§ (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 CHAIRMANThe 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. BALFOURI 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 CHAIRMANI 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. BALFOURThen 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-GEORGEThe 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 CHAMBERLAINThat might be at an early hour in the morning.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHI 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-GEORGEI 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 CASTLEREAGHI 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-GEORGEThis 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. PRETYMANI 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. BALFOURI 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 ROBERTSWe 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 PEELI 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-DAVIESIf 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-WORTLEYThe 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. BARNESI 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. REMNANTI 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. REMNANTThe 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. DEWARI never supported in my life the breaking of existing contracts.
§ Mr. REMNANTIt 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. RIDSDALEI 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 MACDONALDI 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 CHAMBERLAINRightly 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 MACDONALDIs 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 CHAMBERLAINI 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 MACDONALDDo 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 CHAMBERLAINOh, 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. MASONI 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 MORPETHNo 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 COXI 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. FORSTERI 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 STANLEYI 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. REMNANTWhen 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. THORNTONIt 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'DONNELLI 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 CHAIRMANOrder, 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'DONNELLI 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.
133| 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.) |
| 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-GEORGEIf 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. NEWDEGATEThe 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. LAMBTONI 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. PRETYMANI 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. ROBSONSection (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. PRETYMANYou get that as increment.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI 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 CAVEI 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. ROBSONThe 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. CAVEHow 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. ROBSONI 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 CARSONI 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 CHAMBERLAINOne.
§ Sir E. CARSONWell, 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 CECILI 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. ROBSONIt is not a fatal flaw.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILHere 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. AINSWORTHI 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 HELMSLEYThe 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 RUTHERFORDThe hon. Member for Argyllshire has drawn a picture of what happens in connection with the Argyllshire mines.
§ Mr. AINSWORTHI was referring to the North of England.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDWell, 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 CHAMBERLAINI 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 ROBSONThere is no reversion to it.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThen 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. HALDANEI 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 CHAMBERLAINI was dealing with a form of mining lease.
§ Mr. HALDANEThat 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 CASTLEREAGHWhen 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. WALSHIt 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 RUTHERFORDI never was more solemn in my life.
§ Mr. WALSHIn 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 BALCARRESThe 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. WALSHNot 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 BALCARRESI 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 HARDYWith 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. WALSHThe 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. MARKHAMI 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. BALFOURI 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. AINSWORTHIf 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. BALFOURWhy 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. BALFOURI 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 HERBERTSome 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. LAMBTONI 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. ROBSONI 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.
163| 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.) |
| 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.
165| 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."
166§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 91.
169| 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. |
| 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. FABER (York)moved 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. HALDANEI 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 CHAMBERLAINThose 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 HOPEThis 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 CRAIGI 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.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMThe 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.
173| 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.
175| 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."
176§ The Committee divided Ayes: 182; Noes, 81.
179| 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 |
| 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-HICKSI 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. HALDANEThe 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. WYNDHAMI 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. PRETYMANWe 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-HICKSYes, 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-HICKSWill 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 SALTERMay 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 RUTHERFORDMay 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-GEORGEWe 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 RUTHERFORDMay 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-GEORGEI 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. PRETYMANThere 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-GEORGEI 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. PRETYMANI 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 RUTHERFORDIt 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. PRETYMANMay 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 CASTLEREAGHWill the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us the words he proposes to insert in Clause 8?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe 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 RUTHERFORDThe 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. PRETYMANI 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.
189| 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 SALTERI 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 HOPEIf 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 SALTERIn view of what my hon. Friend has just said, I shall prefer to wait until later.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI 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-WORTLEYBefore 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 RUTHERFORDIf 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. RIDSDALEAs 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-GEORGEThat case is covered in another sub-section of the Bill.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI 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 CRAIGI 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-GEORGEIn 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. PRETYMANBut there is the beginning of the clause.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEReally the hon. and gallant Member must not get so excited.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYLet us adjourn.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEAdjournment 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-DICKSONWe 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-WORTLEYIt 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 HELMSLEYThere 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 CHAIRMANAs 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."
199§ Mr. J. F. HOPEI 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. ROBSONThe 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 WYNDHAMThe 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 CHAMBERLAINOn 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 CHAIRMANI 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. PRETYMANReference 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. ROBSONIt 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-WORTLEYI 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.
203| 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 CASTLEREAGHI 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. ROBSONI 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 HELMSLEYI 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.
205| 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."
§ be put, because we have an Amendment before us.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 59.
207| 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.
209| 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."
210§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 59.
211| 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. PRETYMANI 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-GEORGEThis 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.
213| 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 CHAMBERLAINThose 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-GEORGEWhen 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 CHAMBERLAINA 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. MASONThe 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.
219| 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."
220§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 58; Noes, 128.
221| 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 WINTERTONWhile 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—
§ Earl WINTERTONI 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. WYNDHAMThe 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-GEORGEI 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. WYNDHAMThe 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-GEORGEThat 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 SALTERThe 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-GEORGEThe hon. Member is quite wrong.
§ Mr. CLAVELL SALTERI 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. MASONThe 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."
232§ 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).