in making any suggestion on this particular clause—as to how it is feasible or practicable to arrive at the capital value. I am very anxious to see mining royalties taxed. I think they are a fit and proper subject for taxation, more particularly the unearned increment which does arise in the case. Let me give a case in Wales. My father made an offer for a certain estate in Wales nearly 30 years ago at a royalty of 4d. per ton. Now that estate has never paid a halfpenny to the State. It is of enormous value. I recently acquired it from a hon. Member of this House, who is a trustee, at lid per ton. During the whole of that period these royalties have increased in value probably threefold, and during that period that estate has not paid a halfpenny to the State or to local taxation, except on the mining value, which is let at 1s. 6d. or 2s. per acre. I say if there is a case made out for unearned increment you have that example in the case of the mining royalties, more especially under the unlet system, where it only becomes available by the growth of population and the exhaustion of other minerals. Although I cannot make any practical suggestion as to dealing with the Amendment now before the House, I do say I see great difficulties in fixing the value if the Bill remains as drawn, and I am afraid that great injustice

155
will be done. I could give many other instances of where grave injustice will be done if the value of this assessment were based as drawn, taking Clause 12 in conjunction with Clause 7. I maintain that basis is absolutely impractical, and injustice would be done to the mineral royalty owners, whom I am anxious to see paying their just share of taxation.
Mr. BALFOUR: I think everybody who has listened to this debate, and, not least, to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, will admit it has been extremely interesting; but it has not been a debate which makes us more enamoured, whatever our views of taxation may be, with the particular provisions of this Bill. The Government have felt apparently the difficulty raised by my hon. Friend behind is a difficulty that will have to be met, and they have contrived an Amendment which I endeavoured to understand, and at the moment, I think I did catch some faint glimmer of its meaning; but it is not upon the Paper. That is most inconvenient. I am told by my hon. Friends concerned in this Bill on this side of the House that they made a point to send to the Chancellor and to the Attorney-General Amendments which, at the early conclusion of our Debates on Friday, they intended to put upon the Paper of the House in the ordinary fashion. It is to be greatly regretted that that convenient and courteous course was not, perhaps could not be, followed by His Majesty's Government. The result is that while the Government are in possession of the manuscript Amendments of my hon. Friends who desire to move them upon this clause, we are not in possession of the Government Amendments, either upon this clause or upon any other clause to which they promised Amendments. I am very sorry for that, because it makes the discussion of these complicated questions even more difficult than they inevitably would be. The impression left upon my mind by the speeches just delivered by Gentlemen more or less in favour of this tax is that the principle upon which it is based is quite unworkable and quite unjust. Taking the speech of the hon. Member for Argyle, in conjunction with the speech of the hon. Member for the East Division of Lancashire, what was their tone? It was this: Here are owners of land and also owners of coal; they let their coal to companies prepared to work them. In many cases the result of the
156
arrangement they come to is much more useful to themselves than to the company. I think it was the Member for Argyle who mentioned the case in which mines were worked, shafts were sunk, vast expenditure was undertaken by the company, which only began to make a profit out of the mine in the very last years of the lease. The hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Ainstworth) complained that when the lease ran out the landlord came into possession of the shaft, the miners' cottages, and the permanent improvements made by the company, and the hon. Member regarded it as unjust that the landlord should gain by a transaction on which the company made so poor a profit. Are there not cases in which from the inevitable ignorance of the exact profit which may be derived from the working of the coal the landlord makes a very bad bargain? Why should the windfall to the company not be made subject to the tax just in the same way as the windfall to the landlord?
Mr. AINSWORTH: If the company make a profit they have to pay heavily towards the local rates and local charges, and they pay Income Tax every year. When the proprietor makes a profit he does not pay those charges. When the landlord makes a good bargain, surely the State is entitled to treat that as a fit subject for taxation.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Why is a good bargain made by a landowner to be taxed and a good bargain made by a company not to be taxed? Let us understand where we are, because that is one of the difficulties we have always had to face. The argument just used by the hon. Member has never been the argument brought forward by the Government. As a matter of fact that was not the argument used by the hon. Member in his speech, and it is an argument which he has been good enough to invent in the course of his interruption. It is not an explanation of something which the hon. Member said before, but something quite new which he probably would have said if he had thought of it. Why should the landowner be taxed unless you are going to lay down also that if the company make an extremely good bargain they should be taxed as well? The company would not be taxed at all for a windfall. Let the Committee observe that no answer has been given to the most pertinent objection of the hon. Member who preceded me, who approves of the principle of the tax, but whose actual knowledge of the working of the coal and mineral

157
industry shows that the proposals of this clause cannot work with any fairness or equity.
You are dealing with a property which cannot be valued. What answer has been given or can be given to the argument of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford)? Observe, you are trying to cram within the limits of this single clause two things which are absolutely incomparable. I do not think it is right to tax the reversion of a house which comes in at the end of 99 years as a part of the original bargain. I do not approve of that, but that is a perfectly clear and definite operation. It is perfectly true, then, the landlord does come in for something which he had not at the beginning of the lease, though he and the man who built the house arranged terms of the lease which they thought equitable; but the case is precisely the reverse with regard to minerals. It may be true that in certain instances a great deal of money may have been spent on sinking shafts, but that is the only part which is in any way analogous to the building of a house. The main part of the mining operations is the extraction of the mineral; and from that point of view, not only is there no analogy between the case of a building lease, with which the clause in the main is connected, and the case of a mine, but there is a direct and violent contrast. In the first case the landlord gets something he had not when the lease was granted, and in the second case he gets back his land less something which was on it or under it when the lease was originally signed. The two things are an absolute disparity; you cannot bring, or you ought not to try to bring, under one clause the waning interest of a landlord who owns a mining property and the waxing interest of a landlord who has land let on the ordinary building lease.
They are quite different, and they should, in my opinion, be treated on different principles. On what principles are they treated? The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Haldane) told us that the whole point of these taxes was to get something out of the owner when the reversion falls in. On what principle are you going to do that in the case of these or any other leases? You are really taxing, not property, and not wealth, but a particular use of property. You are not taxing a man because he has so much money and he can afford it, you are not even taxing a particular kind of property; but you are taxing the particular use to which a man, in con-
158
formity with the law, puts his property. If a man is rich enough to work his own coal, there is no reversion, but if he is not rich enough he has to pay the tax. Where is the justice of that? I do not think the Government realise what a profound economic mistake it is to interfere in the particular way with which the various members of the community choose to use their property for the development and wealth of the community. It surely is to the advantage of the community if one man owns the coal and another the capital that you should permit them to come together without putting a special tax on that common transaction. If a man is so rich that he can work his coal without the capital of anyone else, you do not tax him; if he is not, you do tax him.
I think a very great mistake is made. If a man chooses to let his land on lease, in perpetuity or for 99 years, how can you justify taxing him on taking back his property. If a man is rich enough to work his own coal, there is no reversion and you do not tax him, but if he is not rich enough you do tax him—in fact, you tax those who combine in joint tenures for the benefit of the community. If you force them to do the work apart from each other—and it is thereby done at a great disadvantage—you do not tax them. All this interference with what is really a convenient method of using capital, land and minerals must be injurious to production. Any such tax on property or increment, or upon a particular kind of property, is perfectly preposterous, unjust, and arbitrary, and incapable of any justification whatever. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) seemed to think that as a lease approached its end the owner of the land should not ask for a fine, or for an increase of rent, and he held up to obloquy cases which had occurred in Cornwall and in Lancashire as showing what he thought to be most inequitable. But I may tell the hon. Member that that is the way in which Crown property and public property—whether owned by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, by the Board of Works, by municipalities, or by the London County Council, or any other public body—is managed.
Mr. WALSH: Still it is most inequitable.
Mr. BALFOUR: I happen to hold a Crown lease, and am afraid that if I ask for an extension they will impose a fine, for I have not that weight in the counsels of the Government which the hon. Member possesses to save me from that.
Sir IVOR HERBERT: Some very pointed allusions, not understood, perhaps, by many Members of this House, have been made by the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Mr. Markham) to certain negotiations in regard to minerals. I do not propose to pursue that argument. I do not think questions affecting the interests of individuals have anything to do with the business of this House. The speech of my hon. Friend, interesting as it was, did not seem to me to touch the question of this Amendment which is before the Committee. He opened a very interesting question as to the value of mining leases and touched incidentally on the question of the taxation of mining royalties. I will only say, as the person to whom he alluded, that I am as strongly in favour of the taxation of mining royalties as he is. I fully appreciate that in that value there is a taxable value to which the State has a right to look for a certain percentage, but on the question which is really before the Committee, and upon which he did not touch, viz., the Amendment, I would say that I think it is wholly inadmissible, for the same reason, that there is a taxable value on the unearned increment in the cases which have been quoted, as there is in the instance of the mining royalty in which my hon. Friend may possibly have placed some of his capital, in an estate in which I am interested. I would only say with regard to that intimation of his—it is the first intimation I have had as yet—that he is prepared to accept the terms which have been offered him, and I can only say that I congratulate those for whom I act as trustee that they will be in the happy position of receiving from him such vastly increased royalties.
Mr. LAMBTON: I would ask that some answer should be given by the Attorney-General to several speeches, which, I think, were due entirely to the argument of the Secretary of State for War, that all mining leases were given by the lessors with a view to benefit themselves when the reversions come in. If he listened to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Markham) I think he will see that mining leases are more advantageous to the lessee than to the lessor. The Attorney-General is asked how he reconciles Clause 16 with the present clause. In that clause provision is made for a full and complete return of the
160
value of minerals, and will the Attorney General inform us whether the value of buildings on the surface is also to be taken into consideration? Will he tell us whether there are two valuations, one the value of the minerals simply, which do not include the buildings on the surface of the land, and the other including the buildings? Will he tell us whether the valuation of the minerals is to be made separately, as stated in Clause 16, or is it to include the value of buildings on the surface of the land, and if not, how the total value of the minerals is to be arrived at? If the right hon. Gentleman relies on Clause 16, Clause 7 cannot possibly apply. The Attorney-General seemed to be rather hurt because we did not receive his Amendment with great favour. We are a little tired of postponing all these things till a death-bed repentance. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes on his dissipated course he refers everything to some later clause. It would be much more conducive to the proper conduct of the Bill if the Amendments were put on the Paper. A good permanent way ought to be laid down, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to make his line a switchback railway. He thinks one concession will carry him over the next incline. I suppose the Government have some design to drop the mineral clauses altogether later on. I do not know whether the President of the Board of Trade will allow these mineral clauses to be minced up or not. If they are not to be minced up they ought to be explained now, and the Attorney-General ought to give us a little legal argument.
Sir W. ROBSON: I can scarcely believe at this stage of the Debate that the hon. Gentleman really needs to be told expressly by a lawyer, and nothing but a lawyer, that what we value is the subject matter of the lease, and if the lease contains minerals they will be valued on a separate return made under Clause 16, and if the lease has to deal with matters other than minerals, for instance, with surface rights, they also will come into the subject matter of the valuation. I should have thought that it not only did not need an answer now, but never needed as much a an explanation.
Question put, "That those words be inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 98; Noes, 231.

Division No. 316.]

AYES.

[12.25 p.m.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fell, Arthur

Markham, Arthur Basil

Armitage, R.

Forster, Henry William

Mason James F. (Windsor)

Balcarres, Lord

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.)

Morpeth, Viscount

Baldwin, Stanley

Gardner, Ernest

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Newdegate, F. A. N.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Oddy, John James

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Gretton, John

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Percy, Earl

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Edm.)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hamilton, Marquess of

Renton, Leslie

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecciesall)

Bull, Sir William James

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Helmsley, Viscount

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Carile, E. Hildred

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hill, Sir Clement

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hills, J. W.

Sheffield, Sir Bcikeley George D.

Cave, George

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hunt, Rowland

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Stanier, Seville

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Starkey, John R.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Kerry, Earl of

Thornton, Percy M.

Clive, Percy Archer

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Valentia, Viscount

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Williams, Col. R (Dorset, W.)

Craik, Sir Henry

Long, Rt Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Dairymple, Viscount

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Laurence Hardy and Mr. Lambton.

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Faber, George Denison (York)

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cooper, G. J.

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Henry, Charles S.

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Aqnew, George William

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Higham, John Sharp

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Hobart, Sir Robert

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hodge, John

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hogan, Michael

Astbury, John Meir

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Dillon, John

Holt, Richard Durning

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hooper, A. G.

Barker, Sir John

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Horniman, Emslie John

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Barnes, G N.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Hudson, Walter

Barry, Redmon J. (Tyrone, N.)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Beale, W. P.

Esslemont, George Birnle

Hyde, Clarendon

Bennett, E. N.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Idris, T. H. W.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Everett, R. Lacey

Illingworth, Percy H.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Fenwick, Charles

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Black, Arthur W.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Bowerman, C. W.

Fullerton, Hugh

Laidlaw, Robert

Brace, William

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Bramsdon, Sir Thomas A.

Gill, A. H.

Lambert, George

Brodie, H. C.

Gladstone, R. Hon. Herbert John

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Brooke, Stopford

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

Lehmann, R. C.

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

Glover, Thomas

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Brunner, Rt Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Levy, Sir Maurice

Bryce, J. Annan

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lewis, John Herbert

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Lloyd-George, Rt Hon. David

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Griffith, Ellis J.

Lundon, Thomas

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Mackarness, Frederick C.

Byles, William Pollard

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Maclean, Donald

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Chance, Frederick William

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

M'Micking, Major G.

Churchill, Rt Hon. Winston S.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Maddison, Frederick

Clough, William

Haworth, Arthur A.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Clynes, J. R.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hedges, A. Paget

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Helme, Nerval Watson

Musterman, C. F. G.

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

162

163

Micklem, Nathaniel

Ridsdale, E. R.

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Thorne, G. R (Wolverhampton)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Tomkinson, James

Morrell, Philip

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Toulmin, George

Morse, L. L.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Verney, F. W.

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Vivian, Henry

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Walsh, Stephen

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Walton, Joseph

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Rowlands, J.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Nicholls, George

Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Nolan, Joseph

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Norman, Sir Henry

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Nussey, Sir Willans

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Waterlow, D. S.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.)

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Watt, Henry A.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Whitbread, Howard

Parker, James (Halifax)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Pearce, Robert (Staff, Leek)

Seely, Colonel

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Shackleton, David James

White, Sir Luke (York, E R.)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Phillpps, Owen C (Pembroke)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Stanger, H. Y.

Wiles, Thomas

Pirie, Duncan V.

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyuiph (Cheshire)

Wilkie, Alexander

Pollard, Dr.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Williamson, Sir Archibald

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Summerbell, T.

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Sutherland, J. E.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Radford G. H.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Rea, Rt Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Winfrey, R.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Rendall, Athelstan

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)

Thomasson, Franklin

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGErose in his place and claimed to move: "That the Question 'That the words of the Clause to the word ten' ['at the rate of one pound for every
full ten'] stand part of the Clause "be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 90.

Division No. 317.]

AYES.

[12.35 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Clough, William

Haworth, Arthur A.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Clynes, J. R.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hedges, A. Paget

Agnew, George William

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Helme, Norval Watson

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cooper, G. J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Henry, Charles S.

Armitage, R.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.>

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Higham, John Sharp

Astbury, John Meir

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Davies, Timothy (Fuiham)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hodge, John

Barker, Sir John

Dewar Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Holt, Richard Durning

Barnes, G. N.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hooper, A. G.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Horniman, Emslie John

Beale, W. P.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Hudson, Walter

Bennett, E. N.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Berridge, T. H. D.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Hyde, Clarendon

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Everett, R. Lacey

Idris, T. H. W.

Black, Arthur W.

Fenwick, Charles

Illingworth, Percy H.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Bowerman, C. W.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Brace, William

Fullerton, Hugh

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Bramsdon, Sir Thomas A.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Brodie, H. C.

Gill, A. H.

Lambert George

Brooke, Stopford

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

Lehmann, R. C.

Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Glover, Thomas

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Bryce, J. Annan

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Levy, Sir Maurice

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lewis, John Herbert

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Griffith, Ellis J.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Byles, William Pollard

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Maclean, Donald

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Chance, Frederick William

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Channing, Sir Francis Aliston

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

M'Micking, Major G.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

Maddison, Frederick

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoin)

Tomkinson, James

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Toulmin, George

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Verney, F. W.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Vivian, Henry

Micklem, Nathaniel

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Walsh, Stephen

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Walton, Joseph

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Rowlands, J.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Morrell, Philip

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Waterlow, D. S.

Nicholls, George

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Watt, Henry A.

Norman, Sir Henry

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Nussey, Sir Willans

Seely, Colonel

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Shackleton, David James

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Stanger, H. Y.

Wiles, Thomas

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Wilkie, Alexander

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Pollard, Dr.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Williamson, Sir Archibald

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Summerbell, T.

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Sutherland, J. E.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Radford, G. H.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Winfrey, R.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Rendall, Athelstan

Thomasson, Franklin

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

NOES.

Anson, Sir Wiliam Reynell

Forster, Henry William

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Balcarres, Lord

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Baldwin, Stanley

Gardner, Ernest

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Morpeth, Viscount

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Newdegate, F. A. N.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Gretton, John

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Oddy, John James

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Edm.)

Percy, Earl

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hamilton, Marquess of

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashtord)

Renton, Leslie

Bull, Sir William James

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Helmsley, Viscount

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hill, Sir Clement

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cave, George

Hills, J. W.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hunt, Rowland

Stanier, Beville

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Starkey, John R.

Clive, Percy Archer

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Thornton, Percy M.

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Kerry, Earl of

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Craik, Sir Henry

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Dairymple, Viscount

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood Viscount and Valentia.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Fell, Arthur

Question put accordingly, "That the words of the Clause, to the word 'ten,' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 91.

Division No. 318.]

AYES.

[12.43 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Astbury, John Meir

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Black, Arthur W.

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Agnew, George William

Barker, Sir John

Bowerman, C. W.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Brace, William

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Beale, W. P.

Brodle, H. C.

Armitage, R.

Bennett, E. N.

Brooke, Stopford

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Berridge, T. H. D.

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Bryce, J. Annan

Holt, Richard Burning

Ridsdale, E. A.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hooper, A. G.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Horniman, Emslie John

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Byles, William Pollard

Hudson, Walter

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hotton, Alfred Eddlson

Roch, Walter F, (Pembroke)

Chance, Frederick William

Hyde, Clarendon

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Idris, T. H. W.

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rowlands, J.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Clough, William

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Clynes, J. R.

Jones, Leil (Appleby)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Cobbold, Felix Thornlcy

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Lambert, George

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Cooper, G. J.

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Lehmann, R. C.

Seely, Colonel

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Shackleton, David James

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Lewis, John Herbert

Simon, John Allsebrook

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Stanger, H. Y.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lundon, Thomas

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Maclean, Donald

Strachey, Sir Edward

Dillon, John

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Summerbell, T.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Sutherland, J. E.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

M'Micking, Major G.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Maddison, Frederick

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Evans, Sir S. T.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Everett, R. Lacey

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Thomasson, Franklin

Fenwick, Charles

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Flennes, Hon. Eustace

Masterman, C. F. G.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrlm, N.)

Tomkinson, James

Fullerton, Hugh

Micklem, Nathaniel

Toulmin, George

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Verney, F. W.

Gill, A. H.

Montague, Hon. E. S.

Vivian, Henry

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Morrell, Philip

Walsh, Stephen

Glover, Thomas

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Walton, Joseph

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Nicholls, George

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Nolan, Joseph

Watt, Henry A.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Norman, Sir Henry

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Nussey, Sir Wilians

Whitbread, S. Howard

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tdyvil)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

Parker, James (Halifax)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Wiles, Thomas

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Wilkie, Alexander

Hedges, A. Paget

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Helme, Norval Watson

Pollard, Dr.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Williamson, Sir A.

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Henry, Charles S.

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Higham, John Sharp

Radford, G. H.

Winfrey, R.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Hodge, John

Rendall, Athelstan

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Hogan, Michael

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Castlereagh, Viscount

Forster, Henry William

Balcarres, Lord

Cave, George

Fester, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

Baldwin, Stanley

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gardner, Ernest

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Clive, Percy Archer

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Gretton, John

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Craik, Sir Henry

Hamilton, Marquess of

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Dairymple, Viscount

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Bull, Sir William James

Dickson, Rt. Hon Charles Scott

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Carlile, E. Hildred

Faber, George Denison (York)

Helmsley, Viscount

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Fell, Arthur

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

168

169

Hill, Sir Clement

Magnus, Sir Philip

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Hills, J. W.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Morpeth, Viscount

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Hunt, Rowland

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Stanier, Beville

Joynson-Hicks, William

Newdegate, F. A.

Starkey, John R.

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Thornton, Percy M.

Kerry, Earl of

Oddy, John James

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Percy, Earl

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Ronton, Leslie

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Ronaldshay, Earl of

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Salter, Arthur Claveil

Mr. G. D. FABERmoved in section (1) to leave out the word "ten" ["at the rate of one pound for every full ten pounds of that value"] and to insert the word "hundred."
I have put this Amendment down in the form I have owing to the course of the discussion this afternoon. For we know now that not only all future contracts, but all past contracts in the case of building leases are affected by the duty which the Government, contrary, in my opinion, to the distinct undertaking given by the Prime Minister—then Chancellor of the Exchequer—two years ago, now propose. That Beems to me to be so unjust, and it may have such far-reaching consequences, that I desire to lessen that injustice to the greatest extent in my powers.
Mr. HALDANE: I think the hon. Member cannot be alive to the extraordinary effect of this Amendment which is to reduce the tax to one per cent. To do so is to render the whole matter nugatory.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Those who would strike at the whole principle and foundation of the taxation would desire to minimise it in any way they can. The Government do not pretend that they have followed any system, or that there is any conceivable system, in fixing the tax at 10 per cent. On the contrary, they have used the argument that in choosing the figure of 10 per cent, they were excessively modest: that they are only taking a small part of the value that the State may properly have, and they not obscurely hint that before long, if they are continued in office, the tax will be raised. That, I think, is an argument for the proposal of my hon. Friend that this tax should stand at a low figure.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: This is a case for compromise. I would suggest to my hon.
170
Friend that he does not press his Amendment as to the hundred. On the other hand, the present proposed tax would be unduly onerous, and I suggest £20 instead of the £100. If the Government only got 1 per cent, it would not be worth putting the tax on for. I therefore suggest to my hon. Friend if he succeeds in getting rid of 10, he should be content to substitute 20 instead of 100.
Captain CRAIG: I hope my hon. Friend will not give way to the suggestion just made by the hon. Member who has just sat down. I think this objectionable tax should be made as light as possible in the first instance. In a very large number of provincial towns where land is in the hands of proprietors who are very well off they will be able to escape the tax altogether. It will only fall upon those who are not well off enough to develop their own land and who have to let it out. I know many cases where owners of property in outlying districts are able to put their surplus money into the development of the land, and I take it that under this clause they will not be taxed at all. They do not grant any leases; they simply build small dwellings for working men and let them at 7s. 6d. or 10s. per week. They won't come under this clause at all. But those who are unable to do that and let their land for the purpose of being developed will have to pay this tax. It seems an anomaly, and the Amendment, which would make this tax, which will have to be paid by the poorer class of people, one per cent., is a very reasonable one. The Chancellor of the Exchequer practically says those who are able to develop the land themselves will get off, but those who are too poor to do that must pay 10 per cent, upon the reversion value. Nothing could be more absurd. I know cases perfectly well where this tax will have the effect of stopping the granting of land for the development of towns. This

171
clause appears to me to be one for the stopping of the development of the smaller towns in the first instance, and in the second instance it penalises poverty.
The CHAIRMAN: Order, order.
Captain CRAIG: I have quite finished.
Mr. WYNDHAM: The Government tell us they want to secure the principle of this tax, and they say the application of that principle is contained within very narrow limits. I venture to say that is an argument against starting with what is a very substantial tax. All who have listened to the Debate must have seen that this tax will produce certain results which the Government themselves have not contemplated. That is not excessive. In the course of this afternoon's Debate certain results of this tax have been revealed. But in the operation of the tax other results, which have not suggested
themselves to hon. Members, it is safe to assume, will also occur. Although it may be claimed that the Committee assent to the principles of the tax, I think the Government must concede to us that they are involved in a region of experiment. It is far better to embark upon it on a small scale. If it is successful the Government can come down and say "your fears are unwarranted," and we can proceed on a larger scale. An experimental tax would remain as a warning to future Governments; but a tax of 10 per cent, would create a great evil, and could only be withdrawn after a stubborn contest. Therefore, I say, let it be an experiment and not a drastic change in all the business institutions of this country.
Question put, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 82.

Division No. 319.]

AYES.

[1.5 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

Lehmann, R. C.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Levy, Sir Maurice

Agnew, George William

Evans, Sir S. T.

Lewis, John Herbert

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Everett, R. Lacey

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Fenwick Charles

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lundon, Thomas

Armitage, R.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Fullerton, Hugh

Maclean, Donald

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Gill, A. H.

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

M'Micking, Major G.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Glover, Thomas

Maddison, Frederick

Beale, W. P.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Bennett, E. N.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Berridge, T. H. D.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Black, Arthur W.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon L. (Rossendale)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Bowerman, C. W.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Brace, William

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Brodie, H. C.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

Morrell, Philip

Brcoke, Stopford

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Brunner, Rt. Hen. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Bryce, J. Annan

Hedges, A. Paget

Nichoils, George

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Helme, Norval Watson

Nolan, Joseph

Byles, William Pollard

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Norman, Sir Henry

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

Nussey, Sir Willans

Chance, Frederick William

Herbert, Col Sir Iver (Mon, S.)

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Higham, John Sharp

Parker, James (Halifax)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Clough, William

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Clynes, J. R.

Hodge, John

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hogan, Michael

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Collins, Sir W. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Holt, Richard Durning

Pollard, Dr

Cooper, G. J.

Hooper, A. G.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Horniman, Emslie John

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hudson, Walter

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Hyde, Clarendon

Radford, G. H.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Idris, T. H. W.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Rendall, Athelstan

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Richards, Thomas W. (Monmouth)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lambert George

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Whitbread, Howard

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Summerbell, T.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wiles, Thomas

Rowlands, J.

Thomasson, Franklin

Wilkie, Alexander

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Rutherford, V H. (Brentford)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Tomkinson, James

Williamson, Sir A

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Toulmin, George

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Verney, F. W.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Vivian, Henry

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Seely, Colonel

Walsh, Stephen

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Shackleton, David James

Ward, W. Ducley (Southampton)

Sllcock, Thomas Ball

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Stanger, H. Y.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Watt, Henry A.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Newdegate, F. A. N.

Balcarres, Lord

Gretton, John

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Baldwin, Stanley

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Oddy, John James

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Ed.)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Hamilton, Marquess of

Pretyman, E. G.

Barrle, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Renton, Leslie

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclcsall)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Helmsley, Viscount

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Bull, Sir William James

Hermon Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hill, Sir Clement

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hills, J. W.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Stanier, Seville

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Kerry, Earl of

Starkey, John R.

Clive, Percy Archer

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Valentia, Viscount

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

Craik, Sir Henry

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Dairymple, Viscount

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Fell, Arthur

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Forster, Henry William

Magnus, Sir Philip

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. George D. Faber and Captain Craig.

Fester, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Gardner, Ernest

Morpeth, Viscount

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, That the words of the Clause down to the word 'total' ["shall be deemed to be the amount (if any) by which the total" …] stand part of the Clause, be now put."
Question put, "That the Question, 'That the words of the Clause to the word "total" stand part of the Clause,' be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 81.

Division No. 320.]

AYES.

[1.13 p.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Berridge, T. H. D.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Black, Arthur W.

Clough, William

Agnew, George William

Boulton, A. C. F.

Clynes, J. R.

Ainsworth, John Stiring

Bowerman, C. W.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Brace, William

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W).

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Cooper, G. J.

Armitage, R.

Brodie, H. C.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Astbury, John Meir

Brooke, Stopford

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Bryce, J. Annan

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Beale, W. P.

Byles, William Pollard

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Bennett, E. N.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rowlands, J.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Essiemont, George Birnie

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Evans, Sir S. T.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Everett, R. Lacey

Maclean, Donald

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Fenwick, Charles

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

M'Micking, Major G.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Maddison, Frederick

Seely, Colonel

Fullerton, Hugh

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Shackleton, David James

Gill, A. H.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Stanger, H. Y.

Glover, Thomas

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Masterman, C. F. G.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Summerbell, T.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Morrell, Philip

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Thomasson, Franklin

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nicholls, George

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Norman, Sir Henry

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Nussey, Sir Willans

Tomkinson, James

Hedges, A. Paget

Parker, James (Halifax)

Toulmin, George

Helme, Norval Watson

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Verney, F. W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Vivian, Henry

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Saff. Wald.)

Walsh, Stephen

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Higham, John Sharp

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Pollard, Dr.

Wason, John Catlicart (Orkney)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Watt, Henry A.

Hodge John

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Holt, Richard Durning

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Hooper, A. G.

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Horniman, Emslie John

Radford, G. H.

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Hudson, Walter

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Rea, Waiter Russell (Scarborough)

Wiles, Thomas

Hyde, Clarendon

Rendall, Athelstan

Wilkie, Alexander

Idris, T. H. W.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lambert, George

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Lehmann, R. C.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Norton and Sir Edward Strachey.

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gardner, Ernest

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Balcarres, Lord

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Newdegate, F. A.

Baldwin, Stanley

Gcoch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

Gretton, John

Oddy, John James

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

Pretyman, E. G.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hamilton, Marquess of

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Renton, Leslie

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bull, Sir William James

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Helmsley, Viscount

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Carille, E. Hildred

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Salter, Arthur Claveil

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hill, Sir Clement

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cave, George

Hills, J. W.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Hunt, Rowland

Stanier, Beville

Clive, Percy Archer

Joynson-Hicks, William

Starkey, John R.

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Kerry, Earl of

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Craik, Sir Henry

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Dairymple, Viscount

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Faber, George Denison (York)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Fell, Arthur

Magnus, Sir Philip

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Vaientia.

Forster, Henry William

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

Morpeth, Viscount

Question put accordingly, "That the words of the Clause to the word 'total' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided Ayes: 182; Noes, 81.

Division No. 321].

AYES.

[1.20 p.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Agrnew, George William

Harmsworth, R. L. (Calthness-sh.)

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Radford, G. H.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Armitage, R.

Hedges, A. Paget

Rendall, Athelstan

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Helme, Norval Watson

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Higham, John Sharp

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Beale, W. P.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Bennett, E. N.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Hodge, John

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Birred, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hogan, Michael

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Black, Arthur W.

Holt, Richard Durning

Rowlands, J.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Hooper, A. G.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Bcwerman, C. W.

Horniman, Emslie John

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Brace, William

Hudson, Walter

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Samuel, S. M. (Whitehcapel)

Brodle, H. C.

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Brooke, Stopford

Idris, T. H. W.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Seely, Colonel

Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Shackleton, David James

Bryce, J. Annan

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Lambert, George

Stanger, H. Y.

Byles, William Pollard

Lehmann, R. C.

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Lewis, John Herbert

Summerbell, T.

Clough, William

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Clynes, J. R.

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lundon, T.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Thomasson, Franklin

Cooper, G. J.

Maclean, Donald

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

M'Micking, Major G.

Tomkinson, James

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Maddison, Frederick

Toulmin, George

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Verney, F. W.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Markham, Arthur Basij

Vivian, Henry

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Walsh, Stephen

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Watt, Henry A.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Wedgwood, Joslah C.

Everett, R. Lacey

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Fenwick, Charles

Morrell, Philip

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Fullerton, Hugh

Nicholls, George

Wiles, Thomas

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Norman, Sir Henry

Wilkie, Alexander

Gill, A. H.

Nussey, Sir Willans

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary (Mid)

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Glover, Thomas

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Saff. Wald.)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Captain Norton and Sir Edward Strachey.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Clive, Percy Archer

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

Baldwin, Stanley

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Cralk, Sir Henry

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Dairymple, Viscount

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Helmsley, Viscount

Bowles, G. Stewart

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Faber, George Denison (York)

Hill, Sir Clement

Bull, Sir William James

Fell, Arthur

Hills, J. W.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Foster, P. S.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Gardner, Ernest

Hunt, Rowland

Castlereagh, Viscount

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Cave, George

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Kerry, Earl of

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gretton, John

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

178

179

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Oddy, John James

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Stanier, Beville

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Pretyman, E. G.

Starkey, John R.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Remnant, James Farquharson

Valentia, Viscount

Lyttelton, Rt Hon. Alfred

Renton, Leslie

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesali)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Mason, J. F. (Windsor)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Morpeth, Viscount

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Salter, Arthur Claveil

Newdegate, F. A.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like to combine the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University with my own, and to move after the word "determines" ["the amount by which the total value of the land at the time the lease determines"] to add "and subject to the deduction of any part of the total value as is attributable to any works of a permanent character executed by the lessor and of all compensation payable by such lessor at the determination of the said lease." The Amendment is for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the benefit which accrues to the lessor. Assuming the basis of the tax to be right and just, I can quite understand that there may be cases where the value has gone up from causes entirely outside any action of the lessor. But there are also cases where the value has gone up during the currency of the lease, not from the action of the community, but from work done by the lessor himself. The lessor himself may have done one or two things. He may have executed works during the lease of a property. One finds frequently that a tenant goes to the lessor and says he wants to build a new bathroom, or add a new wing to the building, or something of that sort, but he cannot afford to do it. He has been a good tenant, paid his rent regularly, and to keep him the lessor effects the improvement. It would be obvious that if a lessor spends money on property in that way the value of the property would be, at the end of the lease, by that amount greater than at the beginning of the lease, and the lessor would be compelled to pay the reversion duty upon the very addition which he himself had made to his own property. I am quite sure that that cannot be the view of the Government. Then there may be further expenditure. The lessor may have expended money not on the actual plot of land comprised in the lease, but on adjoining property. He may have made a better road, a better communication over that portion of his property, and the improvement would at
180
once send the whole value of the property up. A lessor has a considerable number of houses in a district. He constructs a railway or a road, perhaps, on adjoining land which raises the whole value of his property. I do not think the Government can reasonably claim that the expenditure which the lessor has made himself, and which he himself has caused to add to the value of his property, should cause him to pay reversionary duty when the lease falls in. It is not the action of the community in such case: it is the action of the lessor himself in laying out certain money on his own property or on adjoining property for the very purpose of causing a rise in value. The rise in value can very easily be seen. Under those circumstances I feel quite sure that the Government could not propose to make him pay reversionary duty upon that rise in value. There may be a general rise in value. That is a different thing, and he would have to pay his reversion duty upon the general rise in value. The Amendment merely seeks to except from that general rise in value so much of the rise as is to be attributed entirely to the lessor's own expenditure. The last words I wish to add are "and of all compensation payable by such lessor at the determination of the said lease." Compensation has to be paid by the lessor to the lessee when the lease falls in. It is a very common case that a man leases a house to a tenant for 21 years on condition that the tenant lays out a certain amount of money, say, for instance, in building a new wing, instead of the lessor doing it. The tenant does it with the money actually paid by the lessee, but for which the lessor really pays by reduction in the rent, or at the end of the lease by repaying the tenant for the improvements which the tenant has made during the currency of the lease, or partly one and partly the other. All these cases are not questions for increment occasioned by the community. They are cases of increment occasioned by the lessor or lessee; if by the lessee, from the consideration which the landlord has allowed the tenant in fixing the terms of the lease. If they are paid by the lessor at the

181
termination of the lease, clearly that ought not to be included in this reversionary value for which Reversionary Duty is to be charged. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will at once agree that while he wants to catch the reversionary increment value which has arisen by the growth of the community, by the action of the community, unconnected with the lessee, he does not wish to catch, and I do not think in honesty or fairness he could, the reversionary increment value which has arisen from the action or the expenditure of the lessor.
Mr. HALDANE: The hon. Member has put his case with great acumen, and I am anxious to meet him so far as a plain, blunt soldier can. I think there is a great deal in what he said. It is quite just that what the lessor has done and is not paid for should be taken into account, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. When I say that I think the words require careful scrutiny. What we propose to do is to take the suggestion of the hon. Member, leaving it open to the Government to consider the matter with their advisers between now and the Report stage. That is to say, we do not pin ourselves to anything, but prima facie and off-hand I think the hon. Member has made a good point. I propose that the words should read in this way: "The amount (if any) by which the total value of the land at the time the lease determines, subject to the deduction of any part of the total value which is attributable to any works of a permanent character executed by the lessor and of compensation payable by the lessor on the determination of the lease, exceeds the capital value." We take this with the warning that we shall scrutinise the thing between now and Report to see that no slip has been made.
Mr. WYNDHAM: I think neither my hon. Friend nor the right hon. Major-General has quite covered the whole of the matter at issue. My hon. Friend put an alternative in his argument which does not occur either in his Amendment or in the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. They in their Amendments only took into account works for which compensation has been given by the lessor at the determination of the lease. My hon. Friend, in his argument, however, put another alternative, namely, the case where the lessor leases the property in question at a low amount right through the period of the lease because there is a contract that the lessee is going
182
to spend a great deal of money in permanent improvements. Now such cases are very frequent. A man who is thinking whether he will let a certain property looks about for what he calls a good tenant, and part of the bargain often is that the tenant is not only a good tenant in the ordinary acceptation of the word—one who will not allow the property to decrease in value—but a tenant who is prepared to spend a great deal of money in developing the property. If it be just to take into account one alternative put by my hon. Friend it is equally just to take into account the other alternative.
Mr. PRETYMAN: We quite recognise the fairness with which the right hon. Gentleman.has met the point, but I would say that the words require consideration from both sides, because I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that the principle, if accepted, may go a little further. There may be expenditure not only on permanent works, but, for instance, on the laying-out of permanent gardens. I think the point will come better on Clause 21.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw his Amendment?
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. HALDANEmoved, in section (2) to insert after "determines," the words "subject to the deduction of any part of the total value which is attributable to any works of a permanent character executed by the lessor and of compensation payable by the lessor on the determination of the lease."
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), which raises the exact point raised by the right hon. Gentleman of expenditure made by a lessee under covenant? To give my own case. I took a lease on a big London estate on condition that I should expend £2,000 on permanent improvements on the landlord's property, which I did. When that falls back again to the landlord, those permanent improvements, which reduce my rent, ought to be taken into consideration as deductions from the increased value which will accrue to the lessor.
Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: May I suggest, in order to meet the point which both the

183
right hon. Gentleman and I are desirous of meeting, that after "lessor" he should insert the words "or by the lessee under covenant contained in the lease"?
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: May I point out that if these words are to be given some further effect to there is the very common case of works or factories, and in the great majority of those cases— at all events in the North—there are clauses enabling the lessee to remove the fixed machinery and sometimes the buildings, which are of a more or less removable character; but there is also a clause in the lease enabling the lessor to buy these at valuation at the end of the lease. Now in a very large number of cases where the lease is going to be given up entirely the lessor, in order to get the right to lease the property as it stands, buys out under arbitration the value of the fixed machinery and also the value of the buildings which by the terms of the lease the lessee is empowered to remove. It seems to me in all these cases it ought to be made quite clear that the lessor, having practically bought the buildings and fixed machinery, and is therefore able to make a lease on very much more advantageous terms, ought not to have to pay duty on that value, but ought to be allowed deductions for the money he has laid out himself in improving the property or for money he has paid for machinery or buildings. I do not think that either the clause as it stands or with the addition of the proposed Amendment really meet that important point which arises in so many cases of a lease.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDmoved after the words just added to insert, "after deducting any mortgage or incumbrance bonâ fide created prior to the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine." I am bound to say that I cannot seriously support the insertion of these exact words. I gave the clause very careful consideration, and I was utterly unable to see how the interests of the mortgagee can be reasonably protected under this clause at all, and I was unable to see how the owner of a reversion who has raised money on his property was going to be protected. Of course, we have discussed already to-night at very considerable length the main question of existing contracts. But the case which I am putting before the Committee is this: Some time
184
before we heard of this proposed tax—before the 30th of April this year, when we heard the Budget Speech—a man who owns some property in which the lease is about to fall in, gives his bonâ fide security to somebody else as mortgagee. I can see very great difficulty in imposing this tax under these circumstances. Is the amount which the man has bonâ fide borrowed to be taken into account? Because if that is so, it seems to me that in a very large number of cases which we can very well imagine, and some of which we know, there will be a heavy tax to pay. Here is a Bill which, if we pass it, creates practically a new state of affairs as between the reversioner and the State. And how is a man to be protected? The only way I can suggest is that which I have indicated in this Amendment. Of course, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give us any assurance of any description of a practical character which would save the position of the mortgagee, both in this particular instance and right the way through where this tax operates and may injure the position of the mortgagee, I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be a very great relief indeed to a vast number of people who are looking with great anxiety to the provisions of the Bill. There are thousands of people who have lent money on all kinds of securities in this kingdom, and upon leases, and when these leases expire the people who have borrowed money upon them will have to pay a vast sum of money to the State. It is a very serious question, having regard to the money which has been lent. I am not now advocating the case of the "wicked" person who owns land. Of course we know that the man who owns land is a "wicked" person, and something must be taken from him; but what I am asking for is some assurance of protection of people who have not been wicked enough to own land themselves, but to lend money upon it. It is in that spirit and with that object that I move the Amendment.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: We could not agree to the insertion of the words in this clause. I quite understand what the hon. Member means, but the Amendment would not carry out his point. I am informed that if an Amendment of the kind he desires were to be moved it would have to be after Clause 8, and if the hon. Member will bring it up under Clause 8 I shall be very glad to consider it.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: May I: ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer

185
whether he would accept an Amendment which would deal with the point raised, somewhat upon these lines: that a mortgagee who had bonâ fide advanced money prior to April 30th, 1909, should not become liable to this tax until, at all events, his principal, interest, and costs had been satisfied. If an Amendment of that kind would be accepted by the Government, it would be not only a complete answer to this Amendment, but would be a great reassurance to the many mortgagees scattered up and down the country who are very uneasy at the present moment.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I could not accept that Amendment, which is of a totally different character, across the floor of the House without a little more consideration. Perhaps the hon. Member will also give a little more time to it and put it down on the Paper, and I will see what can be done to meet it. My own recollection is that we did accept an Amendment in those words in regard to the Increment Duty, and if he frames something on the lines of that Amendment there will be a better chance of its being accepted.
Mr. PRETYMAN: There is a great deal more to be said for the Amendment in its present form than my hon. Friend (Mr. W. Rutherford) has made out. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what way he differentiates between a mortgagor who has mortgaged his property to its full value and a purchaser whom he specifically exempts by the first section of Clause 8? What is the difference? I cannot see any.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will reply to that point at once. In the first case the vendor has parted with his property to a purchaser for full value. In this case the mortgagor has not parted with it at all. When the lease falls in he enters into possession of the property and gets the full benefit. The case put by the hon. Member (Mr. Watson Rutherford) is one where he has substantially parted with the property to a mortgagee, and therefore I am rather disposed to agree he is substantially in the position of a purchaser.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I really cannot see where the difference comes in. One man has sold and the other has bought; that is all. One has realised the full value of the property under mortgage and the other has sold. Suppose you have two properties of equal value. In one case the owner sells it for its full value to some-
186
body else. In the other case the owner of the property mortgages it for its full value. It is a well-known case, frequently occurring with realty, that a property is mortgaged with a fair margin, but, owing to a fall in the value of property, when it is sold it barely covers, if at all, the money lent upon it. The two cases are absolutely on a parallel, and I cannot see on what principle you are going to remit the whole duty to the purchaser for any period within the 30 years, on the ground that he has not anticipated the Act and has spent his money, and are not going to remit it in the other case. We come here to the root question; do you penalise a man because he happens to be the owner, or do you put a duty on reversions? If it is distinctly stated to be a penalty on a man who has created a lease:—because that is what it amounts to—then I entirely admit his having sold the lease to somebody else does create a different case. But if it is simply a duty on reversions, then anticipation of that reversion in the form of a sale differs in no form from anticipation in the shape of a mortgage. I do not see why the mortgagor should not be exempt, the same as the purchaser. It is a fine upon a lessor who has created a lease.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It seems to me that the point put by my hon. Friend below me (Mr. Pretyman) is entirely different from the one I had in mind, and as regards my point, I should like to avail myself of the offer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I thought was a perfectly fair one. I should like to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. That does not preclude my hon. Friend if he wishes to raise an entirely different point.
Mr. PRETYMAN: May I suggest that the point I am raising is the point raised by the Amendment. My hon. Friend admitted in moving it that his object was entirely different from that expressed in the Amendment. If this Amendment is negatived it will not affect the future Amendment my hon. Friend wishes to put down.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us the words he proposes to insert in Clause 8?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member for the West Derby Division (Mr. Watson Rutherford) has promised to put words down, and I have promised to consider them.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The reason why I should like to withdraw my Amendment is that we may not be prejudiced in putting down the Amendment the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to consider.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I should like to be assured that my hon. Friend will not be prejudiced. His Amendment will refer to the liability of the mortgagee. This Amendment refers to the liability of the mortgagor. I respectfully suggest we can
divide on this Amendment, and that my hon. Friend will afterwards be able to move that which the Chancellor has promised to consider.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): That can be dealt with when it comes on.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 65; Noes, 162.

Division No. 322.]

AYES.

[2.10 a.m.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Gretton, John

Oddy, John James

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Balcarres, Lord

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds.)

Pretyman, E. G.

Baldwin, Stanley

Hamilton, Marquess of

Remnant, James Farquharson

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Renton, Leslie

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh-Hicks

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Helmsley, Viscount

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Bull, Sir William James

Hill, Sir Clement

Stanler, Beville

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hunt, Rowland

Valentia, Viscount

Clive, Percy Archer

Kerry, Earl of

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Williams, Col. R (Dorset, W.)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Winterton, Earl

Dairymple, Viscount

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Faber, George Denison (York)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Forster, Henry William

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Clavell Salter and Viscount Castle-reagh.

Foster, P. S.

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Gardner, Ernest

Newdegate, F. A.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

NOES

Acland, Francis Dyke

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Horniman, Emslie John

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hudson, Walter

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Agnew, George William

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lambert, George

Armitage, R.

Evans, Sir S. T.

Lehmann, R. C.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Everett, R. Lacey

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

Fenwick, Charles

Levy, Sir Maurice

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lewis, John Herbert

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Beale, W. P.

Fullerton, Hugh

Lundon, T.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lynch, H. B

Black, Arthur W.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Boulton, A. C F.

Glover, Thomas

Maclean, Donald

Bowerman, C. W.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Brace, William

Griffith, Ellis J.

Maddison, Frederick

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Brodie, H. C.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Brooke, Stopford

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Bryce, J. Annan

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Haworth, Arthur A.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Byles, William Pollard

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Morrell, Philip

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hedges, A. Paget

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Helme, Norval Watson

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Clough, William

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nicholls, George

Clynes, J. R.

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

Norman, Sir Henry

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Nussey, Sir Willans

Cooper, G. J.

Higham, John Sharp

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hodge, John

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hogan, Michael

Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Saff. Wald.)

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Holt, Richard Durning

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Seely, Colonel

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Shackleton, David James

Watt, Henry A.

Radford, G. H.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Stanger, H. Y.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Rendall, Atheistan

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Summerbell, T.

Wiles, Thomas

Ridsdale, E. A.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wilkie, Alexander

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Thomasson, Franklin

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Tomkinson, James

Rowlands, J

Toulmin, George

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Walsh, Stephen

Norton and Sir E. Strachey.

Sir W. ROBSONmoved: In section (2) to omit the words "capital value of the consideration for the original grant of the lease," and to insert the words "total value of the land at the time of the original grant of the lease, to be ascertained on the basis of the rent reserved and payments made in consideration for the lease." The Amendment which I propose is founded upon an Amendment which is down in the name of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Clavell Salter), and in which he proposes to leave out "capital value of the consideration for," in order to insert "total value of the land at the time of." In reality the words I propose are by way of addition to the Amendment of the hon. Member. As the sub-section stands now, Reversion Duty is charged upon the amount by which the total value of the land on the determination of the lease exceeds the capital value of the consideration for the granting of the lease. I am not going to argue as to whether the words do or do not actually express our intention. It has been suggested with some force, however, that a very literal construction of these words might result in some injustice to the lessor, because the lessor might have granted a lease for a comparatively small period and the capital value of the consideration for that lease might be something much less than the value of the land at the time the lease was granted. In order to exclude any possibility of an unfair construction being put on the words of the clause, I propose to accept the words of the hon. Member for Basingstoke, and to add to them the additional words I have moved.
Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I must say that I think the course which the Government have taken in regard to this matter is a most singular instance of their methods in regard to the Debate upon this Bill. I think that there can be no sort of
190
doubt as to the meaning of the Bill as it stands. It has no necessary relation to, increment at all, and this duty would be paid in cases where there has been no increase in the fee simple value of the land at all, where no higher rent could be looked for in a new lease, and where, in fact, it would be possible, as I think will be found in a large number of cases, that the value of the land has actually declined, and where, on the grant of the new lease, only a smaller rent could be obtained. I must confess that when I put this Amendment on the Paper, which the Government has now accepted in revised form, I did so with the greatest hesitation, because it made so fundamental and complete a change in the whole character of this Bill that I thought the Chairman would probably rule it out of order, on the ground that it is opposed to the resolution on which his Debate is conducted. It is quite obvious that this completely changes the character of the Debate from a Reversion Duty proper to an Increment Duty, and it brings it back to this matter of windfall and of increment which we have been discussing for so long. I think that in certain respects this Amendment is an improvement. It is an improvement in this respect, that now the duty will not be paid unless there has been some real increase in the property, and the duty will be paid only upon a real increase and not upon some abstraction like site value. But it seems to me to be, as it stands, open to very grave objections, because it appears to me that this tax as now reconstituted and transformed is either an unnecessary tax or it is a bad tax.
This increase, will either be an increase in site value of the land or it will be an increase due to improvement which has been effected. If it is an increase in the site value this tax is unnecessary, because

191
you have already got that in your Increment Duty. If it is an increase due to that which has been done either by lessor or lessee upon the laud, then it appears to me to be a bad tax in its nature. I only want to add one thing, and that is that in my view the words which the Government have added to my Amendment are not of importance to it, and I hope that they will not be readily accepted on this side of the House, and without a good deal of consideration. The Government Duty. If it is an increase due to the Commissioners in ascertaining the two new matters which they now have to ascertain—viz., the value of the fee simple at the beginning of the lease and the value of the fee simple of the end of the lease. In ascertaining the value of the fee simple at the end of the lease they are to remain free to ascertain the value by any such evidence as they please to consider, but if this Amendment is carried in its full form the Commissioners, when they come to ascertain the value of the fee simple at the beginning of the lease, will not be free to accept such evidence as may be placed before them, but will be restricted to the annual rent which may have been fixed, and will be compelled to ascertain the value of the fee simple merely by taking the rent, and by capitalising that rent on such tables as they think applicable. There are two classes of landlord which this Reversion Duty will hit. The indulgent and reasonable landlord will be especially hard hit, and the other landlord who will be specially hit is the improving landlord. At any rate, altering these words, we can pervert this hitting of the indulgent landlord. It is most reasonable that, if a man, perhaps for private reasons, has thought fit to let his land at a rent which is lower than full market rent, that he should not be compelled to pay a higher duty on that ground. If the Government intends to add these words to my Amendment, I shall move to add other words. As the provision stands the Commissioners are restricted to rent, and even if, in consideration of a low rent, there had been covenants to make improvements, they would be restricted to not taking that into consideration at all. I shall move to add, "And all the other considerations, if any, from the sale," so that the words would foe, "to be ascertained on the basis of the rent reserved and payments made in consideration of the lease and of the other considerations, if any, of the lease."
Mr. JAMES HOPE: If that Amendment is to be asked for, it will not be in order to move to leave out any words of the Attorney-General's Amendment, and as I am going to move to do that, I suggest the Amendment of my hon. Friend should come later.
Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: In view of what my hon. Friend has just said, I shall prefer to wait until later.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I wish to move to leave out the latter part of the words of the Attorney-General's Amendment, because I do not think the words as they stand take into account a number of things. However long the lease is for, there will be a certain reversionary value in the land, even if it were for 999 years, there would be some slight reversionary value at the first. If it is for 99 years I am told that it would amount to some 2 per cent. Under the words of the Attorney-General you will get a too-low point of departure, because you will not allow for that reversionary value, and the difference will be greater than it ought to be when you come to the determination of the lease. I think if these words are adhered to, it will be necessary to move other words. If you are to compare the two things fairly, you ought to take the total value at the beginning and the total value at the end. The learned Attorney-General's Amendment does not take the total value at the beginning, but less, because it ignores the reversionary interest.
Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Before these words are put I want to ask whether the words which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to insert are to cover the premium paid, which the hon. and learned Gentleman knows in many cases is a very large part of the consideration.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: If these words are inserted they will by implication exclude a considerable number of other items of consideration in almost every lease. In the majority of building leases the covenant to build is the principal part of the consideration. It would not be covered by the words of the Attorney-General. Then there is the covenant to keep in repair, which is almost as important a part of the consideration, and there is the covenant to give up the buildings in good repair and condition. The learned Attorney-General has asked us to agree to insert words very properly

193
in order to compare like with like instead of like with unlike. The hon. and learned Gentleman practically accepts my hon. Friend's Amendment and wishes to compare the value of property at one period with the value of property at another. So far so good; but in arriving at the value at the time of the original granting of the lease he wants to add the extraordinary words, "to be ascertained on the basis of the rent reserved and the payments made in consideration of the lease." These words have evidently been proposed by the learned Attorney-General without giving any consideration whatever to the matter. Had he had an opportunity of considering the matter I am sure he would not have proposed anything so absurd. It only shows how in a Bill of this sort, when Amendments are taken on the spur of the moment, they are apt to result in absurdities of this description. They ask us to look at the original grant of the lease and to first find out the value of the property at that time, and they say you must first ascertain that on the basis of rent reserved and the payments made in consideration of the lease, while forgetting practically all the main elements of consideration in the lease. They forget the fine, the covenant to pay, the covenant to ensure, the covenant to repair, the covenant to leave the buildings in good order at the end of the lease, and they forget the original reversionary value. As the Government are proposing to consider a number of points at a later stage, I really think it would be advisable for them to take their own Amendment back and put it in somewhere else so that it should receive, at all events, five minutes' consideration.
Mr. RIDSDALE: As I understand, if these words are added to the Amendment, a man who owns a piece of land and lets one acre on a peppercorn rent for building purposes in order to send up the value of the rest of the land, the Government will get a share in the Increment Duty on the rest of the land, and as regards this particular piece of land, when the building lease falls in they will claim the Reversion Duty on the difference between this last value and an original value of absolutely nothing. If that is so, it is a great blot.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That case is covered in another sub-section of the Bill.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I expected that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would point that out, but this really shows the incon-
194
venience of discussing important and ill-digested proposals of this kind at half-past two in the morning. I was just about to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this Amendment of the Attorney-General entirely destroys Clause 21 as regards Reversionary Duty. Here is a duty proposed by the Government of a totally novel character, involving all sorts of property. It is obvious by the Amendments the Government propose and the Amendments the Government accept that they have never really considered the bearing of the tax upon the property which is to pay. We have been discussing this matter nearly all round the clock, and I appeal to the Committee whether it is not the case that there has not been one suggestion uttered from this side of the House which is not germane to the point. We have no desire to sit up any longer than is necessary; but it is our duty to consider these points. They affect the incomes of the people, and, of course, if the Government move the closure and insert Amendments without discussion, the responsibility is upon the shoulders of the Government. What I am complaining of is that at this hour we are asked to deal with an Amendment which obviously does not meet the case at all. We are referred to Clause 21, which is now not applicable. Where do we stand? We were just now dealing with the question of mineral leases. How is this duty going to be applied to the mineral lease? There may be two different kinds of minerals and the total value of the land will include both minerals. How are you going to ascertain the total value? It is not apparent. These matters ought to have been considered before the Government brought their Bill into the House of Commons. It is really not fair to the House of Commons, nor to the people who are to be taxed. I do not think there is any particular disagreement as to what this Amendment is desired to bring about, but the matter is so complicated and deals with such diverse interests that it is most difficult and requires a great deal of clear thought to decide what are the exact words required to give effect to the wishes of the Committee. Words are hastily introduced here and we are at very great disadvantage. I do not wish at this stage to move to report Progress, although we should be justified in doing it. We are, at any rate, justified in asking how this Amendment is going to affect minerals and two different kinds of minerals, and how Clause 21 is going to operate?
Captain CRAIG: I really think at this hour it is only fitting that you, Mr. Chairman, should report Progress and ask leave to sit again. The reason I rise to move that is because Members of the front Bench opposite are really getting tied into a knot over their own Bill. The Amendment does not appear on the Paper, and it is very difficult to follow, and already two Amendments have been moved to the Amendment which has not been placed on the Paper. A great number of Members are sound asleep. There is no doubt whatever that at a quarter to three, with such a complicated matter as this under discussion, justice is not meted out to the Committee. Therefore I think the time has come when we should adjourn the discussion and have the Amendment of the learned Attorney-General and the Amendments of my hon. Friends above and below me on the Paper to-morrow evening. If that is the case, those of us who are not learned in the law will be much better able to discuss the Amendment and the Amendments to the Amendment. I move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The CHAIRMANbeing of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: In reply to the hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Pretyman), I would say that I quite appreciate his wish not to delay proceedings and not to report Progress. But then the other hon. and gallant Member intervened in the Debate, and complained that this Amendment should not have been moved without being down on the Paper. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have had some experience in conducting Bills through Committee, and they know perfectly well that Ministers in charge of the Bill have advisers, and matters are brought to their attention, and Amendments are moved. We came to the conclusion that on the whole an Amendment moved by an hon. and learned Member was more acceptable than the words of the original drafting, and decided to accept the hon. and learned Member's words in addition to the other words. Here again I have a complaint to make of the kind of thing which has often happened. I am not quite sure of the attitude of hon. Members. Is it to be said that if the Government accept Amendments it is simply an indication of confusion of thought, and that under no conditions ought we to
196
accept Amendments that come from the other side. If I do accept an Amendment from that side we are always represented as tying ourselves in a knot or being in a muddle. I have been in opposition myself for 16 years, and I do not think we ever took up the attitude when pressure was put on the Government to accept our Amendments, and wherever there was any disposition to meet us half way. There has been an attempt to meet the legitimate criticism of hon. and learned Members who have shown in the course of the Debate a thorough mastery of the principles of the Bill, and we came to the conclusion that this criticism had a certain foundation in substance, and we decided to meet him. That really is the whole position, and I do appeal to the hon. Members to help us to get on. With regard to Clause 21, I still say it absolutely governs this point. It is quite clear, and it is not at all wrapped up in technical language. It simply says: "If the Commissioners are satisfied that any covenant or undertaking to discharge any incumbrance, or, in cases where a nominal rent has been reserved"—That is the point raised.
Mr. PRETYMAN: But there is the beginning of the clause.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Really the hon. and gallant Member must not get so excited.
Viscount HELMSLEY: Let us adjourn.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Adjournment does not rest with the Noble Lord. I can assure him that so far as it is within the power of the Committee, we shall get this clause to-night. I am perfectly willing, if the hon. Member (Mr. Pretyman) thinks I am omitting anything, to read the whole of Clause 21. It Says: "(1) Where the value of any consideration for a transfer or lease is to be determined for the purposes of this part of this Act, that value shall, so far as the consideration consists of the payment of a capital sum, be taken to be the amount of that capital sum, and so far as the consideration consists of a periodical money payment, be taken to be such sum as appears to the Commissioners to be the capital value of that payment. (2) If the Commissioners are satisfied that any covenant or undertaking to discharge any incumbrance, or, in cases where a nominal rent only has been reserved, any covenant or undertaking to erect buildings, or to expend any sums upon the property, has formed part of the consideration, the Commissioners may allow such sum as

197
they think just in respect thereof as an addition to the value of the consideration." The hon. and gallant Memher (Mr. Pretyman) does not doubt that if the words we have moved out were taken out, and the words which constitute the Amendment of the hon. Member behind him were left in, section (2) of Clause 21 would not apply. His doubt is that these words would have the effect of cutting the link between the two clauses. That is not our intention, and I am assured it is not the ease. If it is necessary to make it absolutely clear it can be made clear in section (2) of Clause 21 when we arrive at it. At any rate it is not a question of any difference between the two sides of the House; it is purely a question of drafting. I am assured there is no disconnection, but if there is the connection can easily be re-established when we arrive at section (2) of Clause 21 by applying it to the cases specially mentioned by the hon. and learned Member, namely, in cases where a nominal rent only has been reserved and there is a covenant to erect buildings or spend any sums upon the property. There is really no dispute between us in this matter.
Mr. SCOTT-DICKSON: We are not so much interested in this matter in Scotland except in regard to mineral leases. Frankly, I am quite unable, looking at the matter, not from a party point of view, but as a lawyer, to appreciate the argument of the learned Attorney-General. Assume, by way of illustration, a lease where the landlord leases minerals at a royalty of 4d. per ton. The rent paid for that would depend entirely upon the activity and energy of the tenant who is working the minerals. One man might put out 10,000 tons a year and another man 20,000 tons a year. Accordingly if you take, this as the total value of the land, by Clause 14 it is defined to be the amount which the fee simple of the land, if sold at the time in the open market by a willing seller, might be expected to realise. But if the total value of the land is to be governed by the rent it may be anything—£2,000, £4,000, or £6,000. How are you to get the total value of land on the basis proposed when the transaction may be such an uncertain quantity. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Markham) pointed out the difficulty that would arise in this very case. However, this may apply to the ordinary case of leases where you have a fixed rent which cannot be exceeded or diminished, it does not apply at all in the case of mineral
198
leases where the return may be £1,000 this year, £2,000 next year, and varies from time to time. It is impossible to get a fixed sum as the total value of the land at the commencement of the lease, and without that the tax becomes inoperative because of having no fixed sum from which to deduct the total value of the land at the determination of the lease. Party feeling and politics do not enter into this situation at all, and as a lawyer I am unable to understand how it will work out in the case of mineral leases. I recommend the learned Attorney-General to consider whether there is not a serious practical difficulty here. With the words that the Attorney-General proposes to add the Clause will become nonsense.
Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: It is necessary to enter a caveat at this stage. Even if the necessary connection is established or re-established—because I think it is going to be destroyed as between this clause and Clause 21—it still appears that Clause 21 will not be sufficient to deal with this case for the reason that section (2) of Clause 21 is limited to the case where nothing but a nominal rent has been reserved. These additional and accessory obligations to erect buildings and other like services ought to be taken into consideration, even if a rent be reserved or a nominal rent granted. The restricted form of Clause 21 is such that we cannot let it pass without entering a caveat that Clause 21 as it stands will not meet the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend.
Viscount HELMSLEY: There is another point to which I think the attention of the Government should be called. There is nothing in the Amendment to show on what percentage the total value of the land is to be calculated. I should like to know what table of percentages is to be used to arrive at the total value.
The CHAIRMAN: As far as I can see, that ought to come in on Clause 21, which deals with the way in which the value of the consideration is to be determined.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Amendment," put, and negatived.
Question proposed, "That the words, 'total value of the land at the time of the original grant of the lease to be ascertained on the basis of the rent reserved and payments made in consideration for the lease,' be there inserted."
Mr. J. F. HOPE: I propose to move the omission of all the words in the Amendment of the learned Attorney-General after "lease." If the object of the Government is to compare like with like I submit that they ought to take total value at one time and total value at another. The attempt of the Attorney-General to arrive at the total value is very inadequate, and I think it will lead to a great deal of confusion. The basis proposed in the Amendment will be by no means satisfactory if the words which I now propose to omit are allowed to remain, and in that case it will be necessary for us to move other words at the end to make our point clear.
Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. Member would scarcely desire that there should be a reference to the total value of the land at the time of the original grant of the lease, unless some direction were given to the Commissioners as to how that total value was to be ascertained. What is the principle on which they are to proceed? They are to proceed upon the best known, in fact, I may almost say, the invariable principle on which the capital value of any letting premises is to be ascertained. They take the rent reserved or other payment made for the use of the hereditament, and they say that gives you, at all events, the annual value of the hereditament according to the market value at the time. That is quite sufficient to ascertain what the total value of the hereditament is. What the Commissioners have to ascertain here is the value of the land itself, as land, and not merely the value of separate interests in it, which may be valued on a different basis altogether. They must have a basis on which they can ascertain, as definitely as any value can be ascertained, the value of the land at the time the lease is given, and this, I believe, is to be found in the Amendment.
Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAM: The learned Attorney-General has given the complete go-by to arguments urged from this side of the Committee, and I would especially remind him that the question of mineral leases has been overlooked altogether by the Government. The learned Attorney-General gets up and says that the process recommended by the Government for calculating the total value is one with which everyone is familiar. Nobody, I would point out, is familiar with an attempt to ascertain the value of a mineral lease, because it has never been done. Yet, without a word of explanation from
200
the Government as to how it can be done, we are invited to do a thing which never has been done.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of order, Mr. Emmott, you have just ruled in the case of my noble Friend (Viscount Helmsley) that this was not the proper place in which to try to find out the way in which the value is to be ascertained, but that it ought to be done on Clause 21. I ask you whether the ruling you gave in the case of the Amendment of my noble Friend does not equally apply to this part of the Amendment of the learned Attorney-General?
The CHAIRMAN: I do not think so, because this is quite a different matter. The Noble Lord's Amendment was to lay down a certain percentage basis for the calculation. That seems to me to arise on Clause 21, because in Clause 21 we have the words "so far as the consideration consists of the payment of a capital sum be taken to be the amount of that capital sum, and, so far as the consideration consists of a periodical money payment, be taken to be such sum as appears to the Commissioners to be the capital value of that payment." This Amendment raises a different point altogether from the Amendment of the Noble Lord, and although it might also come on Clause 21, I think it can equally well come at this point.
Mr. PRETYMAN: Reference is made here only to the total value of the land, and nothing is said regarding separate interests in the land. When the Government speak of the total value of the land, does that refer to the value of the minerals under the land?
Sir W. ROBSON: It refers to land which is the subject-matter of the lease. The Commissioners will have the lease to look at, and if it is the lease of the land as a whole, they will judge of it on that footing. If it is a lease of that which is under the surface, it will come within the expression "lease on land," and the Commissioners will deal with the royalties and the rents on it. The hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Pretyman) speaks as if you could not capitalise the value of a mining lease. There is no greater difficulty in doing that in the case of a mining lease than there is in the case of an agricultural lease. The hon. and gallant Member states that it cannot be done and that it is unwork-

201
able. The matter has been carefully considered, however, and the Government are fully convinced that it can be done.
Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I really think the Amendment is advantageous, because notwithstanding what the Attorney-General says, the words of the sub-section would prevent the Commissioners looking at certain considerations. These covenants are part of the consideration, and if you only look at the
money payments you have not exhausted the considerations. According to the ordinary elementary rules of construction is it not safer to leave out the limiting words of direction and leave it at large?
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 63.

Division No. 323.]

AYES.

[3.14 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Rendall, Athelstan

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Armitage, R.

Hedges, A. Paget

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Helme, Nerval Watson

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Barlow, Percy Bedford

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Higham, John Sharp

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Beale, W. P.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Rowlands, J

Black, Arthur W.

Hodge, John

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Hogan, Michael

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Bowerman, C. W.

Hudson, Walter

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Brace, William

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Seely, Colonel

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Shackleton, David James

Brodie, H. C.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Brooke, Stopford

Lambert, George

Stanger, H. Y.

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Lehmann, R. C.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Bryce, J. Annan

Levy, Sir Maurice

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Lewis, John Herbert

Summerbell, T.

Byles, William Pollard

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Lundon, T.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorganshire)

Clough, William

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Thomasson, Franklin

Clynes, J. R.

Maclean, Donald

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Thorne, G R. (Wolverhampton)

Cooper, G. J.

Maddison, Frederick

Tomkinson, James

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Toulmin, George

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Walsh, Stephen

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Worrell, Philip

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Everett, R. Lacey

Nicholls, George

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Fenwick, Charles

Nussey, Sir Willans

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Wiles, Thomas

Fuller, John Michael F.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wilkie, Alexander

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Glover, Thomas

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Gcddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Radford, G. H.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex, F.

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Balcarres, Lord

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Harrlson-Broadley, H. B.

Baldwin, Stanley

Dairymple, Viscount

Helmsley, Viscount

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Hill, Sir Clement

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hunt, Rowland

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Faber, G. Denison (York)

Kerry, Earl of

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Forster, Henry William

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Bull, Sir William James

Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Gardner, Ernest

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gretton, John

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Morpeth, Viscount

Clive, Percy Archer

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds.)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Newdegate, F. A.

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Oddy, John James

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Winterton, Earl

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Stanier, Beville

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Pretyman, E. G.

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Remnant, James Farquharson

Starkey, John R.

Renton, Leslie

Valentia, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. James Hope and Mr. Clavell Salter.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I desire to move to add to the proposed Amendment of the Attorney-General the words, "in addition to the reversionary value of the land." I do not think the Amendment requires any explanation after what has been said.
Sir W. ROBSON: I must say with great respect that I think the Amendment requires a good deal of explanation. What is meant by "the reversionary value of the land"? The phrase is new to me, and is somewhat confusing. As the Bill now stands, with the adoption of my Amendment, the letting value of the land at the time of the lease will have to be taken into account, and there is not the slightest reason why the value of the other interest should be taken into account.
Viscount HELMSLEY: I do not quite follow the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It seems to me that you want to take into consideration in ascertaining the value at the time the lease expires everything that can possibly add to the value of the land at that time. I think my Noble Friend was quite right in
not developing his argument because the Attorney-General must be well aware that I this question of the reversionary value of land has already been mentioned in the course of the Debate, and the Amendment only gives effect to it. It is rather hard, therefore, that the Attorney-General should accuse my Noble Friend of not developing his argument when he has refrained from doing so in order to save the time of the Committee. I should like to know really whether the Attorney-General's explanation holds good, or whether the words of the Bill are to be taken as though read in conjunction with Clause 14. If, as I understand from the Attorney-General, you are not considering the whole value of the land, but only the letting value, then the definition of total value in Clause 14 will have to be altered.
Question put, "That the words, 'in addition to the reversionary value of the land,' be added to the proposed Amendment."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 61; Noes, 137.

Division No. 324.]

AYES.

[3.25 a.m.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Oddy, John James

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gretton, John

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Balcarres, Lord

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Pretyman, E. G.

Baldwin, Stanley

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Barrle, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Renton, Leslie

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclsall)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Helmsley, Viscount

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hill, Sir Clement

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bull, Sir William James

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Carlile, E Hildred

Hunt, Rowland

Stanier, Beville

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kerry, Earl of

Starkey, John R.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Valentia, Viscount

Clive, Percy Archer

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Winterton, Earl

Dairymple, Viscount

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Wortley,Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Morpeth, Viscount

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Forster, Henry William

Newdegate, F. A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Viscount

Foster, P. S.

Nicholson, Wm. G (Petersfield)

Castlereagh and Sir S. Scott.

Gardner, Ernest

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Brodie, H. C.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Brooke, Stopford

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Beale, W. P.

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Black, Arthur W.

Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Bryce, J. Annan

Armitage, R.

Bowerman, C. W.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Brace, William

Byles, William Pollard

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Clough, William

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Clynes, J. R.

Lambert, George

Rowlands, J.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lehmann, R. C.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Cooper, G. J.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Seely, Colonel

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Lewis, John Herbert

Shackleton, David James

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Lundon, T.

Stanger, H. Y.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Maclean, Donald

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Summerbell, T.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Maddison, Frederick

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Everett, R. Lacey

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Fenwick, Charles

Markham, Arthur Basil

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Thomasson, Franklin

Fuller, John Michael F.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset E.)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Therne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Morrell, Philip

Tomkinson, James

Glover, Thomas

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Toulmin, George

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Walsh, Stephen

Griffith, Ellis J.

Nicholls, George

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Haldane, Rt Hon. Richard B.

Nussey, Sir Willans

Wason, Rt Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

White, J. Dundas (Dunbartonshire)

Hazel, Dr. A E. W.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Hedges, A. Paget

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Helme, Norval Watson

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Wiles, Thomas

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Radford, G. H.

Wilkie, Alexander

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Williams, W. Llewellyn (Carmarthen)

Higham, John Sharp

Rendall, Athelstan

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E H.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Hodge, John

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Hogan, Michael

Ridsdale, E. A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Hudson, Walter

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEclaimed to move, "That the Question, 'That the words down to the end of the clause stand part of the clause' be now put."
The CHAIRMAN: That Motion cannot
be put, because we have an Amendment before us.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 59.

Division No. 335.]

AYES.

[3.33 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lambert, George

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lehmann, R. C.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Levy, Sir Maurice

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Evans, Sir S. T.

Lewis, John Herbert

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Everett, R. Lacey

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Fenwick, Charles

Lyell, Charles Henry

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Beale, W. P.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Maclean, Donald

Black, Arthur W.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Maddison, Frederick

Bowerman, C. W.

Glover, Thomas

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Brace, William

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Marknam, Arthur Basil

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Brodie, H. C.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Brooke, Stopford

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Morrell, Philip

Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Bryce, J. Annan

Haworth, Arthur A.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Nicholls, George

Byles, William Pollard

Hedges, A. Paget

Nussey, Sir Wilians

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Helme, Norval Watson

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Clough, William

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Clynes, J. R.

Higham, John Sharp

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Cooper, G. J.

Hodge, John

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Radford, G. H.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hudson, Walter

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rendall, Athelstan

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Summerbell, T.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Thomasson, Franklin

Wiles, Thomas

Rowlands, J.

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Wilkie, Alexander

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Seely, Colonel

Tillett, Louis John

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Shackleton, David James

Toulmin, George

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Walsh, Stephen

Stanger, H. Y.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mrs. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Balcarres, Lord

Gretton, John

Pretyman, E. G.

Baldwin, Stanley

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Renton, Leslie

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Helmsley, Viscount

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bull, Sir William James

Hill, Sir Clement

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hunt, Rowland

Stanier, Beville

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kerry, Earl of

Starkey, John R.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Clive, Percy Archer

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Winterton, Earl

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Dairymple, Viscount

Morpeth, Viscount

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dickson, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Scott-

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Newdegate, F. A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

Forster, Henry William

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

A. Acland-Hood and Viscount

Foster, P. S.

Oddy, John James

Valentia.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGErose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question that the words of the clause down to the word 'freehold'" ["the amount by which the value of his interest is less than the value of the freehold"] stand part of the clause "be now put."
Question put, "That the Question, 'That the words of the clause to the word "freehold" stand part of the clause,' be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 60.

Division No. 326.]

AYES.

[3.39 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lambert, George

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lehmann, R. C.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Armitage, R.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Levy, Sir Maurice

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Evans, Sir S. T.

Lewis, John Herbert

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Everett, R. Lacey

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Fenwick, Charles

Lyell, Charles Henry

Beale, W. P.

Field, William

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Black, Arthur W.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Maclean, Donald

Boulton, A. C. F.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Bowerman, C. W.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Maddison, Frederick

Brace, William

Glover, Thomas

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Markham, Arthur Basil

Brodie, H. C.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Brooke, Stopford

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Morrell, Philip

Bryce, J. Annan

Haworth, Arthur A.

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Byles, William Pollard

Hedges, A. Paget

Nicholls, George

Carr-Gomm, H. W

Helme, Nerval Watson

Nussey, Sir Willans

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Clough, William

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Clynes, J. R.

Higham, John Sharp

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Cooper, G. J.

Hodge, John

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hudson, Walter

Radford, G. H.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Rendall, Athelstan

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Summerbell, T.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Robson, Sir Wiliiam Snowdon

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wiles, Thomas

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Thomasson, Franklin

Wilkie, Alexander

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Rowlands, J.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Tomkinson, James

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Seely, Colonel

Toulmin, George

Shackleton, David James

Walsh, Stephen

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Stanger, H. Y.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gretton, John

Pretyman, E. G.

Balcarres, Lord

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Baldwin, Stanley

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Renton, Leslie

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Ridsdale, E. A.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Helmsley, Viscount

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hill, Sir Clement

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bull, Sir William James

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cartile, E. Hildred

Hunt, Rowland

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kerry, Earl of

Stanier, Beville

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Starkey, John R.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Clive, Percy Acher

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Winterton, Earl

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Morpeth, Viscount

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Dairymple, Viscount

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Newdegate, F. A.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

Forster, Henry William

Oddy, John James

A. Acland-Hood and Viscount

Foster, P. S.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Valentia.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Question put accordingly, "That the words of the clause to the word 'freehold' stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 59.

Division No. 327.]

AYES.

[4.30 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Esslemont, George Birnie

Maclean, Donald

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Evans, Sir S. T.

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Everett, R. Lacey

Maddison, Frederick

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Markham, Arthur Basil

Armitage, R.

Glover, Thomas

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Baring, Godfrey, (Isle of Wight)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Masterman, C. F. G.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Morrell, Philip

Beale, W. P.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Black, Arthur W.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Nicholls, George

Bowerman, C. W.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nussey, Sir Willans

Brace, William

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Hedges, A. Page

Parker, James (Halifax)

Brodie, H. C.

Helme, Norval Watson

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Brooke, Stopford

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Higham, John Sharp

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Bryce, J. Annan

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hodge, John

Radford, G. H.

Byles, William Pollard

Hogan, Michael

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Rendall, Athelstan

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hudson, Walter

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Clough, William

Illingworth, Percy H.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Clynes, J. R.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lambert, George

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Cooper, G J.

Lehmann, R. C.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rowlands, J.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lewis, John Herbert

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Seely, Colonel

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lundon, T.

Shackleton, David James

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Stanger, H. Y.

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Tomkinson, James

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Toulmin, George

Wiles, Thomas

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Walsh, Stephen

Wilkie, Alexander

Summerbell, T.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Tennant, N. J. (Berwickshire)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Thomasson, Franklin

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gretton, Johr.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Balcarres, Lord

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Renton, Leslie

Baldwin, Stanley

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harrison,Broadley, H. B.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Helmsley, Viscount

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hill, Sir Clement

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Bull, Sir William James

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Stanler, Beville

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hunt, Rowland

Starkey, John R.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kerry, Earl of

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

Clive, Percy Archer

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Winterton, Earl

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Morpeth, Viscount

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dairymple, Viscount

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Newdegate, F. A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Foster, P. S.

Oddy, John James

Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to move to insert at the end of the Clause the words "and where at any time during the continuance of the lease the lessee has had an option of purchasing the lessor's interest the value of the benefit accruing to the lessor shall not be deemed to be greater than the amount by which the purchase money fixed under the option exceeds the value of the consideration for the original grant of the lease." Suppose we take a case where a lessor grants a lease at the wish of the lessee. The lessor would have preferred to sell his land and to take the money. But the lessee, who wished to keep all his capital for building, preferred to take a lease and to pay an annual rent. In that case the lessor allowed the lessee an option over a period of years within which he had the right of purchasing the freehold on certain terms. The point I am making is that where the lessee has had that right, and has not chosen to exercise it, obviously it seems unfair that any sum in excess of the sum which the lessee
would have paid under the covenant for acquiring the freehold should be used for purposes of comparison against him. I hope therefore that, without my delaying the Committee at this late hour with any further arguments, the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This Amendment betrays an absolutely false conception for the purpose of the tax, which is in no sense a penal tax. Our view is that this is merely raising the tax on the expiration of a lease, which is a very fair occasion on which to do it. What difference does it make whether he offers the option to somebody else? He may have offered it to somebody else and that somebody else may have refused. But what on earth has the State got to do with that?
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 132.

Division No. 328.]

AYES.

[4.4 a.m.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Balcarres, Lord

Clive, Percy Archer

Gretton, John

Baldwin, Stanley

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Dairymple, Viscount

Helmsley, Viscount

Bull, Sir William James

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Hill, Sir Clement

Carlile, E. Hildred

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Forster, Henry William

Hunt, Rowland

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Foster, Philip S.

Kerry, Earl of

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Pretyman, E. G.

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Renton, Leslie

Winterton, Earl

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Morpeth, Viscount

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Newdegate, F. A.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Stanier, Beville

A. Acland-Hood and Viscount

Oddy, John James

Starkey, John R.

Valentia.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

NOES.

Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Griffith, Ellis J.

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Radford, G. H.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Rendall, Athelstan

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Armitage, R.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Hedges, A. Paget

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Helme, Norval Watson

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Beale, W. P.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Black, Arthur W.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Rowlands, J.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Higham, John Sharp

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Bowerman, C. W.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Seely, Colonel

Brace, William

Hodge, John

Shackleton, David James

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Hogan, Michael

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Brodie, H. C.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Stanger, H. Y.

Brooke, Stopford

Hudson, Walter

Strachey, Sir Edward

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Summerbell, T.

Bryce, J. Annan

Lambert, George

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Lehmann, R. C.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Byles, William Pollard

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Thomasson, Franklin

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Clough, William

Lundon, T.

Tomkinson, James

Clynes, J. R.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Toulmin, George

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Walsh, Stephen

Cooper, G. J.

Maclean, Donald

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Maddison, Frederick

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Markham, Arthur Basil

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Masterman, C. F. G.

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Morrell, Philip

Wiles, Thomas

Evans, Sir S. T.

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Wilkie, Alexander

Everett, R. Lacey

Nicholls, George

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Fenwick, Charles

Nussey, Sir Willans

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Fuller, John Michael F.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Glover, Thomas

Ponsonby Arthur A. W. H.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Those who were in the House early yesterday afternoon will remember a conversation which then took place across the floor of the House between my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend pointed out that he had had no opportunity of discussing the principle of this clause, and you ruled that we could not take that opportunity by moving to omit sub-section 1, but that it must arise upon the question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. My right hon. Friend then pointed out that it would be most inconvenient and unfair to take a discussion on this matter at a time like this, when the
214
whole Committee is more or less tired, and there is no possibility of placing what is said fairly before the country, which, after all, ought to have an opportunity of following our Debates, in order that they may know what it is that their so-called representatives are doing. At the time the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised the appeal of my right hon. Friend as a fair and reasonable request. I think he held out hopes that he would be able to coincide with the wishes expressed by my right hon. Friend, but he adjourned the discussion on that matter until later in the evening. At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that it was a reasonable request that we should discuss this Motion,

215
as he said, in the broad light of day, meaning in the afternoon. I hope he is still of the same mind. The discussion on the clause has been prolonged no doubt, but that is because it raises a vast amount of matter, and the Government must look not merely at the work which lies before us, but also at the work we have already accomplished in a single sitting. To have dealt with a totally new tax of this kind and disposed of all the Amendments to a clause imposing that tax in a single sitting would have been considered a very handsome piece of work indeed in the past. It is not fair that the House should be penalised because the Government choose to stuff into one Bill what in all previous Parliaments would have been matter for four, five, or half a dozen Bills, and to ask the House to do an amount of work into one day such as would have taken between four, five and six days. Under these circumstances, having regard to the admission of the right hon. Gentleman himself that this Motion ought to be discussed in the afternoon and to the importance of the question which it raises, I beg to move that the Chairman do report Progress.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: When the Leader of the Opposition earlier in the sitting expressed a desire that the Debate upon this clause should be taken at a reasonable hour I felt that the request was one which certainly ought to receive favourable consideration from the Government if it could be met consistently with the interests of the progress of business. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have made a real endeavour to effect some sort of arrangement that would enable us to comply with the wish of the Leader of the Opposition. I pointed out when I made that statement that the clause was a very short one, and that unless we were enabled to make some progress with Clauses 8 and 9 at the next sitting we could not possibly consent to any arrangement that would take three and possibly four hours out of that sitting in discussing the principle of Clause 7. We have practically debated the principle of the clause on an Amendment. Every argument that could have been advanced against the clause itself, or, in support of the Amendment, was advanced in the Debate. If we had a discussion to-morrow, it would follow exactly the same lines. That, I think, makes a considerable difference. However, I very much regret that negotiations
216
which have since been conducted have broken down. If the Opposition had been disposed—I will not say to assist the Government, but to come to some arrangement to assist the Government—I should have been very willing to comply with the wishes of the Leader of the Opposition. Clause 8 is purely the extension of a series of concessions. I wish the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion had indicated his views. It is absolutely impossible for us to meet the views of the Leader of the Opposition unless the other people of the Opposition are prepared to meet us. I have been rather interested to find out how long it has taken to discuss much greater Budgets than this, involving greater changes. They have taken much less time. It is quite a new thing to discuss Budgets in minute detail when presented in the form of a Finance Bill. The right hon. Gentleman wants us to consider what has been done. Up to the present we have only got to Clause 7, and we have been at it now for about five weeks. I do not think that is an achievement of which the Committee need feel very proud, and they need not think that they are exceeding the speed limit. It is very slow progress indeed, and therefore I should be very glad, as far as the Government are concerned, to endeavour to meet the Opposition in any particular request that they are prepared to make with regard to Clauses 8 and 9 with a view to the arranging of the discussion in order that we may get through in a reasonable time on Wednesday morning.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A direct reference has been made to the negotiations which were made in the course of the afternoon without avail, and a direct appeal has been made to me to take a more favourable view of the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman makes than did the Leader of the Opposition and those with whom the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to consult at the beginning of this day's sitting. When we discussed this clause as a whole we did not understand any conditions to be attached to it in relation to other clauses. I do not say there has been any breach of faith; I only say that, having attempted to arrange with us on reasonable terms, the right hon. Gentleman now desires to attach a condition. I am not more ready at this hour of the morning to give the condition he desires. He desires to adjourn the discussion on the Motion that

217
Clause 7 stand part of the Bill, if we will undertake at a reasonable hour to finish not merely Clauses 7 and 8, but Clauses 7, 8, and 9. To me that appears a quite unreasonable demand. There are many ways of conducting a Bill through the House of Commons, whether it be a Finance Bill or any other Bill.
There are many ways the Government may adopt to press business forward faster than their opponents think it fair to do. I think the way the Government are taking in regard to this Bill is the worst, and the most irritating way, and one which puts the severest strain upon the Committee. They are attempting to force their Bill through by the sheer overstrain of the physical endurance of a small number of opponents. They happen to have an altogether phenomenal majority, because we cannot get enough bye-elections to rectify things, outnumbering their opponents by about three to one. The Government think they can arrange, by night and day, to keep fresh squadrons to wear us down and fag us out. They are not keeping their party here; they are only keeping about one-third of their number. Some of them will not stop and some of them feel quite as strongly as we do about it. They either will not stop or cannot stop because they have other work to do. The Government, with their vast majority, are setting it against the very small minority, and are taking advantage of that condition of things to wear us down by continual late sittings. I know the Government, from time to time, must have a late sitting, but this systematic sitting up in order to wear down the Opposition night after night to this hour is quite a new feature since the reform of our procedure, and is quite contrary to those reforms. Of all the forms for facili-
tating business which are most irritating and which are least to the credit of the House of Commons, those adopted by the Government are the worst. I am quite unable, on behalf of my friends or myself, to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer the undertaking he asks for, or make the bargain he desires, and we can only protest in the way that is open to us.
Mr. J. F. MASON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted the precedent of other Budget Debates to show that the time expended on this clause is very ample. The right hon. Gentleman told us that in almost every case the Resolutions had always been the real things, and that the Finance Bill itself had been a mere matter of form. But on this occasion, whenever we endeavoured to raise the real question on the Resolutions, the one answer the right hon. Gentleman invariably made was, "Wait for the Bill." He went on to say that Clause 7 was a very short clause. So it is in words, but he will find it is much longer in its reach. It is the most important clause of the whole Bill. To say that we have had a general discussion on it upon the Amendment which dealt with the breaking of contracts hardly represents the case exactly. On that Amendment it was not possible to raise the whole issue relative to the Reversion Duty, and that discussion is absolutely essential.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGErose 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, 129; Noes, 57.

Division No. 329.]

AYES.

[4.35 a.m.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Glover, Thomas

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Clough, William

Griffith, Ellis J.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Ciynes, J. R.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Armitage, R.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cooper, G. J.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Beale, W. P.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hedges, A. Paget

Black, Arthur W.

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Helme, Norval Watson

Boulton, A. C. F.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Bower man, C. W.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Brace, William

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radner)

Higham, John Sharp

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Brodle, H. C.

Evans, Sir S. T.

Hodge, John

Brooke, Stopford

Everett, R. Lacey

Hogan, Michael

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

Fenwick, Charles

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Hudson, Walter

Bryce, J. Annan

Fuller, John Michael F.

Ilingworth, Percy H.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Jones, Lett (Appleby)

Byles, William Pollard

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Lehmann, R. C.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Thomasson, Franklin

Levy, Sir Maurice

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Radford, G. H.

Tomkinson, James

Lundon, T.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Toulmin, George

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rendall, Athelstan

Walsh, Stephen

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Maclean, Donald

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Maddison, Frederick

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Rose, Sir Charles Day

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Rowlands, J.

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Seely, Colonel

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Shackleton, David James

Wiles, Thomas

Morrell, Philip

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wilkie, Alexander

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Stanger, H. Y.

Williams, W. Llewellyn (Carmarthen)

Nicholls, George

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Nussey, Sir Willans

Straus, B, S. (Mile End)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Summerbell, T.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Rcynell

Gretton, John

Remnant, James Farquharson

Balcarres, Lord

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Renton, Leslie

Baldwin, Stanley

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Roberts. S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Harrison-Broad Iey, H. B.

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Helmsley, Viscount

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hill, Sir Clement

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bull, Sir William James

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hunt, Rowland

Stanier, Beville

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kerry, Earl of

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Clive, Percy Archer

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Winterton, Earl

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Morpeth, Viscount

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dairymple, Viscount

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott

Newdegate, F. A.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

Forster, Henry William

Oddy, John James

Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscoun Valentia.

Foster, P. S.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Pretyman, E. G.

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 58; Noes, 128.

Division No. 330.]

AYES.

[4.42 a.m.

Acland-Hood. Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Renton, Leslie

Baldwin, Stanley

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Helmsley, Viscount

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hill, Sir Clement

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bull, Sir William James

Hunt, Rowland

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kerry, Earl of

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Stanier, Beville

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Starkey, John R.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Valentia, Viscount

Clive, Percy Archer

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Morpeth, Viscount

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Winterton, Earl

Dairymple, Viscount

Newdegate, F. A.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Oddy, John James

Foster, P. S.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Pretyman, E. G.

Gretton, John

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Armitage, R.

Beale, W. P.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Black, Arthur W.

Allen, A. Acland (Chrlstchurch)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Bowerman, C. W.

Helme, Norval Watson

Rendall, Athelstan

Brace, William

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Brodle, H. C.

Higham, John Sharp

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Brooke, Stopford

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

Hodge, John

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Hogan, Michael

Rowlands, J.

Bryce, J. Annan

Howard, Hon. John Geoffrey

Seely, Colonel

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hudson, Walter

Shackleton, David James

Byles, William Pollard

Illingworth, Percy H.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Stanger, H. Y.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lehmann, R. C.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Clough, William

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Clynes, J. R.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Summerbell, T.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lewis, John Herbert

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Cooper, G. J.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Lundon, T.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Thomasson, Franklin

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Macdonald, J. R, (Leicester)

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Maclean, Donald

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Tomkinson, James

Duncan C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Maddison, Frederick

Toulmin, George

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Walsh, Stephen

Esslemont, George Birnie

Markham, Arthur Basil

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Evans, Sir S. T.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Everett, R. Lacey

Masterman, C. F. G.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Fenwick, Charles

Micklem, Nathaniel

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Flennes, Hon. Eustace

Morrell, Philip

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Nicholls, George

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Nussey, Sir Willans

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Glover, Thomas

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Wiles, Thomas

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wilkie, Alexander

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughfon)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Radford, G. H.

Hedges, A. Paget

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Earl WINTERTON: While I do not desire to in any way forestall the discussion that is to take place later, as I under stand, on Clause 21, on the exemption of agricultural land, and while, of course, it would be a gross impertinence on my part to criticise either the Chairman's ruling or the decision of the Committee, I am bound to express a hope that before we do take the clause the Government will have decided in their own minds what action they will take. I hope the Government will tell us absolutely and fully their intention, because they have accepted principles be fore and we have had cases of principles being presumably accepted, but when we have come to discuss them we have found—
The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is not discussing the question before the Committee.
Earl WINTERTON: I desire, to say something on one or two other points in the clause. Let me say first of all that I think it is in the highest degree unfortunate that the Government should, by this clause, have initiated, so far as legislation
222
is concerned—although, of course, the matter has been discussed on their platforms in the country for many years—they have initiated what I consider is nothing less than a disastrous system of breaking up the organisation—for it is nothing less—that has existed between owner and lessee for many hundreds of years in this country. It may, perhaps, have had its faults in individual cases that led to injustice, but on the whole it is a system, I believe, that has greatly benefited the trade and commerce of the country and has equally benefited the people who have had to live under the system. The Government, for the first time as far as legislation is concerned, propose absolutely to shatter that system altogether; that is the real meaning of this clause. This clause is, perhaps, the most important of all the clauses that we have had to deal with. I do very earnestly desire to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that we are really in this clause initiating the break-up of the whole organisation of the land system of this country. Do not let anybody suppose for a moment that the Government, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, intend to stop at the proposals contained in this clause. Everybody knows that proposals

223
in this clause are only the outline of much more drastic proposals which the Chancellor is going to bring forward in the future. This system which the right hon. Gentleman is trying to break up is a, system which has worked well for many years, and I think the Committee will be very ill-advised to pass this clause in the form in which it is proposed to be passed. Of course, a very large number of special points arise under this clause. I do not think it has been denied that under this clause the owner of urban land, or of land which is bound to become urban land, will in future, if he is to consider the interests of his successors, instead of charging a low ground rent, charge the highest ground rent he can get. It has not been denied.
I have had the opportunity of consulting several builders and surveyors and others interested in the trade, and I have not found one of them who was actually in favour of the proposals contained in this part of the Bill, and notably those contained in this Clause I have listened to the whole of this Debate, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman—everyone appreciates the absolute sincerity and earnestness with which he has brought forward the proposals under these clauses—but I do not think he realises the disastrous effects they will have on the system of land tenure in this country. The right hon. Gentleman is doing away with that system and not proposing to put anything in its place. I would much prefer it if this Bill contained the whole programme of the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. If the peach is going to be eaten at all, it should be eaten in one bite, instead of in a series of subterranean bites — I mean subterranean because they are bites made in such a manner that some of the Government's supporters in the country may not know what is going on. The Government would do well to consider what the effect of this clause will be on the future of the building land of this country. I do not think it is denied that it will have a serious effect in causing the highest possible ground rents to be charged. It will also have a very injurious effect in directly discouraging the good landlord from doing his best to improve his property and doing his very best for his tenants. In fact, by this clause you are really creating a bad class of landlords, the intention being, I suppose, that eventually it is intended to make it so unpopular for people to own land that the
224
municipalities or the State or somebody else will be able to buy it at a ruinous price to the former owner. Landowners are not only to be hampered and harassed at every turn by administration, but are to be threatened with further legislation. They will not only be broken under the special provisions contained in this clause, but will have to anticipate even more oppressive legislation in the future. Above all, they will be directly discouraged from letting their property. This clause is a misshaped hybrid by anarchy out of insanity.
Mr. WYNDHAM: The Government have practically invited us to discuss the principle of this clause. It is not easy at this hour of the morning to do justice to so great a question. It is admitted that the money which is to come in under this clause is not needed for the finances of this year, and that no large revenue is expected from this source during the next few years. There is no question of urgency. The Government are inviting us to say that this Reversion Duty in itself and on its merits will make not only an important, but a desirable addition to the fiscal system of this country. That is a very broad challenge thrown down, and we are bound to take it up and to ask the Committee to consider whether the Government are right in holding that view. What is the principle in this Reversion Duty? Although I put it temperately, I cannot put it in a very complimentary phrase, because, so far as I have been able to follow the arguments of the Government, they have not given for this duty any of those abstract reasons which they have urged for the Increment Duty. They say that as the persons to whom this reversion falls in are in a better position to pay than their fellow-citizens to whom no reversion falls in, let them pay whether the money is wanted at this particular moment or not. Surely no Member of the Government will assert that in respect of the Reversion Duty the community creates an added value in all the cases, or even in the majority of the cases. We have had instance after instance, supported by evidence, where the full value of the reversion is created by the efforts and expenditure on the part of the leaseholder. We have had instances supported by evidence in which the additional value is created by the lessee. At any rate, in a large number of cases—I believe in the majority—there is nothing at issue

225
between us that this value is created by the lessor and the lessee, and cannot be set down to that vague abstraction, the community. The Government, solely upon the plea that when a man is in funds the State may, for unascertained and unexplained purposes, come in and take those funds, interfering between man and man, is a perfectly new doctrine of the Liberal party. There may have been many proposals to interfere between man and man in respect to reversion, but they have always hitherto been made upon the ground that one man, the lessor, had an advantage which enabled him to do less than justice to another man, the lessee. In respect to this tax as to other taxes which go to make up this Budget, I venture to submit to the Committee that the probable results of these taxes are far more important than the reasons which have justified the Government in urging them upon our attention. Now what results do they anticipate from this tax beyond getting a certain amount of money for the Exchequer at a time when that money is not needed and too late to be of any service in the next few years.
What do they expect will happen? The Chancellor of the Exchequer may say that in the course of five years he or his successors will require money to such a degree that he is justified even upon that ground in imposing this tax; but the results which must follow from the imposition of such a tax will far outweigh any chance addition to the revenue of this country. Who can believe that if this tax is imposed, the person in the position to grant a lease will grant it as readily for a period of over 21 years? I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer views that possible result as a matter which he may dismiss altogether from his calculations; but it has been urged over and over again, and it is a matter of experience, that long leases are for the benefit not only of the person who succeeds in getting the long lease, but for the general benefit of the community. Yet surely the inevitable result of this tax must be that no landlord will give a lease for over 21 years, or, at any rate, will not do so nearly as often as has been the case in the past. If be does give it, clearly he will give it at a higher rate than would otherwise be the case. He will try to make hay while the sun shines. Instead of leasing property over a long period at a low rent, to be; developed by the aptitude and intelligence of others, he will say, "I must rack-rent
226
my property, because if I lease it for a moderate number of years at a low rent, and its value largely increases, the State will step in and take it for purposes I never contemplated." I do not see how the Government can fail to agree that these two proposals are not only probable, but almost certain. It is also not only probable but almost certain that fewer long leases will be given, and when given they will be at a higher annual rent. That only proves one of the abstract contentions which the Government are very fond of urging—that the consumer pays the taxes. And in this case the consumer is the possible lessee and undoubtedly in this case the possible lessee will pay this tax and not the lessor. He will either have to go without his lease or he will have to pay more for his lease.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not complain that the right hon. Gentleman at this hour has thought it necessary to state the case against the clause. I only regret that it was not possible to arrange for the Debate to take place at a more opportune moment. He stated his case very fully; but I am utterly at a loss to know even now what his real grievance is. He said we were getting this 10 per cent, tax at a time when money was not needed. I confess I do not quite realise what he meant there, I should have thought that if ever the State needed money it was now.
Mr. WYNDHAM: The Prime Minister said he expects very little revenue from this tax for many years, and that the tax was for the future. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman cannot argue this clause on the ground of immediate necessity.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is a very different proposition to the proposition that the State is not in need of money. We budget for the liabilities that will accrue in the coming financial year; and we have therefore to arrange taxes which, though they may not produce much this year, will produce a considerably larger sum next year, and this is essentially part of our proposal. With regard to the tax itself, I should certainly say, putting it at its very lowest, that it is quite as fair a tax as the Death Duties. We need money, and I absolutely set on one side the suggestion that there is anything penal about this idea. It is purely a case in which the State, looking out for sources of revenue, takes that form of property which comes easiest to the man. It is a very fair thing on which to levy a toll—

227
certainly as fair as the Death Duties. Is it too much to say that in cases to which this clause applies that we shall have this 10 per cent.? I say the man who says that is shabby in the extreme.
Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has pleaded justice and necessity. The justice of his tax has been denied from this side of the House, and for my part I will say nothing further on the matter. I desire to deal briefly with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's other plea. He has urged with great force and justice the necessity for money. Just or unjust, he presses this tax upon us because he needs money. In that respect I ask the Committee to consider its futility, and whether as a means of obtaining revenue for the State this tax is worth all that it will cost the State. During this long Debate to-night we have secured beyond all doubt from the Government two important and beneficial modifications of this tax. The first one is that there is to be no tax unless there is increment in the value of the land, and the next and equally valuable concession is the undertaking, which is perfectly clear although the words stand over for consideration, that improvements are not to be taxed. Taking these two new principles together, what will be the practical result? There is to be no tax unless there is increment. That increment may arise from the mere increase in the price of land or from the improvements. On the hypothesis that we are not to tax improvements, it follows that there can be no levying of the tax unless there is increment in the land as distinguished from the buildings; in other words, increment in site value.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member is quite wrong.
Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I am putting my point to the Committee, and I think I am quite right. If I am right this tax will never be levied except there has been increment in site value. If so, it amounts to nothing more but adding one more occasion on which increment value will be levied. We all know the provisions under which the Increment Value Duty and the Reversion Duty are not to overlap. What will happen will be this: There will be no Reversion Duty possible except in cases in which Increment Duty is payable, and the officials of the Inland Revenue will be care-
228
ful to claim it as Increment Duty and not as Reversion Duty, because they will get twice as much. It is clear that there is here no addition to the revenue or revenue-producing power at all. There is no new tax, no new levy; but, on the other hand, you have this heavy price to pay—that you have established one more of these occasions on which you force the unhappy owner of land to make up his mind at his peril whether this duty is payable, and if he is to go through all the expense of valuation and making returns, I think the justice is entirely on one side. This is entirely a futile tax, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is beside the mark in urging pecuniary necessity.
Mr. J. F. MASON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer just now justified the tax by comparing it for fairness with the Estate Duties. I should be quite ready to argue that the great danger of the Estate Duties lies in the fact that they are taxes upon capital and not upon income. It is true that these duties have not yet been in operation for a generation, and we do not know the full extent of the danger. But the tax we are now considering is a tax, not in lieu of the Death Duties, but an additional tax upon capital. I think that is the root objection to the tax as a whole. I believe the taxation of capital value, instead of annual value, means the taxing of capital instead of income—a most dangerous principle to go upon. The Lord Advocate now agrees that the taxation of capital value instead of annual value is advisable, but he held a very different view from that a short time ago. Eighteen months ago he said in a speech that he had many assailants, wise and foolish, well-informed and ill-informed, but never one had preferred against him so groundless a charge as that he proposed a rate on capital values. He also said that from beginning to end of his speeches Lord Balfour would not find the words "capital value" even used, although he would find the expression "yearly value," and that when he used the word "value" in connection with land he invariably meant yearly value, and every one of his critics, friendly or unfriendly, so understood him.
The right hon. Gentleman has entirely changed his view. This is a tax upon capital value. The Committee having passed the Increment Duty, is it not as well to go cautiously before adding on another tax of a similar kind? There is something to be said against heaping on

229
another tax of the same kind, which, to a great extent—although I acknowledge not entirely—is a repetition of the Increment Duty; that is to say, a good deal of the money now to be derived from the Reversion Duty would, if there were no Reversion Duty, be derived from the Increment Duty. It is true that the Reversion Duty does tax increased values which have already been created before the passing of this Bill, and that the Increment Value Duty does not do so. But in this exception, and this exception only, the money which will now be derived from the Reversion Duty would in any case have been derived from the Increment Duty. In framing this Bill, the suggestions made by an economist, very often quoted here—John Stuart Mill—have been entirely abandoned. One thing he laid down was that the first step should be a valuation of all land in the country. Then he went on to say, "The present value of all land should be exemption from the tax." That is just what the Government are abandoning in regard to this tax, although they adhere to it in the other taxes. I have never yet heard an answer to the famous case which was put by Lord Bramwell in 1888. He put the case of a man who owned three pieces of land of the same size and situation. On one he built a house at a cost of £1,000, and lived in it; on the second he built a house at a cost of £1,000, and let it at a rental of £65—£50 for the interest in the £1,000, and £15 for the annual value — of the land; and the third plot be let to a tenant for £50 a year on the condition that the tenant laid out £1,000 in building a house. Here you have three plots and treated in three different fashions. In the one case there is a very heavy Reversion Duty on the falling in of the lease; in the other there is a very moderate duty; and in the third there is no duty at all. To this case there has never yet been any answer, and I doubt very much whether there will be one on the present occasion.
What really is a very serious point is that the tax will prove a heavy increased burden on land, which must tend to raise the rent; and in so far as it raises the rent it will act as an impediment to the provision of accommodation of the best kind. You must bear in mind in this connection that investments in land and buildings have to compete with investments in other kinds of securities. Therefore, if you put burdens on land and buildings, naturally you will drive capital to seek other forms of investment which are not subject to the
230
same crushing burdens. If you make land cheaper by this tax it will be solely because it will be undesirable to buy it, burdened as it will be, and at the same time you will make capital dearer. In that way you will not be advancing your desire to cheapen building. To the extent that you put more impediments in the way of the builder and the capitalist, who is going to invest his money in building, you do an increased amount of harm to the community, which has everything to gain by promoting the free investment of money in land. What is the position of insurance companies, friendly societies, and others who have invested a very large amount of their money in property of this kind? One of their principal objects is to get the reversionary interest as part of the revenue, which they are deriving from the investment of their capital.
Companies, like individuals, have purchased ground rents which in many cases bring in a very small annual revenue for the time being, and they have been induced to do so because in the end they have expected to get a very large reversionary interest, which would make it worth their while to have entered upon the investment. They have done it, knowing that this is a security which has been constantly acknowledged by the State, and one which they believed the State would secure to them in the future. There is no doubt whatever that the effect of this tax must be to throw a tremendous hindrance in the way of long leases, and, if not to stop altogether, at any rate to hamper the system of building leases. If you do that, I ask how do you expect the owner of the land to find the capital to build; and, on the other hand, how do you expect a builder to lock up a portion of his capital in building land1? You are interfering with a system which has proved to be useful and adequate for its purpose, and you are deliberately going to injure this system without knowing exactly what you are to put in its place. You are going to enforce short leases which are impossible for building purposes, and if you expect that the owners of land are going to build houses you are bound to be disappointed, simply because the owners have not the capital to do so. You are going to hamper this system, if not to destroy it, for the sake of securing an amount of revenue which appears to me altogether inadequate, considering the immense harm that will be done.
Mr. HALDANErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

Division No. 331.]

AYES.

[5.35 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Radford, G. H.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Rendall, Athelstan

Armitage, R.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Hedges, A. Paget

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Beale, W. P.

Higham, John Sharp

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Boulton, A. C. F.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon Charles E. H.

Rowlands, J.

Bowerman, C. W.

Hodge, John

Seely, Colonel

Brace, William

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Shackleton, David James

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Hudson, Walter

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Brodie, H. C.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Stanger, H. Y.

Brooke, Stopford

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Lambert, George

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Lehmann, R. C.

Summerbell, T.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Taylor, John W (Durham)

Byles, William Pollard

Levy, Sir Maurice

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomasson, Franklin

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Clough, William

Lyell, Charles Henry

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Clynes, J. R.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Tomkinson, James

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Maclean, Donald

Toulmin, George

Cooper, G. J.

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Walsh, Stephen

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Maddison, Frederick

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Masterman, C. F. G.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Micklem, Nathaniel

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Morrell, Philip

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Everett, R. Lacey

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Fenwick, Charles

Nicholls, George

Wilkie, Alexander

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Nussey, Sir Willans

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Glover, Thomas

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Forster, Henry William

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Balcarres, Lord

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Renton, Leslie

Baldwin, Stanley

Gretton, John

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Helmsley, Viscount

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bull, Sir William James

Hill, Sir Clement

Starkey, John R.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hunt, Rowland

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kerry, Earl of

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Winterton, Earl

Clive, Percy Archer

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

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.)

Morpeth, Viscount

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

Dalrymple, Viscount

Newdegate, F. A.

A. Acland-Hood and Viscount

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Valentia.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Oddy, John James

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 49.
The committee divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 49.

Brace, William

Higham, John Sharp

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Rendall, Athelstan

Brodie, H. C

Hodge, John

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Brooke, Stopford

Hogan, Michael

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Hudson, Walter

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Byles, William Pollard

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rowlands, J.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Lambert, George

Seely, Colonel

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lehmann, R. C.

Shackleton, David Janes

Clough, William

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Clynes, J. R.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Stanger, H. Y.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lewis, John Herbert

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cooper, G. J.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Lundon, T.

Summerbell, T.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Maclean, Donald

Thomasson, Franklin

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Maddison, Frederick

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Tomkinson, James

Everett, R. Lacey

Markham, Arthur Basil

Toulmin, George

Fenwick, Charles

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Walsh, Stephen

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Masterman, C. F. G.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Morrell, Philip

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Glover, Thomas

Nicholls, George

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Nussey, Sir Willans

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Wilkie, Alexander

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Hedges, A. Paget

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Radford, G. H.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Renton, Leslie

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gretton, John

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Baldwin, Stanley

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Helmsley, Viscount

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bridegman, W. Clive

Hill, Sir Clement

Starkey, John R.

Bull, Sir William James

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Valentia, Viscount

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hunt, Rowland

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kerry, Earl of

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Winterton, Earl

Clive, Percy Archer

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Morpeth, Viscount

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Newdegate, F. A.

Dairymple, Viscount

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Oddy, John James

H. W. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.
And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Monday evening, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, in pursuance of the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Three Minutes before Sis: o'clock a.m. (Tuesday. 20th July).