Commons Sitting of 20 July 1909

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Westminster City Council (Superannuation, etc.) Bill [Lords] (by Order)—read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Dunoon Burgh Bill [Lords] (by Order)—Second reading deferred till Tuesday next.
North-Eastcrn Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order)—Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Second Reading [15th July] further adjourned till Thursday.
Lune Fisheries Provisional Order Bill (by Order)—read a second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  India House, London (Leaders of Sedition).
  Captain FABERasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will state whether the Government in India has drawn the attention of the India Office to the danger caused by India House, and to the fact that leaders of sedition are posting to India large numbers of postcards and pamphlets?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (The Master of Elibank): The answer is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government are well aware of the character of these operations, and the Home Office is taking such measures as are available for frustrating them.

  Famines (India).
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked how many famines there were in India during the 25 years ending in 1887 and in 1907, respectively, with the official estimate of the loss of life involved during each period; and the names of the provinces which suffered most severely?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: Omitting droughts of limited extent there were four great famines in the first period—the Orissa famine of 1865; the Northern India and Rajputana famine of 1868–70; the Behar famine of 1873; the Southern India famine of 1876–8. The Famine Commis-
  250
  sion of 1880 estimated the mortality in British India in these four famines at about 8,000,000 in excess of the normal. Much of the excess mortality was due to epidemic diseases obscurely connected with seasons of drought and privation. In the second period there have been four great famines—the Upper India and Central Provinces famine of 1895, which extended to Madras and Bombay, and to Bengal and the Punjab; the Rajputana and Central India famine of 1899, which also affected Bombay and the Central Provinces; the Guzerat famine of 1899–1902; the United Provinces famine of 1907, which extended to parts of the Central Provinces and Punjab. The excess mortality in British India in 1895 has been estimated at 750,000, and in 1907 at 1,000,000. I am not aware that estimates have been made for the later famines. In the 1907 famine in the United Provinces the provincial death-rate was 36·47 per thousand, against a normal of 34·59, but there were only 11 deaths which after full inquiry could be attributed to want of food.

  Affairs in Persia.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Note addressed by the Russian to the Turkish Government protesting against the advance of Turkish troops into Western Azerbeizan has been communicated to His Majesty's Government; has his attention been called to a statement made in this Note to the effect that this action by Turkey is opposed to the spirit of the Anglo-Russian Agreement whereby the British and Russian Governments undertake to preserve the integrity of Persia; and whether it is a fact that his Majesty's Government have, in concert with the Government of Russia, undertaken to preserve the integrity of Persia?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): I have not seen the text of the Note referred to, but communications have passed between the Turkish Government and the British and Russian Representatives at Constantinople on the subject of the Turkish advance to Urumiah. If the hon. Member will refer to the Anglo-Russian Agreement he will see what are the obligations imposed on the two Powers by that instrument.
  Mr. LYNCH: Was there any reason why the Turkish Government should not have taken similar measures to protect their own interests in the North of Persia to those taken by the Russian Government?
  Sir E. GREY: That is not a subject on which I am prepared to make any statement without notice.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any further information regarding Persia?
  Sir E. GREY: As was stated yesterday, in reply to the hon. Member for the Montgomery District, the Shah, after taking refuge in the Russian Legation, abdicated, and his son, Sultan Ahmed Mirza, has been proclaimed Shah by the Nationalist Committee, under the regency of Azad-ul-Mulk, head of the Kajar tribe, pending the convocation of Parliament. The commanders of the Fedai and Bakhtiari, as temporary chiefs of the Persian Government, have accepted the services of the Persian Cossack Brigade under their Russian officers, on condition that the latter are completely under the orders of the Minister of War. This arrangement was ratified at a meeting between the commanders and Colonel Liakhoff. Tehran is quiet, and the Persian Cossacks are already fraternising with the Fedai. The Sipahdar has been appointed Minister of War, and the Sirdar Assad Minister of the Interior.
  Mr. LYNCH: Is it part of the agreement that the services of the present Russian officers are to be retained?
  Sir E. GREY: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give notice of supplementary questions.
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the behaviour of the Nationalist forces, he will represent to the Government of Russia the undesirability of advancing Russian troops to Tehran?
  Sir E. GREY: In view of the declarations already made by the Russian Government as to the circumstances under which alone Russian troops would be sent to Tehran, and in view of the fact that no troops have been sent to Tehran during the recent troubles, in spite of the fact that at one time some apprehension, which happily proved to be unfounded, was expressed for the safety of Russian subjects, such representations would be most uncalled for.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not the fact that the British Government are backing up the Russian Government to put down the revolutionary movement in Persia?
  Sir E. GREY: It is absolutely untrue that either the British or the Russian Governments are doing anything to put down any movement.
  Mr. SMEATON: Is it not the case that in the present condition of Tehran and in the political situation generally the Nationalists have achieved all they could possibly have desired?
  Sir E. GREY: Yes; the Nationalists have dethroned the Shah, appointed his successor, and established a condition of peace and stability.
  Mr. FLYNNasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any communication to make to this House regarding the present position at Tehran; whether he has any official information to the effect that the Shah has taken refuge in the Russian Legation; what communications have passed between the British and Russian Legations and the Nationalists' leaders since the 16th instant; and, in view of the repeated assurances of Sipahdar and Sardar Asad, as to the safety of the property and lives of non-belligerent Europeans in Tehran, His Majesty's Government will recommend the withdrawal of the Russian military forces save those who may be required for police purposes?
  Sir E. GREY: As regards, the first and second points in the hon. Member's question, I beg to refer him to the answer just returned to the hon. Member for the Ripon Division. As regards the third point, the Nationalist leaders informed the two Legations that the Nationalist Committee thought it necessary to send a deputation to Mohammed Ali Shah to announce a change of sovereignty, and requested them, as the Shah was in the Russian Legation, to appoint an hour when this could be done. This message was communicated to the Shah, who requested the two representatives to reply that, having left Sultanatabad, he had already abdicated, and, therefore, refused to receive the deputation. Later on the Legations were officially notified of the deposition of Mohammed Ali and the accession of Sultan Ahmed Shah. As regards the last point, I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply just returned to the hon. Member for Brentford. There are no Russian or other foreign troops in Tehran, except the usual Legation guards, which are always there.
  Mr. FLYNN: Is it not the fact that the Russian Government have entered into regular relations with the new Persian Government?
  Sir E. GREY: Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman will give notice if the question I shall be able to say when the new Persian Government have been officially recognised by other Powers.

  Government Appointments in India.
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give the number of appointments in Government employ held by European and Indians, respectively, in 1867 and 1907, under the following grades: Those receiving under 200 rupees a month; those receiving between 200 and 500 rupees a month; those receiving between 500 and 800 rupees a month; and those receiving over 800 rupees a month?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State is unable to give the figures for 1907, which could only be prepared with great labour, after extensive and minute inquiry; but the hon. Member will find a full comparison and discussion of the figures for the years 1867 and 1903 in a Resolution of the Government of India, dated 24th May, 1904, published in the Gazette of India of 4th June, 1904, which is in the Library of the House.

  Repressive Measures in Bengal (Speech of Lieutenant-Governor).
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has yet received any official information with regard to the speech of the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal last week, foreshadowing the introduction of repressive measures; and, if so, can he state what was the reason of his making the speech?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State does not think it part of his duty to exercise a censorship over the language used by a lieutenant-governor in warning his own province of the dangers of lawlessness and violence. The Secretary of State understands that Sir Edward Baker, in the speech to which the hon. Member refers, laid stress on the fact that though the Indian Press and public had denounced outrages, more was required in the shape of active assistance to Government by the public, by parents and guardians, by those in charge in education, and by the student community itself. If those
  254
  classes failed to realise their responsibility and abdicated their authority in favour of a handful of young men with undisciplined emotions, he pointed out that, though a solution would undoubtedly come, it would be full of pain and difficulty as to distinguishing the innocent from the guilty; and he went on to warn his hearers of the chaos that must follow the success of continued outrages. This warning seems to be both timely and sensible.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: May I ask my hon. Friend whether the speech was meant to foreshadow repressive measures, and, if so, what the measures are?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: My hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Sir Henry Cotton) has a question relating to the subject down for Thursday next, and I prefer to postpone any statement till then.
  Mr. SMEATON: Is it not the case that Sir Edward Baker has always been one of the foremost Indian reformers?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I believe that is the case.

  Deportations from Bengal.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has yet received any official information as to whether the cases of the nine British subjects who were deported from Bengal seven months ago without charge or trial have been reconsidered by the Government of India; and whether any determination has been come to as to the length of their exile and imprisonment?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The officers having custody of the persons detained have reported, in accordance with the terms of the Regulation, and their reports are under the consideration of the Government of India.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: May I ask when we shall know the result of the consideration which is being given to the report?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I am not able to state that.

  Mr. Lajpat Rai's Libel Action.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any official information has yet been received at the India Office that an action for libel was recently brought in the High Court of

  255
  Calcutta, by Mr. Lajpat Rai, for libel, in charging him with sedition; and, if so, whether he can state what was the result of the action?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The answer is in the negative. The newspapers received by this mail contain a full report of the proceedings, but not of the judgment.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: May I ask my hon. Friend if he is not aware what it was?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I do not think that is the point raised in the question.
  Mr. FLYNN: Can you not get information by cable on a question of such importance?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I have informed the House that the Secretary of State has already cabled for information.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: May I ask whether no information has been received by the India Office of this action having been brought, and of the result?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The detailed report has not yet arrived. As soon as it arrives I will be happy to inform my hon. Friend.
  Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the verdict given in this case was published in every newspaper in this country? Why has not the India Office been informed?

  Crown Agents' Commission and Patronage.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the commission of 1 per cent, sanctioned by the Memorandum of February, 1904, on the cost of rails, girders, cement, rolling stock, and all machinery, materials, and stores obtained through Crown Agents, is still paid to them through the fund out of which their salaries come; whether they still, as then, enjoy patronage in the placing of orders for all those things; whether all correspondence between Colonial Governments and consulting engineers in reference to works or proposed works in Colonies and Protectorates still passes through their hands; whether any check is imposed upon the power which these circumstances give them of excluding contract by public tender, whereby they would lose those advantages, and
  256
  getting works done departmentally, whereby all those advantages accrue to themselves; and whether, apart from Crown Agents and other persons interested, the Colonial Office has got any independent approval of the departmental as compared with the system of contract by competitive tender?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The commission in question is not paid to the Crown Agents personally, but is paid into the fund out of which the expenses of the office, including the Crown Agents' salaries, are defrayed. As the Grown Agents can only act under instructions from the Colonial Governments, they cannot be said to enjoy actual patronage in regard to orders. Their general practice is to call for tenders in respect of each order from firms on their books, following in this matter the usual practice of the public Departments in this country. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the evidence taken by the Committee of which I was chairman, and particularly questions 1466, 1935–8, 2030–5, 2300, 2863–88, 4682. All correspondence between Colonial Governments and consulting engineers passes through the hands of the Crown Agents. As stated just above, the Crown Agents can only act under instructions from Colonial Governments, and though they may be invited to give advice in a given case it rests with the Colonial Government, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, to determine whether in any particular case a work is to be executed departmentally or under a contract. The question whether a work should be carried out departmentally or by contract is determined in each case after full consideration of the circumstances, and there is no stereotyped preference for either system.
  Mr. GINNELL: I wish to ask if the hon. Gentleman knows of any elements or conditions favourable to the creation and maintenance of monopoly which the Crown agents as a body do not possess?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not quite understand the question of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Government of Johore hold an estimate by Mr. Slessor, civil engineer, of the cost of the Johore Railway amounting to £608,000, and an offer from a responsible firm to construct it for that

  257
  sum; that the Crown Agents availed of their power to prevent the acceptance of that offer, and to have its construction entrusted to themselves; that under them it has cost £1,400,000; that it was not subjected to any independent inspection before being opened for traffic; that, owing to defective construction and insufficient waterways, bridges and embankments have been washed away and traffic interrupted; that the cost of restoration, though due to defective construction, is charged to maintenance in order to be paid out of traffic revenue; whether that method of concealing real cost of construction is usual in Colonies and Protectorates; whether any levy is made upon the revenues of the Johore territory for payment of interest or repayment of the principal sum spent upon this undertaking; and when he expects to be able to make available a full financial statement of the construction and working of this railway?
  Colonel SEELY: I understand that Mr. Slessor estimated in 1891 that a light line with cheap rolling stock and buildings, light rails, and severe gradients could be constructed for £608,000, but I am not aware that any offer was made to construct a line for that sum. In any case there can be no comparison between such a line and the line which has now been constructed with heavy rails, easy gradients, and first-class rolling stock. The line is a little over 120 miles long, and it was always recognised that, if it was to be up to the standard of the Federated Malay States lines with which it is connected, it would cost about £10,000 a mile. I am aware that the Sultan at one time wished this line to be constructed by a firm of contractors, but with the approval of his Advisory Board he abandoned this idea, and agreed to the construction being undertaken by the Railway Department of the Federated Malay States, the cost being advanced by the Federated Malay States on very easy terms. The Crown Agents were not concerned in the matter at all, and I have already pointed out in answer to previous questions, that they do not construct railways. I do not know the total cost of the line, but the Estimate given in the Convention between the Sultan and the Federated Malay States Government was £10,000 a mile, or, roughly, £1,200,000. Under the Convention the Government of Johore was entitled to satisfy itself, before taking over any section of the railway, that it had been constructed in accordance with the Convention. It may be assumed that this has been clone. I have no informa-
  258
  tion as to any defects in the construction of the line having been discovered, and, as it appears that the first public train was run on the first day of this month, I do not understand how traffic can have been interrupted. The Convention specifies what part of the expenses of the railway is to be regarded as capital cost. The cost of the railway, with interest at 3 per cent. on the capital cost, will be repaid to the Federated Malay States by Johore. I do not anticipate that full details as to construction and cost will be available for some time.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Under Secretary for the Colonies if he will say who was the consulting engineer on whoso advice the changes of the Kowloon Railway were adopted which are alleged to account in part for the increased cost of construction; was it through the Crown Agents that advice was obtained; was the estimated cost of the changes tested by inviting public tenders; whether he is aware that the purposes of the line are commercial; and whether any competent person has estimated that the line can when working ever repay the principal or any interest on the money spent upon its construction?
  Colonel SEELY: The railway is being constructed throughout in accordance with the advice of the consulting engineers, Sir John Wolfe Barry and Partners. It is the custom for correspondence between the Colonial Office and the consulting engineers to pass through the Crown Agents. As the line was being constructed on the departmental system, it was obviously out of the question to invite tenders in respect of part of it; the line is being made in the interests of the trade of Hong Kong, and it is confidently expected that either directly or indirectly through the increase of trade with the interior of China, the Colony will be amply repaid for the money expended on construction.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies if he will state the gross amount of the percentage on cost of supplies received by the Crown Agents' Department, by authority of the Memorandum of February, 1904, in each financial year since the date of that Memorandum as shown by the audited accounts; whether there is any statutory authority for payment by way of a percentage on expenditure; and by what means does the Colonial Office try to prevent that mode of payment

  259
  operating as an incentive to exclude the system of contract by competitive tender and increase the expenditure in order to increase the percentage?
  Colonel SEELY: The gross amount of the percentage on cost of supplies received by the Crown Agents' Department in the year ending 31st March, 1905, and succeeding years, as taken from the audited accounts, is as follows:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  1st April, 1904, to 31st March, 1905

  19,929

  16

  8

  1st April, 1905, to 31st March, 1906

  18,374

  7

  8

  1st April, 1906, to 31st March, 1907

  23,787

  16

  10

  1st April, 1907, to 31st March, 1908

  27,109

  14

  6

  1st April, 1908, to 31st March, 1909

  26,756

  12

  7

  There is no statutory authority for such payments, and none is needed. The authority, as in all cases of Crown Colony administration, is that of the Colonial Governments, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. The payment of a percentage on cost of supplies cannot have the effect which the hon. Gentleman indicates, because the Crown Agents do not decide how any given work is to be executed. As I have stated in reply to another question, the Colonial Government concerned, subject to the Secretary of State's approval, decides in each case whether the work is to be undertaken Departmentally or through a contractor.

  Czar's Visit to Cowes.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the Russian Embassy in London having their own agents, he will say if they are to be permitted to carry on their operations in this country; and if he is aware that a number of Russian agents and quasi police are already in Cowes and its vicinity; and, if so, whether he intends taking any steps to protect British subjects from their operations?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): I have no knowledge of the presence in this country of the agents to whom the hon. Member refers; but if they exist they have the same right to visit this country as any other foreign subjects. The protection of
  260
  sovereigns when sojourning abroad is often carried out in part by officers of their own country. Our countrymen are not in any danger from the operations of such agents, and I do not consider that any steps require to be taken in the matter.

  Shop Hours Bill.
  Sir CHARLES DILKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can inform the House on what date he proposes to introduce the Bill dealing with shop hours?
  Mr. SEDDONhad given notice of a question in the same terms.
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I will answer both together. I regret that I am not yet in a position to name an exact date. Certain questions arising out of the application of the Bill to Scotland are still under consideration; but there, will be no avoidable delay. I will inform the right hon. Baronet and the hon. Member when the Bill is ready for introduction.

  Poor Prisoners' Defence Act.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the circular issued in April, 1905, advising prison and police authorities to exhibit in cells, waiting rooms, and police courts the main provisions of the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, has been generally acted upon; and, if not, whether he will consider the desirableness of issuing a further circular upon the subject?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The notice in question is exhibited in all prisons in the cells of untried prisoners. I have no reason to think that the police court authorities generally have failed to act on the circular to which the hon. Member refers, but if he has information as to any police court where the notice is not exhibited, and will let me know, I shall be glad to communicate with the authorities of the court.

  Compensation of Cottars.
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that under Clauses 9 and 10 of the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886, a cottar under the Act who is removed from his house to suit the convenience of the landlord is entitled to compensation, and that the demolition of a cottar's house before the Crofters' Commission have had an opportunity of inspecting it renders their duty of determining the compensation due to the cottar

  261
  more difficult, will he ascertain whether the Crofters' Commission approve of such action; and will he state when the Commission expect to visit Annat, Torridon, Ross-shire, for the purpose of making the award due to John Maclean, 77 years of age, a cottar under the Act, whose house, built by his father 90 years ago, was demolished by the landlord, Earl Lovelace, at the time of his eviction?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. A. Dewar): No application from John Maclean is before the Crofters' Commission, whose functions in the matter are restricted to determining the question of compensation if and when it comes before them judicially.

  Landless Cottars.
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that the Government have stated that their only policy for dealing with the Highland land question is set forth in the Small Landholders {Scotland) Bill, will he state how it is proposed to provide for the landless cottars in the island of Lewis and other districts, the greater number of whom would be debarred from securing a holding under the Government Bill, inasmuch as they have not the means wherewith to equip, stock, and cultivate a holding?
  Mr. DEWAR: The problem of dealing with the landless cottars, as my hon. Friend is aware, is not a new problem, and is of great difficulty and complexity, and I cannot on behalf of the Government undertake to formulate a policy in reply to a question in the House.
  Mr. WEIR: In view of the reply, I shall ask the Prime Minister if he can give us some information on the subject.
  Mr. H. A. WATT: Will the Government consider the wisdom of a compromise on Lord Lovat's Bill, so that Scotland may get some advantage from small holdings?
  Mr. DEWAR: I am afraid that that is also a question which must be addressed to the Prime Minister.

  Siberian Postal Route to China.
  Mr. HOLTasked the Postmaster-General if his attention had been called to the statement of the acting Consul-General at Tientsin contained in Consular Report, No. 4,275, Annual Series, that letters addressed viâ Siberia reach Tientsin in a little more than half the time taken by letters posted in the United
  262
  Kingdom without specific direction as to route; and, if this is correct, whether he will assist British trade by forwarding by the quickest route all letters not specifically addressed?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): I am aware that the time of transit to Tientsin by way of Siberia is about half as long a 3 by other routes. The question of making greater use of the Siberian route for letters is engaging my attention.

  Postal Telephone Service (Carlow).
  Mr. KAVANAGHasked whether there is any immediate prospect of the telephone service being extended to Carlow?
  Mr. BUXTON: Negotiations are in progress for an extension of the telephone system to Carlow under a local guarantee.

  Coastal Service (Engineering Qualifications).
  Mr. ROBERT DUNCANasked the President of the Board of Trade if the Department would favour proposals to improve the standing and personnel of engineers serving in coasting steamers trading within the United Kingdom limits by allowing the whole or part of such service to count as qualification for certificates in the same way as if in steamers trading in foreign ports oversea?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): I think the hon. Member's question is possibly based on some misapprehension. Service in the Home trade (which includes the coasting trade) is already recognised as qualifying service for a Board of Trade certificate, being accepted as equivalent to two-thirds of the same period of time served in the foreign trade. If the hon. Member wishes to suggest that it should have the same value, I can only say that, in view of the difference of conditions under which the service is performed, the Board of Trade are not prepared to alter the present rule.
  Mr. R. DUNCAN: Is it not the case that such service in coasting steamers only counts if the engines are above 99 nominal horse-power, and would the Department favour the removal of such a restriction if it really exists?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No. I think that the distinction is drawn between the coasting trade and the foreign trade, that the coasting trade only counts two-thirds I of the foreign trade.
  Mr. R. DUNCAN: Supposing that the limit does occur, would the right hon. Gentleman try to remove that limit?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I will look into the special point, but the rule has been adopted for a great many years, and it is very undesirable to change the ratio.

  Hop Substitutes in Germany.
  Sir WILLIAM COLLINSasked what restrictions upon the use of hop substitutes have been enacted in Germany; and whether any similar restrictive measures have been adopted in any British Colony?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir E. Strachey): We are not in a position at present to supply the information for which my hon. Friend asks, but inquiry is being made on the subject.

  Small Holdings (South Berks).
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked, in the case of 319 acres of land in South Berks offered by the county council to applicants for small holdings and declined by them, in what parishes the land was situate; what rent was asked per acre; and on what grounds the applicants declined to accept the land?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The information for which my hon. Friend asks is as follows:—

  Parish.

  Acreage offered.

  Rent per acre.

  Chieveley

  84

  5/- per acre in excess of what it would cost the council to lease it.

  Kintbury (with cottage)

  17

  32/-.

  Kintbury

  6

  28/-.

  Hampstead Marshall

  20

  39/6 and interest on outlay on fencing.

  Speen

  59

  46/- arable. 57/6 pasture.

  Winterbourne

  133

  25/- to 26/-.

  In some cases the land was refused as being unsuitable; in others because the rent was considered too high.

  Hop Cultivation (Improved Methods).
  Sir WILLIAM COLLINSasked what action has been taken by the Board of Agriculture with a view to carry out the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Hop Industry to the effect that information should be supplied to English growers as to improved methods of cultivating and curing hops, and as to the
  264
  state of the industry and the markets in foreign countries?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: We have asked the Foreign Office and Colonial Office to supply us with certain information on this subject, and arrangements have been made to publish articles in our Journal dealing with the cultivation and diseases of hops.

  Prohibition of Sunday Gardening (Tonbridge).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a regulation of the allotments committee of the Tonbridge Council prohibiting gardening on Sundays other than the cutting of vegetables; whether this regulation has received the sanction of the Local Government Board; and, if not, whether he proposes to make any representation to the council upon the matter?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I understand that a majority of the Tonbridge Urban District Council recently voted in favour of a rule prohibiting Sunday gardening other than the cutting of vegetables on the allotments provided by the council, but the rule has not as yet been submitted to us, and it cannot be brought into operation without the approval of the Board. It has not been the practice to approve any rule of the kind.

  Equestrian Statue of Charles I., Charing Cross.
  Mr. GEORGE GIBBSasked if it will be necessary to move the equestrian statue of King Charles I. when the new thoroughfare is opened up between Charing Cross and the Mall.
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): This is a matter for future consideration after I am in possession of the London County Council proposals as to developments on the Trafalgar Square side of the new building.

  Victoria and Albert Museum (Expenditure).
  Mr. GEORGE GIBBSasked what amount has been spent upon new buildings, together with their furnishing and equipment, at the Victoria and Albert Museum during the past three financial years?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The total cost of erection of the Victoria and Albert Museum—the funds for which were provided by the Public Buildings Expenses

  265
  Acts—amounted up to 31st March last to £512,228 9s. 10d., of which the sum of £194,488 3s. 10d. represents the payments made during the past three financial years. The expenditure defrayed during the same period on account of furniture and equipment has been £2,533 19s. 8d. There are, however, considerable sums yet due to the various contractors, especially in connection with furnishing. Provision for this latter service has been made in the Vote for Art and Science Buildings.

  Congestion in Longford (Acquisition of Land).
  Mr. JOHN PHILIPSasked if the Estates Commissioners have communicated, or, if not, will they communicate, with the owners of the townland of Bally-garrine, parish of Killoe, county Longford, in order to acquire the land for the congested district people of Cam Clonhugh Mountain, and evicted tenants in the district, as these lands are only let on the eleven months' system?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Estates Commissioners are unable to identify the lands referred to from the particulars given in the question.

  Kerry Magistrates Exclusion from Adjudication.
  Mr. JOHN MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the action of Mr. Wynne, removable magistrate, at Castleisland, county Kerry, petty sessions, in refusing to allow Mr. Florence Sullivan, J.P., and Mr. Martin Nolan, J.P., to adjudicate in a case arising out of the recent eviction of Mr. Walsh; and whether the Irish Government gave Mr. Wynne any instructions to adopt this course?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that the facts of the case are as follows: On 22nd June last a number of men were brought before Mr. Wynne, R.M., and a local magistrate, charged with assault and resistance to the police and sheriff's bailiffs at the eviction in question. While the case was proceeding, Mr. Nolan, J.P., came in, and the resident magistrate pointed out to him that as he had not been present when the evidence began, he could not adjudicate. At the adjourned hearing on 29th June, the resident magistrate took the same course with regard to Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Wynne had no instruc-
  266
  tions from the Government on the subject, and was only doing his duty in insisting on the well-known principle of law, that only magistrates who have been present, and have heard the whole case are entitled to adjudicate.
  Mr. J. MURPHY: Did the resident magistrate prevent Mr. Nolan from acting before any evidence was taken? I was present myself, and I know about it.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have got the report of the resident magistrate, and I have read out to the House the statement he has made that the only reason for interfering with this magistrate was that he was not present when the case was opened.
  Mr. J. MURPHY: As this matter is of consequence to a lot of people in the county Kerry, will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to obtain information from some persons other than those who are charged—resident magistrate and the police officer?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I know no better way of finding out what takes place in a court of justice than by asking the two magistrates present, the resident magistrate and the other magistrate.
  Mr. J. MURPHY: Did the right hon. Gentleman ask the other magistrate at all? I believe he did not.
  Mr. BIRRELL: No. I am quite ready to ask the other magistrate.
  Mr. J. MURPHY: I should be glad if you would do so.

  Territorial Force.
  Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state what military authority authorised the statement that the services of the Territorial forces would not be required until that force had been mobilised and carefully trained for six months?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): No military authority has authorised this statement, nor has it, so far as I am aware, been made by any responsible person.
  Captain FABER: Docs the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Under-Secretary of State for War (Lord Lucas) that the Territorials are not able to repel invasion by foreign troops except after six months' training?
  Mr. HALDANE: That is a wholly different statement.

  Indian Budget.
  Sir HENRY COTTONasked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to state when the Indian Budget will be introduced?
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the widespread interest felt in the present condition of affairs in India and the limited opportunities afforded to the House of discussing the situation there, he would arrange that the Debate on the Indian Budget be taken on some days in the present month?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): On Friday last I informed my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras West that I could not make any definite announcement, but that I hoped that the Indian Budget might be taken during the first week in August.
  Sir HENRY COTTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to make a more definite statement now?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No.

  Unrest in Bengal.
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the recent statement of the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal regarding the unrest in his province; and whether His Majesty's Government will now, in accordance with the promise of the late Prime Minister, reconsider the whole question of the partition of Bengal, with a view to allaying the unrest?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal traced any connection whatever between the unrest in his province and the redistribution of its Government. The late Prime Minister said on 30th July, 1906:—
  "My right lion. Friend, the Secretary of State for India, has twice stated that His Majesty's Government regard the redistribution of Government in Bengal as a settled question. If any substantial grounds for reviewing this settlement, are laid before him on good authority, my right hon. Friend will give them his careful consideration."
  Since that date His Majesty's Government have frequently stated that they regard the redistribution of Government in Bengal as a settled question, the last occasion having been as recent as 4th May. No substantial grounds for reviewing it have been laid before them, and the policy of His Majesty's Government, adopted deliber-
  268
  ately and after full consideration, remains, and is likely to remain, unchanged.
  Dr. RUTHERFORD: May I ask whether there is not substantial ground for the fact of the unrest continuing in Bengal after the grave statement made the other day by the Lieutenant Governor-General, and whether, in the estimation of Indian reformers, the partition of Bengal is not considered one of the chief causes of unrest?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is an argumentative question.

  Land Registration.
  Mr. ARTHUR FELL (for Captain Morrison-Bell)asked the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to the announcement by the Royal Commissioners on the Land Transfer Acts that, throughout their inquiry, very little evidence has been advanced with reference to the desirability of an extension of the present system, either by private persons interested in land or by representative public bodies; and whether, under these circumstances, the further extension of the system of compulsory land registry, as indicated in the Finance Bill, can be strictly limited?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My attention has been called to the announcement referred to in the question. I understand that it was issued with the object of eliciting the views of representative public bodies and private individuals as to the desirability of an extension of the existing system of land registration, and until the response to this circular is known and the Commission has issued its Report it would be obviously irregular and premature to draw any deductions as to the weight and tendency of the evidence presented to the Commission.
  Mr. FELL: Is the Prime Minister in a position to give any information from any quarter of a desire to have compulsory land registration?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know personally. I do not think that such information would ordinarily come to me.

  Army Pay Department Commissions.
  Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many commissions have been given to the Army Pay Department since 1906; and whether any steps can be taken to hasten promotion in that corps?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The hon. and gallant Member's question is not clear. No appointments have been made to the Army Pay Department since the formation of the Army Accounts Department in April, 1005, and it is not considered necessary to take any steps to hasten promotion in the former Department.

  Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Act (Instructions to Inspectors).
  Mr. BRACEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the terms of the letter or circular of instructions or advice which his Department has issued to His Majesty's mines inspectors in connection with the coming into operation of The Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Act, 1908, c. 57; and whether he will have a copy of such letter or circular placed upon the Table of the House of Commons?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: It is the rule to treat administrative instructions issued by the Home Secretary to the inspectors as confidential, and I do not think it would be desirable to make an exception to this practice. In the present case the instructions consist merely of directions given to the inspectors with regard to their duties under the Act. A circular has been issued by the inspectors, under my authority, to colliery owners drawing their attention to the action they have to take under the Act. I shall be happy to show the hon. Member a copy of this circular and to lay it on the Table of the House if he desires that that should be done.

  Jurisdiction of County Courts in Divorce (Inquiry).
  Mr. RENDALLasked the Prime Minister whether, and, if so, when, it is the Government's intention to appoint a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the expediency of giving jurisdiction to a limited extent in divorce and matrimonial cases to certain county courts in order that the poorer classes may no longer be deprived of legal remedies now only open to persons of means?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Lord Chancellor has announced that there would be an inquiry into the matter to which he refers. The form of such inquiry is now under consideration, and, though I am not in a position to make a definite announcement, I think it not improbable that the terms of
  270
  reference may include the whole question I of the working of the Divorce Laws. I should hope that the body which conducts the inquiry might be empowered to make an interim Report as to the giving of jurisdiction in these cases to county courts.

COURSE OF BUSINESS.
Mr. LYULPH STANLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the event of obtaining Clauses 8 and 9 of the Finance Bill this evening, he intends proceeding to-morrow with Clause 10, dealing with the Undeveloped Land Tax?
The PRIME MINISTER: We certainly hope there may be no difficulty in securing Clauses 8 and 9 of the Finance Bill this r evening. In that event, having regard to the state of Supply, we propose to take Supply to-morrow and to put down the Vote of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask whether it is customary at the very last moment to give notice of a change in the order of business of this kind; and has the right hon. Gentleman had regard to the extraordinary inconvenience which is caused to Members on this side of the I House who have to attend the Budget discussions when, at the very last moment, he alters the order of business which was definitely announced on the usual occasion?
The PRIME MINISTER: I understood that communication was made in the usual way with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir A. Acland-Hood), and also with the Irish Members.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman is misinformed as to what took place. The Secretary to the Treasury offered, if a certain arrangement were come to, that the Budget would not be taken to-morrow, and he would put down other business. He proposed Irish Supply, if my right hon. Friend concurred. No arrangement was come to, and we have had no notice at all until this moment of the intention of the Government.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Joseph Pease): In a letter which I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Somersetshire (Sir A. Acland-Hood), I think I distinctly stated that we expected last night to get Clause 7, and to-night Clauses 8 and 9. I further went on to suggest the other

271
arrangement, which I thought might be for the general convenience of the House, and I asked him whether he had any Supply to suggest other than Irish Supply.
Sir A. ACLAND-HOODread the following letter from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joseph Pease):—
"Copy.
"18th July.
"Dear—,
"Balfour asked for a reasonable period of daylight to discuss the principle of the Reversion Duty.
"We intended to sit on until we got Clause 7 and secured a portion of Clause 8 to-night and 8 and 9 to-morrow.
"Lloyd-George is anxious to meet Balfour's wishes, and if we get through the Amendments to Clause 7 tonight, we can discuss the clause standing part at the commencement of to-morrow; but in that case we must be given Clauses 8 and H (machinery) at a not unreasonable hour to-morrow evening. If you agree I will put down Supply instead of Budget for Wednesday, and suggest Irish, unless you ask for any other Supply which I can grant."
That is perfectly straightforward. We were told last Thursday by the Prime Minister that the Finance Bill was to be taken on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of this week. We did consider that Clause 7 was a most important one, and there were a great many substantial Amendments put down. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit that those Amendments were not obstructive, and he knows perfectly well what obstruction is. He will admit those Amendments were of a substantial, genuine, and serious nature. In these circumstances, after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friends, we came to the conclusion that they could not go through Clause 7 so as to meet the views of the Government, and therefore we had to discuss the Amendments until six o'clock this morning. We would have boon very glad to meet right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I told the hon. Gentleman frankly that we could not come to an agreement. I think some time later a suggestion was made, not by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Joseph Pease) but by one of his colleagues, to take one clause a day. We did not think that a good way to conduct our business, and we could not accept it. The negotiations broke down, and I certainly was under the impression that we were going on with the Budget tomorrow.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider the great difficulties under which a small party, my right hon. and hon. friends and myself, are placed in conduct-
272
ing the opposition which we think it necessary to offer to this Bill, and whether he will at the earliest possible moment give us a general indication of the times at which he means to make Progress with this Bill. It is really very important, as I think he will understand, when a very great strain is being put upon us, when we are being asked on many nights in the week to sit until the early hours in the morning, that we should have the earnest information the Government can possibly give of any time we may consider ourselves free, so that we may make our other arrangements, which are very much interfered with.
The PRIME MINISTER: When I announced last Thursday the three days, that was the expectation, but I suppose we should always put in a caveat, subject to possible changes later on. The arrangement which is suggested will enable the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to have a much-needed holiday to-morrow.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman try and give us longer notice?
Mr. S. ROBERTS: May I ask if this Bill is not to be taken next week, or the week after, as we have been told so?
The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I do not know who could have told the hon. Member.
Mr. S. ROBERTS: It is a rumour.
HON. MEMBERS: It is in the Press.
Dr. V. H. RUTHERFORD: May I ask will he avoid taking any private Bill on Thursday, on the occasion of the Foreign Office Vote? As it is only once a year we have the opportunity of discussing foreign affairs, it would be unfair to limit the time of the House.
The PRIME MINISTER: The question refers to the North-Eastern Railway Bill. I have some hope an arrangement may be come to which will obviate any long delay, but if there is we will move the adjournment of the Debate.
Dr. V. H. RUTHERFORD: It is Thursday of this week.
The PRIME MINISTER: I am told there is no Bill down. At any rate, the adjournment can be moved.
Mr. HUGH BARRIE: May I ask if the Prime Minister considers it quite fair to

273
Irish Unionist Members, who were previously informed that the Vote would be taken next week, to-day to announce that the Chief Secretary's Vote should be taken to-morrow? May I ask, further, if he is aware that at present the Assize Courts are being held in Ireland, and it is impossible that the legal Members of the party could be summoned back?
The PRIME MINISTER: I was told last night that most of the hon. Gentleman's Friends were here. I think if he will search the premises he will find some of them in attendance, and I hope there is a sufficient number to represent their views.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

  PEERS AND ELECTIONS.
  Mr. JOHN DILLON: I wish to bring under notice a very gross and outrageous breach of the privileges of this House, and to submit, after briefly explaining the case, the following Resolution: "That it having been represented to this House that the Duke of Norfolk did infringe the liberties and privileges of this House by concerning himself in the election of a Member to represent the county of Derby, High Peak, in the Commons, the Committee of Privileges do inquire into the said alleged breach of privilege." The ground on which I propose to make that Motion is as follows. On Saturday last one of the candidates in this division of the county of Derby, from a platform, in the middle of the contest read the following letter—Mr. Profumo, before addressing the meeting, read a letter from the Duke of Norfolk to the following effect:—
  "My dear Profumo,
  "May I wish yon every success in your present contest. On general grounds, I most earnestly hope you will be returned, hut I am all the more anxious for this result when I remember that you have always cheerfully pledged yourself to support the interests of our Catholic children in our schools. The question is not of such pressing interest at this moment us it has been at other times, but the struggle is not ended, and at any times and with little notice we may find ourselves in need of every champion in whom all can place our trust."
  There are many precedents for bringing breaches of privilege of this character before the House of Commons, but I think of the instances that come to my memory that this is one of the most outrageous and deliberate violations of our Resolution in this regard that I can ever recall, because in this instance the Duke of Norfolk, in the very heat of the contest, in the middle of the contest, wrote a letter to one candidate apparently with the inten-
  274
  tion, at all events with the result, to have that read as a campaign document. In all the other cases that I can recall—and I am not going to trouble the House with a long list of precedents—the interference was of a much less open and deliberate and aggressive character. The last case, and I only mention the last precedent, was in the case of Lord Atkinson. The case was brought before the House on 19th February, 1906, of the present Parliament, and was the only case brought forward in the present Parliament. I moved on that occasion that Lord Atkinson was guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House because he voted in the election for St. Stephen's Green Division of Dublin. Now what happened? Lord Atkinson had heard some rumours that this Motion was about to be made, and he acted very properly and wrote to Mr. Speaker a letter of apology and explanation, which was read from the Chair on the occasion of the Debate, when I withdrew the Motion. I will read one passage from Lord Atkinson's letter:—
  "At the time I voted I did not think that any question could be raised as to my right to exercise the franchise, since my Patent had not been delivered to me nor had I received any summons to the House of Lords."
  That, at all events, was a plausible excuse, and it showed a desire on the part of Lord Atkinson not openly and outrageously to defy the Resolution of the House of Commons. In the present instance no such excuse can possibly be offered. The Duke of Norfolk surely cannot have any doubt as to whether he is a peer of Parliament, and he has been too long a Member of the other House to have any doubt as to the character of his action. Therefore, I maintain in writing this letter he must have written it with the fullest knowledge that he was defying and trampling under foot the Resolution of this House. I am one of those who have supported Mr. James Lowther, and seconded his Motion over and over again, to put an end to this preposterous position of this House in passing this Resolution, but I do most earnestly submit to hon. Members opposite, and to all Members of this House, that this House ought not to allow itself to be flouted, and their procedure to be turned into an absolute farce. If you like remove this Resolution. I shall vote for its removal from our proceedings. You pass the Resolution in these terms every Session:—
  "That it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom for any Lord of

  275
  Parliament or other Peer or Prelate, not being a Peer of Ireland at the time elected, and not having declined to serve for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, to concern himself in the election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, except only any Peer of Irleand, at such elections in Great Britain respectively, where such peer shall appear as a candidate, or by himself, or any others, be proposed to be elected; or for any lord-lieutenant or governor of any county to avail himself of any authority derived from his Commission, to influence the election of any Member to serve for the Commons in Parliament."
  Every Session we pass that Resolution that it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of this House, and then when the Noble Duke comes forward in the most flagrant and deliberate fashion, defies that Resolution, takes an active part, sending a letter as a campaign document to be read out by one of the candidates. I say that that is turning this House into ridicule. Without taking up any more time, because the issue is too clear to require lengthy discussion, I earnestly appeal to hon. Members, no matter what the Front Benches may say, to do one thing or the other. The Front Benches always say the same on this matter. They always deprecate action, and say that we cannot do anything. If we cannot do anything, why do we pass the Resolution every Session? I ask hon. Members opposite, who are in an overwhelming majority, to mark their sense of their own dignity and the dignity of the House by proceeding against this high and mighty Duke, or else drop this Resolution for ever. I beg to move.
  Mr. JOHN REDMONDformally seconded the Resolution.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The Resolution moved by the hon. Member naturally raises once more, though in an indirect way, the question of how far the Sessional Order which we pass at the beginning of each Session should be regarded as a piece of waste-paper. I may claim to have a perfectly open mind on the matter, as in the course of my Parliamentary experience I have voted both for and against maintaining the Sessional Order. It is only by a very slow process of reasoning, and after a good deal of hesitation, that I have finally come to the conclusion, for reasons which were very well stated by the Leader of the Opposition—I think on the last occasion when the matter was dis-
  276
  cussed, in 1905—that on the whole it is better that this House should annually renew the determination that the electors of this country should be free to exercise the franchise without any interference from any Member of the House of Peers. If that is the case, it seems to me if a clear instance is produced—and on the facts stated by the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon), which we have no reason to doubt, there has been such interference—of a deliberate infraction of this Sessional Order, the House will be stultifying itself if it takes no notice of it, or if it adopts the course taken on the occasion to which I have referred, at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman who was then the Leader of the House, of simply carrying the "previous question," and thereby giving the go-by to the whole thing. Without attempting to prejudge the merits of the partner case, still less forecasting what action, if any, this House should take on the Report of the Committee if it be shown that a breach of privilege has been committed, I. think on the facts stated a case has been made for sending this matter to the Committee of Privileges to be investigated. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, if the matter goes to a Division, I shall vote in favour of the Resolution.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: If the Leader of the House and the majority of the House think it worth while to go through the formality of sending this matter to the Committee of Privileges, I do not think that anybody need greatly concern himself one way or the other. The matter seems to me to be exceedingly trivial, and I am really astonished at the tone of tragedy in which the hon. Member for Past Mayo (Mr. Dillon) laid it before the House. I have often had to speak on the subject of the privileges of the House of Commons, and I have always taken the line that no doubt the procedure is antiquated, and that doubtless from time to time there are breaches of the Sessional Order, but that if you formally abolish the Sessional Order you will practically give an invitation to every Member of the other House to take an active part in elections; and I see no advantage from the House of Commons point of view—it might possibly be an advantage from the party point of view—in extending a formal invitation to Peers to concern themselves in the actual contest for every vacant seat. That, I think, is a perfectly sound line to take; but it does not follow that you should set to work some great constitutional

  277
  machinery whenever some Noble Lord makes a speech or writes a letter which in our opinion provides a primâ facie case for imagining that the Sessional Order has been broken. Everybody knows that in spirit the political life of this country is one, and you cannot possibly keep out any member of the community, male or female, peer or commoner, from taking some active part in the political life of the country. So clearly is that felt, that this Rule is interpreted—I do not know whether it has been formally laid down—as meaning that, when the Writ has been issued, a Peer, who may without offence make a speech every day for a month beforehand in favour of either of the recognised candidates, must thereafter hold his peace until the result of the election is declared. That is evidently a most arbitrary and technical distinction, although it may serve some general useful purpose. My hon. Friend (Mr. Pike Pease) reminds me that at the election of a relative of his for Darlington the late Duke of Devonshire spoke on the night before the nomination, and I am not aware that that was con tended to be a breach of privilege. Every body will admit that the Duke of Devon shire's going down the night before the nomination was a much more substantial interference with an election than a letter to a candidate expressing a desire that he may get in, which that candidate, as the letter was not marked "Private," was presumably at liberty to read in his constituency. When it comes to so fine a point as that, that a man of the political position of the late Duke of Devonshire may, without violating the Sessional Order, speak on the day before the nomination—
  An HON. MEMBER: He did violate it.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I think not. Dad the House take any action?
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Why did it not?
  Mr. BALFOUR: The House took no action.
  Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: In that particular case, the Writ was issued the day the speech was delivered, but it had not been received at Darlington.
  Mr. BALFOUR: That really confirms the point I am endeavouring to lay before the House. My view was, and it appears to be right, that the Duke of Devonshire did not violate the technical letter of the
  278
  Resolution. Everybody will admit that he made a far more important and substantial contribution to the result of that election by making a speech in the constituency on the day before the nomination, after the Writ had been issued, but before it had been received, than if a mere letter had been written of the character described by the hon. Member for East Mayo. I remember another case, the reference to which I have here in the Journals of the House. On March 19th, 1894, a Motion was made:—
  "That this House resolves that the Earl of Rosebery, a Peer of Parliament, First Lord of the Treasury, a member of the Council, Lord Lieutenant of the county of Midlothian, has, by a speech on the 17th March, in Edinburgh, infringed the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom, by concerning himself in the election of a Member to serve for the Burgh of Leith for the Commons in Parliament."
  That was moved by the late Lord Randolph Churchill. An Amendment was proposed to leave out all the words after "That," in order to add the words, "the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day." That Amendment was moved by the late Sir William Harcourt.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Lord Rosebery's speech was not made in the constituency, but in Edinburgh. It is not very far off, but a substantial difference exists.
  Mr. BALFOUR: If anything had been required to turn the whole thing into ridicule, to make the proceedings utterly absurd, ab initio, it is the distinction which the Prime Minister has drawn between Leith and Edinburgh. Everybody knows that Leith and Edinburgh are continuous, much as Manchester and Salford are. According to the statement of the late Sir William Harcourt, speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, it would be a breach of privilege to make a speech in Manchester if there was an election going on in Manchester, but to make a speech in Salford, which is just over the street, would not be a breach of privilege. And so important did the Radical Government in 1894 think that, that instead of pursuing the course now suggested or accepted by the Prime Minister, they moved to proceed to the Orders of the day.
  I just ask the House to compare the two cases. You have the Prime Minister of the day and the Lord Lieutenant of the County in which the thing took place making a speech—
  The PRIME MINISTER: It had nothing to do with the election.
  Mr. BALFOUR: That was not the point the right hon. Gentleman made just now.
  The PRIME MINISTER: What happened was this, speaking from recollection: Lord Rosebery made a political speech at Edinburgh, and there was a bye-election going on in Leith. The speech in Edinburgh had nothing whatever to do with the candidature. If my memory is correct, the meeting was arranged weeks, if not months, before. It was an ordinary political meeting. In this case it is a letter written to a candidate.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I wonder whether any body, including the Prime Minister, thinks he has improved his case by that interruption! Observe what the distinction between the two cases is. Which is the greater interference with a pending election: That you should write a letter saying you hope the candidate will get in, or that the Prime Minister of the day should go to the adjoining constituency in his own county and make a speech in favour of the Government, of which he is a member, and its policy, and which the candidate in the neighbouring constituency is endeavouring to represent? Why everyone knows that if you leave the form and try to get at the substance of this matter, that the interference of Lord Rosebery—I am not criticising it—
  Mr. W. P. BYLES: Lord Rosebery lives in that constituency.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Not in Leith.
  Mr. BYLES: He was merely present at a political meeting in his own constituency at the time this election was going on.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am not quite sure that I apprehend the hon. Gentleman yet! He seems to think that Lord Rosebery was not interfering in the election of a friend who was also, I think, at the time, his secretary.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: He had been appointed a Lord of the Treasury.
  Mr. BALFOUR: A Member of his own Government. The difference apparently is that Lord Rosebery lived in the constituency. I should have thought that if anything could aggravate the offence that would, because Lord Rosebery not merely spoke as Prime Minister, not merely as a colleague of the candidate, as a former chief of the candidate, but as a personal friend of the candidate. He also spoke as Lord Lieutenant of the county, and with
  280
  all the authority of a neighbour, and a great personage in the district naturally possesses.
  Mr. BYLES: He did not speak about the election.
  Mr. BALFOUR: It is perfectly absurd—if we are looking at realities, not at forms—it is perfectly absurd to either condemn the action of Lord Rosebery in that case or that of the Duke of Devonshire in the other case which I quoted. After all, nobody so loves these antiquated and rusty weapons as a Radical. They have a perfect passion for these semi-obsolete forms. If they really want to satisfy that passion I do not sec why they should not do so, so long as they do not ask too many hon. Gentlemen who have to attend all-night sittings to take part in these important deliberations of the Committee. For my own part, I confess I think the House will stultify itself by the proposed action. Those who are concerned in proving can easily prove that. Whatever the Committee of Privileges find, they will be perfectly helpless.
  Mr. DILLON: Then abolish the Rule.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Then this is not a Motion against the Duke of Norfolk. To bring a Motion against the Duke of Norfolk with a view to abolishing the Rule seems to me to be a most roundabout, cumbrous and ludicrous method to arrive at an end which you can simply attain if you only take the proper steps to attain it.
  Under these circumstances I shall not give the slightest adhesion to the policy accepted by the Prime Minister. I think it is altogether absurd, and quite inconsistent with the practice of this House during the last 20 or 30 years. I do not care to go back to too musty an antiquity for my precedents, or to follow the perverted Toryism of hon. Gentlemen opposite or those, below the Gangway. They might well occupy themselves in preserving within the Constitution the living working elements in that Constitution, instead of furbishing up these bows and arrows of an immemorial antiquity.
  Mr. HORATIO BOTTOMLEY: I move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and add the words "this House do proceed to the Order of the day." In doing so I respectfully submit, if the House desires to seek a quarrel with the House of Lords, something more substantial than a letter to "My Dear Profumo" should be the

  281
  basis of that contest. I desire to suggest to the House that perhaps, in the absence of the Noble Duke whose letter is under consideration, we may not be doing him justice in proceeding with this Resolution. All we know from the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) is that the Noble Duke has written to his "Dear Profumo." There is no primâ facie evidence that the Noble Duke ever intended the letter to be read. For all we know he may have wished it not to be read. The writing of the letter clearly could not be a breach of privilege. It is the publication of the letter which constitutes a breach of privilege. If the publication of that letter is a breach of the privileges of this House, the crime was committed partly by the Duke and partly by his "Dear Profumo." Therefore, the hon. Member opposite must couple, I suggest, "Dear Profumo" with the Duke, as aiding and abetting in the commission of a great offence. I say, in all seriousness, that the opportunity for a quarrel with the other House may come before long on more important matters, and I suggest to the House that, in the circumstances, and in the absence of any evidence that the letter was ever intended to be used, and that the letter was, in express terms, limited to a question which—the hon. Member will admit—is very dear to the heart of the Noble Duke, and was of a special character that almost justifies the Duke in expressing his personal view to the candidate, this House may pass the matter over and without prejudice may proceed to the Order of the day.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does anyone second the Amendment?
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: I second the Amendment.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I hope the House will adopt the original Motion proposed by my hon. Friend. I am rather surprised at the attitude taken up by the Leader of the Opposition. A late friend of his, and of many of us, Mr. James Lowther, annually proposed that this Rule against the interference of Peers in elections should not be re-enacted. I had the honour several times of supporting Mr. Lowther both by speech and vote, and on every single occasion on which I protested against this Rule I found the Leader of the Opposition in the Lobby opposed to Mr. Lowther and myself, and in favour of the maintenance of this Rule. The right hon. Gentleman
  282
  described this Rule, which he then so jealously guarded, as antiquated. Either the Rule ought not to be passed or it ought to be observed. In reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Bottomley), I cannot take quite the same view of the interference of the Duke of Norfolk as he does. The hon. Member said the Duke's interference was on ac count of a cause very dear to him. The cause, I assume, to which the hon. Member alluded, and which is the subject mentioned in the letter, was the cause of the Catholic schools. Let me inform the hon. Member and the House that the Noble Duke had a far less serious and less sacred and a more personal cause. The Duke of Norfolk happens to be a large land holder in this particular place, and recently I find, from a speech delivered during the election by the Liberal candidate, that the Duke of Norfolk had got lately £136 per acre for land which a few years ago was only worth £25 an acre; that he got altogether £43,000—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Really, I fail to see what this has got to do with the subject of the Debate. The hon. Member must con fine himself either to the Motion or to the Amendment. The character of the Duke of Norfolk as a land-owner does not come into the matter—
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Of course I do not in the least mean not to obey your ruling immediately; but might I be permitted to say that the point I was endeavouring to make, perhaps wrongly, was that the in terference of the Duke in this particular election was connected with his personal interest—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question docs not arise upon the Motion. The Question is whether, being a peer, he concerned him self with the election in question, not whether, being a land-owner in the division, he concerned himself with the election—
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I do not wish to persevere with that argument in face of your ruling. I wished to answer the observations of the hon. Member opposite that the interference of the Noble Duke was entirely due to his profound religious conviction, and to suggest it was due to strong personal interest.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 62.

  Division No. 333.]

  AYES.

  [4.7 p.m.

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

  Ginnell, L.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  O'Dowd, John

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

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Agnew, George William

  Glover, Thomas

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

  Alden, Percy

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Pirie, Duncan, V.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Pointer, J.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hart-Davies, T.

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

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Reddy, M.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Beale, W. P.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

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

  Bertram, Julius

  Higham, John Sharp

  Richardson, A.

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

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Hogan, Michael

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Brace, William

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Brooke, Stopford

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Illingworth, Percy H.

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jenkins, J.

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Seely, Colonel

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Jowett, F. W

  Shackleton, David James

  Byles, William Pollard

  Joyce, Michael

  Sheehy, David

  Cameron, Robert

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Snowden, P.

  Clough, William

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Clynes, J. R.

  Lamont, Norman

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Steadman, W. C.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lundon, T.

  Summerbell, T.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Crean, Eugene

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Cross, Alexander

  Lynch, H. B.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Crossley, William J.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Cullinan, J.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Maclean, Donald

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

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

  Verney, F. W.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol S.)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Delany, William

  Marnham, F. J.

  Wardle, George J.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Dillon, John

  Middlebrook, William

  Weir, James (Galloway)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Mond, A.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Elibank, Master of

  Mooney, J. J.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Morse, L. L.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Falconer, J.

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

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

  Ferens, T. R.

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Findlay, Alexander

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Nuttall, Harry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Fullerton, Hugh

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Gill, A. H.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  NOES.

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Balcarres, Lord

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  284

  285

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

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Fell, Arthur

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Whitbread, S. Howard

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Oddy, John James

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Paulton, James Mellor

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

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Younger, George

  Hills, J. W.

  Pretyman, E G.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Bottomley and Mr. Samuel Roberts.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Rees, J. D.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I desire to ask the Prime Minister for some further explanation as to the intentions of the Government. At the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Mayo, and under the guidance of the Prime Minister, the House has rejected the advice of the Leader of the Opposition to pass on to the Orders of the day without expressing any opinion upon this occurrence. They have decided that there is a primâ facie breach of privilege of such a serious character that it must be referred to the Committee of Privileges of this House. I presume that in due course the Committee of Privileges, having considered the matter and investigated the facts, about which there appears to be little dispute, will report to Parliament, and that Report will be made to this House. Obviously, as the Government have chosen to consider this as a really serious matter deeply affecting the privileges of the House of Commons, that Report cannot be allowed to remain an idle document. We cannot simply have a Report from a Committee which is never brought before the House, and on which the House never has an opportunity of expressing an opinion or taking any action. I wish to know whether the Prime Minister, as the natural and, indeed, the necessary corollary of the advice which he has given to the House, will undertake that when the Committee of Privileges has reported this House shall have an opportunity of discussing their Report and deciding what action should be taken upon it?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Until we see what the Committee does report it is not possible for me to give any such pledge. I have not the faintest notion what conclusion the Committee will come to, and we must wait until they do report. I am myself as jealous of the Privileges of this House as anyone else, and if it is found necessary to discuss the Report of the Committee, I shall not be slow to give
  286
  the necessary time for its discussion in the House.
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: I would like to know whether it is right for the House of Commons to pass a Resolution condemning the Duke of Norfolk before he has been heard.
  The PRIME MINISTER: We are not doing that. All we do by this Resolution is to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.—[l4th Day.]
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

CLAUSE 8.—(Exemptions from Reversion Duty and Allowances.)
(1) Where, in the case of a reversion purchased before the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, the lease on which the reversion is expectant determines (otherwise than by agreement between the lessor and the lessee, not contained in the lease itself) within thirty years of the date of the purchase no Reversion Duty shall be charged under this Part of this Act on the determination of the lease.
(2) No Reversion Duty shall be charged on the determination of a lease, the original term of which did not exceed twenty-one years, nor shall Reversion Duty be charged where the interest of the lessor expectant on the determination of a lease is a leasehold interest which does not exceed that number of years.
(3) Where a lease of any land is determined before the expiration of the term of the lease by agreement between the lessor and the lessee, and a fresh lease of the land is then granted to the same lessee

287
or his successor in title the term of which extends at least twenty-one years beyond the date on which the original lease would have expired, the Commissioners shall make an allowance in respect of the Reversion Duty payable of two and a half per cent. of the duty for every year of the original term of the lease which is unexpired when the lease is determined:
Provided that the allowance shall not exceed fifty per cent. of the whole duty payable.
(4) Where on any occasion on which Increment Value Duty is due in respect of any increment value it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that Reversion Duty has been paid in respect of any benefit accruing to a lessor, or part of such a benefit, which is identical with the increment value, such sums as the Commissioners determine to have been paid in respect of the benefit or part of the benefit shall be treated as being also a payment on account of Increment Value Duty; and where on any occasion on which Reversion Duty is due in respect of any benefit accruing to a lessor, it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that Increment Value Duty has been paid on any increment value which is identical with that benefit or any part of that benefit, such sums as the Commissioners determine to have been paid in respect of that value shall be treated as being also a payment on account of the Reversion Duty in respect of that benefit or part of a benefit.
Lord RONALDSHAY Lord RONALDSHAY moved, in section (1), to leave out the first word ["Where"]. This Amendment must be read in connection with a further proposal standing in my name on the Paper to leave out of section (1) from the word "nine" to the word "no." The fact that the Government have put in this section seems to me to show that they realise that they would be inflicting a hardship upon certain people who had purchased reversions upon which a benefit will accrue when the leases fall in. This seems to constitute an attempt, but only a partial attempt, to fulfil the promise which the Prime Minister gave on 10th July, 1907, that contracts of this nature in any legislation likely to be proposed would be considered sacred. I think the class of contract the Prime Minister had in his mind must have been investments in ground values. The Prime Minister was addressing an insurance company, and he realised that this company and other smaller companies were under considerable apprehension at that time
288
that legislation might be brought in which would interfere with the value of purchases of this kind which they had made. The clause as it stands at present is only a partial fulfilment of that promise. It must be clear to all impartial Members of the House that it would be very much more satisfactory if the Prime Minister carried out his promise to the full. The effect of my Amendment, if it is accepted by the Government, would be to exempt all those people who had in good faith purchased reversions before the introduction of this Budget from Reversion Duty instead of only a portion of those who had purchased those reversions. If the Government insist upon maintaining this section they will be discriminating most invidiously between one citizen and another. Certain citizens who have purchased a reversion are to be exempt from this duty whilst others who have purchased exactly similar reversions are not to be exempt. What is the fact which is to determine whether one man should have or should not have to pay? It is simply the length of time which the lease has still to run after he has purchased before the reversion falls in. Practically the Government say to A: "Twenty years ago you purchased a reversion. When you were young, when you were in the heyday of your youth, when you were able, by your thrift and industry, to put by a certain amount of money you did so, and you purchased with that money a reversion, thereby making provision for your old age, when you were no longer able to work with your full powers." They say to that man, "That is an admirable procedure on your part, and we commend you for having done it; and provided that the benefit for which you have paid does not fall due for another ten years, we shall not step in and deprive you of any portion of the benefit." That is a very admirable attitude for the Government to take up. But it becomes quite an incomprehensible attitude when we remember the procedure followed in regard to another man who may have paid 20 years ago for a precisely similar reversion, although one which will not fall in quite so soon as the one to which I have referred. What is the attitude of the Government in this last instance? They say, "Twenty years ago you put by money and you purchased this reversion. The benefit you expect to derive will not fall due for another 10 years"—that is to say, having purchased 20 years ago, it will not fall due for 30 years

289
altogether. They say to that man, "This is a windfall to which you are in reality not entitled at all. The value of this benefit which you expect to receive has been created by the community, and therefore belongs to the community. But the community are generous, and we (the Government), as representing the community, propose to be generous towards you, and in our great generosity we propose to allow you to take nine-tenths of that benefit which really belongs to the community, and we are only going to retain one-tenth for the State." I cannot see how it is possible to defend this invidious discrimination between the one man and the other in the two instances I have given. If the Government say to the man in the second case, "We, in our generosity, are going to allow you to take nine-tenths of this property, which is not in reality yours at all," that man may have some hesitation in accepting the Government's definition of generosity. I notice that the Lord Advocate, speaking a few days ago, dealt with this very question of the Reversion Duty, and he said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asking that the owner of the reversion should give a modest one-tenth to the community. At that point a voice in the audience was heard to say, "It is not enough," and the Lord Advocate replied, "I quite agree with my friend, but, as we say in Scotland, we must ca' canny." I think, in face of these facts, we may have cause for hesitation in accepting the present definition given by the Government as to what Governmental generosity consists of. Quite apart from the fact that if you maintain this sub-section as it stands at present, you will be discriminating most invidiously. I have other reasons for hoping that the Government will see their way to accept my Amendment. These benefits, which will fall due in cases where a man has purchased a reversion, are not in the least in the nature of windfalls. I realise that at one time they were regarded by some Members of the Government, at any rate, as being of that character, because in the speech of the Lord Advocate to which I have referred he so described them. I think I shall be able to make it quite clear that they are not windfalls in any sense of the word. May I give a concrete illustration of what is perpetually being done. It is pretty well known in the House, that professional men especially purchase very largely reversions of this kind, with a view of making provision for their own old age or for
290
anyone who may succeed to their property. Take the case of a man who purchases one of these reversions, the ground rent being £16 a year. The lease has 30 years or a little more unexpired, and it is worth a rack rent of £100. He would, purchasing on the ordinary tables, have to pay approximately £739, £276 being for the ground rent and £463 for the reversion. Can it be maintained that, when the reversion falls in with the benefit for which he has paid this money, it is in any sense a windfall? It is just as much a deferred annuity as any other kind of deferred annuity which a thrifty man who looks to the future may purchase with a view of providing himself with an income when he reaches old age. One word with regard to the great friendly societies. If this section remains as at present drafted, it will not benefit those societies; at least, it will not benefit a good many of them at all, and some of them will only be benefited to a very small degree. If, on the other hand, you accept my Amendment, all those purchases made by these societies in good faith up to the time at which this Bill was introduced will be safeguarded, and the promise made by the Prime Minister to one of them will, in fact, be carried out. I received a resolution some time ago—I think it was about the time the Scotch Land Values Bill was being discussed, and when a good deal of apprehension was being created among these societies—from the Hearts of Oak Benefit Society, which, I think, has something like £3,000,000 capital, asking me to do anything in my power to protect them from any Land Taxes which the Government might in future endeavour to impose. I endeavoured to ascertain from that society whether they would be benefited by section (1) of Clause 8 as it stands in the Bill at the present time. I have not been able to get any very detailed information, but I understand the society holds no reversions, the leases of which will fall in in 30 years or less, and they will receive no benefit at all from the section as it stands. I appeal to the Government on their behalf, and on behalf of similar societies, to do what they can to meet me on this particular point, and so protect the members of these societies, who have in many cases invested their hard-won savings in this particular form of security, believing, as they did, that they were an absolutely safe form of investment, and that contracts of this kind would be rigidly respected by the Government of the day.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. D. Lloyd-George): The Noble Lord who wants to extend the policy of the exemption which we propose in this clause has put his case very exhaustively. I agree with him to this extent. It is the vice of every exemption that it is very difficult to discriminate. I do not care what the exemption may be. It is very much better to have a hard and fast line and no exemptions of any sort or kind, because exemptions are apt to be illogical. You have got to draw an arbitrary line somewhere or other, and it is very difficult to defend a criticism based on such lines as those advanced by the Noble Lord. If you exempt a man with 29 years, why should you refuse to exempt a man with 31 years. I agree there is no difference between the two, but you have to draw a hard and fast line at some point.
Lord RONALDSHAY: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would draw his hard and fast line with the introduction of this Bill, he would be protecting those who have made investments in good faith, and the taxes would apply to anybody who makes an investment after the introduction of this Bill.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It would be a very hard line, and not a very fast one, because it would not bring any revenue to the Treasury for at least 32 years, and that would simply make the Reversion Tax perfectly useless. Take the case of the Income Tax. There is no reason why a man with an income of £160 should pay Income Tax and a man with an income of £150 should be let off. Wherever you adopt these exemptions, it is very difficult to justify the particular line which you draw. All you can do is to look at all the circumstances, and say that in the main the particular line drawn by the Government is a fair one, and that is all I contend in this particular case. The Noble Lord objects to our not extending these exemptions to cases beyond 30 years on the ground that we are interfering with existing contracts. This has absolutely nothing to do with contracts. The Prime Minister's pledge with regard to existing contracts was a totally different circumstance. It related to the shifting of the burden of the rates from the lessee to the lessor. That, of course, would have interfered with existing contracts. The proposal of those who want to tax ground rents is that the whole burden of the rates should be cast upon the owner of the site. If you do that
292
during the continuance of the contract you certainly interfere with it. A burden at least equivalent to one third of the total value would be shifted from the shoulders of the tenants on to the shoulders of the landlords, and if you do that it is an interference and a breach of contract, but no circumstances of that kind arise here, and therefore the pledge of the Prime Minister with regard to existing contracts has no relevance at all to the consideration which the Noble Lord pressed upon me. We have in this case chosen 30 years as in the main representing the time that the reversion becomes very valuable. I do not believe it has any value before 30 years. At any rate, in the vast majority of cases the reversion has not a very considerable value up to that time. They are highly speculative; no one knows what may happen in 30 years. It is only when they get near the end of the lease that people can foresee the general drift of things in the neighbourhood, and that they begin really to regard them, not merely as a speculation with a great element of risk, but, from a purely business point of view, as a very desirable investment. We have for that reason chosen 30 years rather than any other period. If we were to accept the Amendment of the Noble Lord, then anything in the way of a sub-lease, although it might extend over the whole period of the lease, would exempt the whole of the property, and at least two-thirds of all the leaseholds of the country would be exempted in consequence. That being the case, I think the Noble Lord might very well say, if you are going to make exemptions of that kind, upon what ground do you justify taxing the original landlord? If we were to insert this Amendment, and make our exemption that which the Noble Lord now suggests, I think he would have much sounder ground in criticising us on behalf of the original ground landlord than he has now, and for that reason we cannot accept his Amendment.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I want to make one or two comments on the ground given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in opposing my Noble Friend's Amendment, and on the arguments which he has adduced to rebut those of my Noble Friend (Lord Ronaldshay). He said the Prime Minister's observation about contracts had nothing whatever to do with the question raided by this Amendment. The Prime Minister, he said, was dealing with a proposal, or a suggestion, that in

293
defiance of existing contracts between lessors and lessees, that the lessee should pay the main part of the burden of the rates, the rates should be shifted on to the lessor. That, the right hon. Gentleman said, would have been a clear case of breach of contract, but it was not in the least to be compared with what we are doing by this clause, and therefore the Prime Minister's pledge does not apply. I think you would have done something perilously near incurring the Prime Minister's condemnation if you had determined to adhere to the original form and had kept the tax, as you proposed it, exclusively for the use of the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, has found that he cannot get all the loot for himself, and, sooner than abandon it altogether, he has already stated that half of it should go to the local authority. What does that mean? It means that half of it is going to the relief of the present ratepayers. Under the name of a tax and not under the name of rates, you are going to shift so much of the present burden from the present ratepayer, the lessee, on to the shoulders of the lessor, who has contracted himself out of the burden which the lessee has contracted to pay. Therefore, whatever possible defence the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have founded on the lines which he had chosen before he altered the allocation of the money, I say that the new allocation of the money to the relief of rates absolutely destroys the defence he has attempted to set up, and brings his proposal under the condemnation expressed by the Prime Minister of anything which would break existing contracts between lessors and lessees. So much for that part of my right hon. Friend's argument. The Government have a defence, the point of which I have put, but certainly it was not foreshadowed in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope they will now give it some consideration. Let me turn to observations of a more general character. The right hon. Gentleman said that where you make exceptions you cannot expect to be able to justify them on grounds of strict reason or logic. If I may judge by the discussions we have had upon this Bill, that applies, not merely to' exceptions, but also to inclusions. We have heard precious little in favour of any of the taxation portion of the Bill which has had much regard either to strict logic or reason. There are cases, no doubt, where you may make exception to general principles. If you are unwilling to go to one extreme and accept one general
294
principle, and if the other extreme would involve either such intolerable hardship or such widespread unpopularity that you cannot afford to put it into force, then you are driven to the expedient of drawing a line half-way between the two. I think it would be grossly unjust, and the Government know it would be grossly unpopular, to say that all these reversions should pay a tax, no matter at what period they were purchased or how the present owners became possessed of them. It would be perfectly logical to say that any fresh purchase of this kind, made at a time when the purchaser had a fore-knowledge of the tax, should be subject to the tax, but it is wholly illogical to go half-way between those two extremes, and to take an arbitrary period of 30 years and say that purchases made within that period shall be exempt while all others shall be liable to the tax. If it be illogical on these general grounds to take a period of 30 years, or indeed any period of the kind, surely the actual term of 30 years is one which not only finds no basis in logic, but no basis in the other parts of the Bill or in the other arguments which we have heard from the Government Benches. We have had to deal with the value of these reversions in connection with Income Tax, and the period at which the Government choose to consider a person has a real beneficiary interest in a reversion as not 50 years but 30 years. Why, if in one case you take 50 years, should you not take that in another case, seeing that the two clauses are based on the same assumption? Personally, I may say I should not be satisfied with 50 years, but, at any rate, it would be better than 30 years. It would be better in itself, because it would protect a greater number of people against injustice, and it would be better also because it would harmonise with what the Government have said on the other clauses which we have been discussing. What is the only defence put up by the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion for this particular limit of 30 years? I must say that the defence which the Government have put up has been, if I may use a term which became familiar to us during the educational controversies, an ad hoc defence. It has, in fact, no reference to anything they may have said at any previous time, and they make no reference to it or are in the least guided by it in any future discussions or proposals they make on the later stages of the Bill. Their defence of this particular 30 years is that it is a period at which the reversion first comes to have any serious

295
investment value, as up to that period the purchase of the reversion has, I think the right hon. Gentleman suggested, been a hazardous speculation. I think a great many people who have been making these investments will be astonished to find that they have been rash speculators.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I was referring to the reversionary interest over and above the value of the ground rent.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Quite so. But does the right hon. Gentleman suggest when these great friendly societies, such as the one named by my Noble Friend, which has no reversions that would get the benefit of this exemption, made these purchases they never regarded the possibility of an increased value at the end of the reversion? It is talking nonsense. It will not pass muster in any business assembly, except, perhaps, the House of Commons, and whether it passes muster here or not will be some slight test, I begin to think, of the value of these discussions. I began to doubt that value when I heard the defence which the Government put forward for these taxes one after another, and when I noted the profound ignorance which they showed, or affected to have, on ordinary every-day transactions or of the considerations which influence those who undertake them in the business affairs and commercial affairs of the country. I will say no more at this point. I only join with my Noble Friend in pressing the Government to further consider this matter. If they will not accept his Amendment, as I think they ought to do, not merely in fairness, but in justice to the Prime Minister, whose pledge they are breaking by not doing so, then at any rate they should take the minor step of bringing their views on this subject into accord with the views which they have expressed on previous clauses, and they should make the period which they admit to be a valuable period for the reversion the same under this sub-section as under the previous sections.
Mr. J. F. MASON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in pointing out the obvious difficulties in dealing with this question, quoted, as an analagous case, the Income Tax. I agree, of course, that the difficulty exists in the matter of Income Tax, but then it remains constant. It is just as great where you draw the exemption between £160 and £161 as it is if you make it between £500 and £501. The right hon.
296
Gentleman went on to justify the term of 30 years on the ground that that was the point where the reversion began to have a real value. I have collected the actual results of sales of a certain number of ground leases. I have taken all I could get and I find that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is by no means justified. I assume for the purpose of my argument that you capitalise the actual ground rent itself at 25 years' purchase, and that all the price paid beyond that is paid for the reversion. I start with two cases of ground rent which had 71 years to run, and which sold for 25 years' purchase. So far as my argument goes, it may be admitted that at 71 there is practically no reversion. I know there is always some expectation of a reversion, but at 71 it is practically a negligible value. But when I come down to a period between 30 and 40 years I find that the values are very large indeed. I have a case here where it had 33 years to run, and where the price paid for a £2 ground rent with a prospective reversion to £95 was 70 years' purchase.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Where?
Mr. J. F. MASON: These are cases sent me by a solicitor.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not challenging the cases. I know there are cases of that kind, but they are in certain very well known localities, and I want to know the locality of these.
Mr. J. F. MASON: Without reference to the letter, which I have not in my pocket, I am afraid I cannot say whether they are in London or not.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I know that there have been several cases of that kind in the City of London.
Mr. J. F. MASON: I will take steps to lot the right hon. Gentleman have full information on this point. Now I have six cases which had 33 years to run, and I find that the average price paid was 50 years' purchase. Then I have another five cases with 37 years to run. In some of these cases, in fact, in three out of five, the amount paid was only just about 25 years' purchase, and, therefore, the value of the reversion was almost negligible, but in the other cases the amount paid was in one 26 years' purchase and in the other 50 years' purchase. I should like to point out that in the cases where the highest prices have been paid, as a matter of fact they are for very small

297
ground rents—from £2 to £5, whereas the lower prices had been for ground rent ranging from £12 to £18. That only shows that small ground rents are sought after by comparatively small people, and that they have to pay a high price for them. The outcome which I deduce from these figures is that ground rents maturing in between 30 and 40 years have a very considerable value in years' purchase beyond 25, to which we may attribute the ground value itself, and therefore it seems to me to fix the period at less than 40 years would most certainly inflict a very considerable burden on a great many people who purchase these reversions, and especially on the smaller purchasers, because these smaller ground rents have been known to bring in higher prices on the average than the larger ones.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Having read the speech of the Prime Minister, I am bound to say that I cannot see how the Chancellor of the Exchequer can say that this proposal is not in contradiction to the statements of the Prime Minister. To say that this is not a tax or a rate upon property dealt with under existing contracts is absurd. Under nearly every ground lease it is compulsory upon the lessee to pay all the rates and taxes, and to say that this is not really a tax upon property is, to my mind, juggling with names. It is a deferred tax clearly. Where the ground was gradually rising in value, as the reversion is shorter and shorter, the Chancellor could, instead of putting this tax upon the end of the lease, have put on a gradual tax during the continuance of the lease and while it was in existence. That, I agree, would have been a difficult transaction, but it would have been feasible, to make this tax payable annually, and it is perfectly clear, if it had been an annual tax, it would have been a breach of the Prime Minister's pledge, that existing contracts should not be at all tampered with. I submit that this is in the nature of an annual tax, the collection of which is deferred until the end of the lease, and then you put the tax upon the landlord rather than upon the lessee, who has, with his eyes open, covenanted to pay all the rates and taxes on the property during the tenure of the lease. Here you are taxing during the tenure of the lease, and you are postponing the payment until the end of the lease. As to the period of 30 years, the reversionary value goes not for 30, 40, 50, or 60 years, but goes to 80 years—everybody who knows
298
anything about property knows that—and the proof of this is the fact that when you are dealing with the lease itself, the law prevents trustees lending on mortgage on any lease which has less than 60 years to run. What the Chancellor is doing is to upset the whole of the system on which London has been built, and he is preventing ground rents being the saleable commodities that they have always been in the past.
For many years past London has been built on this leasehold system, and this mode of doing it has enabled the freeholder to realise his ground rent. He could not realise his land before it had been built upon, and the builder could not buy the land. Therefore, the owner let his land on lease to the builder, and he realised his money by an immediate sale of the ground rents. You will find that in every suburb to-day the landlord realises the value of his land in that way, and sells his ground rents almost as a negotiable security, which passes freely at the auction mart in Tokenhouse Yard. At the mart itself, three-quarters of a million of ground rents passed for many years under the hammer, and that leaves out the ground rents that go by private contract. But I want to ask the Chancellor why did he fix this period of 30 years rather than no period at all, because he gets into a very extraordinary position between the man who sells his ground rents and the man who does not? It is well known that the Westminster and the Bedford—two large London estates—were approximately built at the same time; within a few years the two were developed. The Duke of Westminster is a very well-known ground landlord, although I do not know whether he fell under the condemnation of the Chancellor in that remarkable speech he made when he introduced the Budget, the ground landlords of London have, rightly or wrongly, let their land for the best rent they could obtain on business terms, although I remember the Chancellor's description of the exorbitant mode in which the landlord let his land. The Duke of Devonshire, say, on arriving within 31 years of the termination of his leases, goes into the market and sells all his ground rents. He sells all these ground rents at a price which includes a very large sum for reversions. He invests the proceeds, a million or two in money, in Consols, and escapes the payment of this Reversionary Duty, but the people who bought the ground rents, the tenants, if you like, who have bought these ground rents and have

299
paid for the reversion, if they bought at 31 years instead of 29 years, bought when the reversions are included by their purchase money, and they would have to pay this Reversionary Tax.
I cannot see any justice as between letting the Duke of Westminster off payment of the tax when he has sold his property and making the tenant pay this Reversionary Duty. But take the entire difference between say the Duke of Westminster, who sells the whole of his ground rents, and the Duke of Bedford, who does not sell. The Duke of Westminster, who sells, escapes the whole of this Reversionary Duty altogether, or, at all events, all the Reversionary Duty which has accrued up to the thirty years prior to the determination of the leases; he invests the money in Consols, but the Duke of Bedford keeps his land and leases in his own hands and when they fall in he has to pay the very Reversionary Duty which the Duke of Westminster has escaped by selling. Suppose these two Dukes got careful legal advice such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have given in earlier days, and the Duke of Westminster sold the whole of his ground rents to the Duke of Bedford and the Duke of Bedford sold the whole of his ground rents to the Duke of Westminster, both of them within the period of 30 years. The Duke of Westminster having sold his ground rents to the Duke of Bedford and the Duke of Bedford having bought them within the 30 years, there would be no Reversionary Duty for him to pay. The Duke of Westminster, if he invests his money in buying the Duke of Bedford's ground rents, would not have to pay any Reversion Duty, and, therefore, it would be perfectly possible for these two great landlords dealing in ground rents, who are the very people the Chancellor would like to catch, by that means of exchange or duplicate sale and purchase, to swop their ground rents and get out of the payment of Reversionary Duty altogether. The Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong, but there is a possibility of what I have stated.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson): It would all have to be done before the 30th April, 1909.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I quite agree, but that is a possibility which might have happened, and it shows that the provisions of this clause are utterly illogical, and that
300
there is no logical reason why the right hon. Gentleman has fixed the period of 30 years, and the only proper and right period to fix is the period when the reversion has no value whatever. Then, provided that there is a Reversionary Tax which has to be paid at all—I am not quarrelling with that now—to fix an utterly illogical term such as 31 years—a term which must inflict considerable hardship on the purchaser—is a course which I do not think is worthy of the Government, and if they do not accept this Amendment they should accept some other Amendment, or put in a longer and more extended term, or a term when there is no real value in the reversion.
Mr. JULIUS BERTRAM: I think it is important that someone should call the attention of the Committee to a part of this clause which is not perfectly clear. To enable anybody to have any advantage from the exemption, two conditions are necessary: The transfer of the property must become effective before 30th April, and the second condition is that there must be 30 years of the lease unexpired at the time of the purchase. I want to ask the Government two questions with regard to the meaning of the word "purchased" at the beginning of the clause, and of the words, "the date of the purchase," lower down. Does it mean the date of the contract of purchase, or does it mean the completion of the purchase? There is generally a period of a month or six weeks between the first documentary evidence that there is a completed contract, on which either party can sue, and the actually completed transaction, when the purchase money is handed over. I want to suggest this, because it may make a great deal of difference to the owner of the reversion how these dates are construed. I suggest that in the case of a contract of purchase on the 1st of April, 1909, of a lease which determines on the 5th of April, 1939, the actual completion of the purchase is a month after the contract had been agreed, say on the 1st of May, 1909. I want it to be made perfectly clear, for the benefit of those people who are to have the construction of the Act in future, that these dates should be ascertained, and I suggest that if the date is the 1st of April the purchaser will have the advantage of such exemption as may be conferred by the section, whereas, on the other hand, if you make it the 1st of May, he would be outside it. I believe the Attorney-

301
General's view is that the 1st of April is to be the ruling date, so that the suggested purchaser will come within the exemption, and, if that is to be the date, then he will lose the advantage of the benefit which the section confers, because his lease will expire 30 years and four days after the date of his purchase. I think it is most essential that this point should be made perfectly clear, and that some provision should be made that he should have the advantage of choosing whichever date he pleased. If you are going to fix him with a contract date on one day, you bring him within the section, but you rule him out of the advantages, because his lease expires a few days after the time involved in the section. I certainly think it is a matter to which the Government should give some attention.
Mr. G. D. FABER: If justice is the object of the Government, and not merely financial exigency, the Amendment is absolutely irresistible. Surely the Government give their whole case away the moment they introduce the 30 years' exception. It reminds me of the old lines—
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive."
When once you introduce exceptions to your principle you fall into all the difficulties that you have fallen into. The first reason the Chancellor gave for not accepting the Amendment was that he would not get any money, but that is no answer to the justice of the Amendment. If contracts entered into before the introduction of the Budget ought in equity and in justice to be respected, it is no answer to say, "If I respect them I shall get no money." His second argument was that it was quite fair to except under 30 years, because a reversion of 30 years has a marketable value, and a reversion of over 30 years begins to fall into the category of a windfall. That argument in practice is unsound. In "The Times" this morning I hit on the sale of some property of Lord de la Warr in the City. Forty lots of freehold ground rents were put up for sale with reversions in some cases of 40 to 50 years. The auctioneer began with the usual panegyric, no doubt, that it had seldom fallen to his lot to offer such good and such central property. On part of the property in Salisbury Square was the Salisbury Hotel. There was a freehold ground rent of £728 a year secured on the hotel, and the great point put by the auctioneer was that the hotel had cost £50,000 to build, and at the end of the 37½ years
302
during which the ground rent was running it would come into the possession of the purchaser. What was offered for sale and what was bought was not only the freehold ground rent, but also the reversion of the building. It is familiar to one's own experience that freehold ground rents and reversions long exceeding 30 years have a distinct marketable value when put up for sale. The transaction falls into two parts. If you buy the ground rent you are content with a low rate of interest for a certain number of years, and a very large part of the consideration which induces you to purchase is the fact that at the end of a certain number of years you come into the solid property itself. If you buy a ground rent of over 30 years, you cannot contend that you are getting into the region of speculation. The whole business experience of the community is really against the right hon. Gentleman. There was only one course to take. If you are going to draw a line at all, it should be at the date of the Act, so that everyone who has entered into a contract of this nature before the date of the Act rides off free, and you do not go back on the past, while everyone who enters upon a contract of this nature with his eyes open, having in view this legislation, has to take the risk. But you do neither the one nor the other. You are really going to create a greater injustice than you are taking away, because you are setting up a differentiation between property of the same kind. Property which has 40, 50, or 60 years to run is exactly in the same category as property which has only 30 years to run. The truth is that the Government are in a difficulty from which they cannot extricate themselves. They cannot justify this clause as it stands to the judgment of the House, neither can they—however they may wriggle—get away from the declaration of the Prime Minister two years ago. He was replying specifically it is true on the matter of feu rents in Scotland, but his speech went further and wider. He said:—
"We believe that insurance companies, both here and in Scotland, are largely interested as investors in ground values, or what are called in Scotland feu duties or ground annuals and securities of that type."
Surely an English freehold ground rent, with a reversion, is a security of that type. The reversion is part of the transaction. The Prime Minister went on to say:—
"In regard to matters of that kind they might he certain that existing contracts would be rigidly respected. There was no intention tinder any pretext of public

303
policy or otherwise to rip up obligations which have been incurred in good faith. Legislation must proceed with that for its starting point and underlying assumption."
The Government no doubt were impressed to a certain extent by that laying down of the equitable view of the case by the Prime Minister, and they think that by excepting reversions which have yet 30 years to run they are going to purge their consciences and satisfy a certain amount of hostility. They cannot purge their consciences, but they may buy off a certain amount of hostility, and perhaps that is really the reason of the exception; but there they make a mistake, because the great friendly societies in this country and other corporate bodies have largely bought ground rents which have a good deal more than 30 years to run. You will placate some hostility, but you will not placate all. You will introduce between different classes of persons holding the same kind of security the feeling that an additional injustice has been done. Matters of this kind ought to have stood or fallen together, and no such differentiation ought to have been introduced. The introduction of the 30 years really gives away the whole of the case.
Mr. HAROLD COX: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he adheres to the principle which I think he has laid down, and which I am sure the Prime Minister has laid down, that under no circumstances are present values to be taxed. That is a very important point, and I am really surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot answer it even by a nod, because if he adheres to it it seems to me that we cannot persist with the clause. Several Members opposite have spoken as if the clause exempted all leases for less than 30 years, but that is not so. It only exempts leases which, when they were bought, had 30 years to run. It may easily happen that a man bought his lease 29 years ago. It has now only one year to run, and it will therefore be subject to the tax. Let us take a more moderate case, one which has five years to run. At the end of the five years there will be a 10 per cent, tax to pay. Does the Chancellor really contend that the knowledge that that tax has to be paid will not depreciate the present value of that property?
The CHAIRMAN: We are discussing matters in many cases which ought to arise on other Amendments. This par-
304
ticular point will be specifically raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire or of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford, and it ought not to be discussed now.
Mr. COX: I merely repeat my question, and ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an answer.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: This section is, of course, in the nature of an exception simply, and it proceeds upon the basis that all leases, where the reversion has not been sold at all, and the reversion, together with the right to collect rent, is still in the same hands or in the hands of the successors of the original lessor, should in any case pay this 10 per cent. duty. But it seems to have occurred to someone, in making this sweeping charge against all persons who at the end of leases should happen to be the owners of the fee simple, that if they had adhered to the strict rule of making every owner of the reversion pay a 10 per cent, duty, some injustice might be done in the case of recent transactions. I take it that is the meaning of the section. The way it is expressed is this, that the exception is to be in favour of a reversion purchased before the date of the Budget where the lease had not less than 30 years to run at the time of that purchase. The Amendment is to make the exception in favour of all cases where the reversion has changed hands prior to the date of the Budget. It has occurred to a good many Members to think that probably the exception put in by the Government was not wide enough, and I have put down an Amendment suggesting that the exceptions should be in favour of land acquired for a valuable consideration before 30th April, 1909, and leased before that date, because it appeared to me that there ought to be a clear exception in the imposition of this tax in favour of people who have not enjoyed the accretions of past years, and are suddenly called upon to pay a considerable tax. During the whole of yesterday's and to-day's discussion there has been a fallacy at the basis of this particular tax and of this exception, and it is assumed that where there is a lease for over 30 years there comes a day when the happy owner of the reversion comes into a lot of money.
Then he suddenly becomes rich, because the lease is out, and therefore this is supposed to be the point to make the land pay duty. That is not the case. I will give a simple illustration. Supposing there has been a 75 years' lease which

305
to-day has 74 years expired. The owner of that reversion would be in exactly the same position in respect of the property as the owner of an adjoining property who has let it from year to year. That is to say, it will be only a year before he gets possession, and there is no such sudden accession of wealth as is suggested to the man who has the reversion. I suggest that the whole of this discussion has proceeded on this obvious fallacy. I suggest also that the whole tax proceeds upon the same fallacy. It is perfectly obvious that if a man last year bought a reversion and the lease is going to expire next year he would have given for it very nearly as much money as if there had been no lease, for the simple reason that there were only two more years to run. What do we find the effect of this tax would be considered in the light of the Amendment? The effect would be that he would be called upon to pay 10 per cent, of the whole increase that had arisen from the time the lease was originally granted. It is perfectly obvious that a man purchasing a lease within two or three years of its expiration would give nearly the whole value of the property. If he was called upon to pay 10 per cent, from the beginning of the lease, he would probably pay three or four times more than the value of what he was getting. It is a most extraordinary thing if you come to look at it in that light. If that is true, as I believe it is, taking a concrete case of just two or three years, it may be less injurious and less of a mischief and injustice to put a period of years back and make an exception as is done by the Amendment, but it would nevertheless be absolutely inequitable. It is simply a question of degree.
I think we are entitled to call upon the Government to make some reasonable concessions in addition to what they have made in favour of those people who, knowing nothing of this Budget, and never dreaming that a Liberal Government would by any chance impose a tax like this, have paid out of their pockets for those properties. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that by going back to purchases just before the date of the Act, and taking the case of leases which may have been exorbitant, he is doing anything like justice, he is woefully mistaken. Let me put it in this way. A man acquires the reversion of a lease which may have less than five years to run. He may come within the terms of the clause as it stands, and having paid very nearly the whole value of the property, he is called upon to pay a large and unknown sum, the dif-
306
ference from some remote period, perhaps a hundred years ago, when the lease was granted. Ten per cent., perhaps, is the whole value of the property to-day. On what principle of equity can the clause, as it stands, be supported? I think it must be perfectly clear to the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself when he looks at the words of the clause and thinks of the case I have given by way of illustration that the proposal in inequitable. I say he must in common fairness very largely extend the exemption in favour of recent transactions. If the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way to go as far as the Amendment of the Noble Lord (Lord Ronaldshay), at all events he might meet some of our criticisms in a reasonable manner by very much extending the exemptions which appear in the Clause as it stands.
Mr. RADFORD: I hope the Committee will not entertain the Amendment. As I understand it, the proposal is to extend the exemptions conferred by the clause to all persons who have purchased reversions of any length before April last. That seems to me to go very much further than is necessary. When a man purchases a ground rent he pays a sum of money down for an annuity of 60 years or thereabouts of the rent. He does not pay anything whatever for those deferred rents which come later than 60 years from the date of the purchase. That being the case, if another man has purchased a 99 years' term of ground rent prior to April last, there is, in my judgment, no reason why he should be exempted under the section, because at the end of the term he will only come into possession of property for which he has not paid one shilling. That must be a legitimate occasion on which to impose the Reversion Tax. Whether the exemption proposed in the clause is enough, is another matter. On that I should like to say something later on. I feel satisfied that the Amendment proposed by the Noble Lord goes much too far. It would exclude from the Reversion Tax a large class who certainly ought to come within it.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: We have never had from the Government any explanation whatever as to the principle on which exemptions are given. Of course, if you object, as I object, to the whole principle of the tax, any Amendment which limits its operation is pro tanto an improvement in the Bill. But I confess, apart from that, I should like to have some idea on what principle the Government are going. Let

307
us grant that this tax is just. Why does it become an unjust tax in the case of ground rents because they are bought with less than 10 years to run? That is the real point I wish to get at. If the tax is a just tax, I cannot see why there should be an exemption, and if the tax is an unjust tax then all those sections should be omitted and the Government should stand condemned for proposing a tax the principle of which they are quite incapable of defending. I unfortunately was not present at half-past five this morning when the general principle of the tax was discussed. We have never had an opportunity of hearing from the Government the principle on which they base and justify the tax. It would be out of order if I were to raise that point now. I suppose we shall have no opportunity on this stage of the Bill, but if we come to a clause dealing with exceptions, we have a right to know whether there is any general principle underlying all the exceptions, or, at all events, if that be not in order, we have a right to ask what is the principle underlying this exception. I do think it important that we should know, as throwing light on the vote we are to give on this Amendment as well as on the whole of this clause, the general policy of this part of the Bill. We have a right to know on what principle the Government are justifying the exceptions to their own tax which they are introducing into the Bill. The only defence given by the Government to-day of the principle to which they are making this exception was that given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman said that when you are dealing with a lease of 30 years and under—dealing with the purchase of a ground rent of 30 years and under—you must assume that the purchaser really did know then what he was about, and that he was giving a sum of money for a transaction the character of which he could foresee, and that, therefore, any benefit that accrues to him is not a benefit that ought to be taxed. Is that the general view of the Government? If a person dealing in property can foresee the effect of a transaction, is the profit which will accrue at the end of the transaction not to be the subject of taxation? I want to know whether that is a defence merely invented to find an answer to my Noble Friend, or whether it has a wider basis in the thought-out policy of the Government? I wish to get an answer on that point.
I may refer incidentally to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in re-
308
gard to another matter, He talked about the value of a reversion in land in a manner which positively astonished me, coming from a Member of the Treasury Bench. He said you can look forward 30 years in regard to movements in land, but more than that you cannot. He said that if the investment was for more man 30 years it was a highly speculative investment. It was a matter which no man could be expected to foresee, and, therefore, if out of that highly speculative investment a man got a profit it was a legitimate matter on which to place a tax. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that the principle underlying the policy of the Government is that a speculative investment which turns out well is a legitimate subject for taxation, but that an investment the effect of which can be properly foreseen is not a legitimate subject for taxation? That is a most astounding principle of taxation to lay down in this country. Another observation suggests itself to me Why is this profit in land after 30 years so speculative? I heard from the Prime Minister that land always rises steadily, continuously, and progressively. The man who buys a reversion after 30 years is no more indulging in speculation than the man who buys for a shorter period. When the Prime Minister talked of this universal law of the growth of land values, he was, I presume, thinking of a particular 30 years, the earliest date of which was 29 years ago, and the latest date of which will be 29 years after this year. I suppose it is within those limits that the exception made by the Government is proposed. The law was laid down by the Prime Minister, though forgotten at intervals by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that all land, continuously and progressively, rose in value. Therefore, I venture to say, in the first place, that the justification given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for making this exception to his general tax has no basis in justice if the ground be that any increment we cannot foresee is not an increment to be taxed; and, in the second place, I say that the increment is one which we can foresee, even if the reversion is longer than 30 years, unless the Prime Minister is in error when he talks about the rise in the value of land, which began with the dawn of history and will go on until the Day of Judgment. I venture most respectfully to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might tell us, on this Amendment, what is the principle underlying his exception, and whether it is a principle

309
which touches other exceptions in this clause, and, generally speaking, how the Government can find it ill their hearts to introduce a tax the justice of which is absolutely and finally exploded if they are to make a case at all for the exceptions which they are trying to introduce into the Land Tax? So far not one word has been said either by him or his colleagues in answer to the questions by my Noble Friend whom I have just mentioned.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman has pursued, in reference to these exceptions, a course which he and his colleagues have pursued constantly in reference to everything which is in the nature of either an exception or a concession. They have said, "Taking this exception or concession as a basis, you have given away the whole principle of your tax." That is more or less true with regard to every concession you make in order to adapt a new tax to existing conditions. The right hon. Gentleman has conducted many Bills in this House. He knows perfectly well that you cannot lay down any strict, stern, logical principle, and say that you will not take into account existing conditions at all, and that you have got a definite, clear principle, and you mean to work that out ruthlessly to its bitter end, whatever the effect may be upon existing conditions. It is never done. Where he has taken that course he has come to grief on more than one occasion, and every statesman must necessarily do so. That is really our case. Every concession can be criticised from that point of view. First of all, the tax itself is criticised because there are certain exceptional cases which are treated as a grievance. Then we say, "Very well, we will meet those exceptional grievances." Then they start from the other point of view and say, "Very well, since you are meeting these exceptional cases, you are giving away the whole principle." Right hon. Gentlemen cannot have it both ways. We are really attempting to meet these exceptional cases which arise from the complicated conditions of this country in order to adapt a perfectly new tax and make it work as smoothly as possible. That does not mean that we are departing from the principle of the tax at all. We are simply trying to make it work as smoothly as we can without inflicting any injustice in exceptional cases. The right hon. Gentleman says that the principle of the tax has never been discussed. It was discussed twice yesterday. The right hon.
310
Gentleman was not here. I am not referring to the small hours of this morning. The Noble Lord (Lord Ronaldshay) took a distinguished part in discussing it this morning. But we had a Debate of two and a-half hours on substantially the whole principle of the tax on the question of making it prospective, which meant postponing it for about 22 years, and we had every argument and every illustration with regard to the whole tax in that Debate, at which the right hon. Gentleman was not present.
What is the position? Take the ground landlord, who gets a great boom which is not due to any exertion of his own at all. Buildings and improvements worth thousands of pounds are put upon the site, and at the end of 60 years he enters into possession of all that great property—property towards the building up of which he contributed nothing. We do not say that that is an injustice. All we say is that when we are looking out for fresh subjects of taxation we say that it is on the whole fair that he should contribute, and contribute to the extent of 10 per cent. If you go to a man who works hard and say, "You have got to pay 5 per cent, upon your income, which is something due to the effort of your own nerve, your strength, and your soul, working for a whole year, and you have got to give 5 per cent, of that to the State, and in the case of a super-tax more," is it really too much to go to the landlord, who gets all his benefit without any brains, effort, or muscle on his side, and to say to him, "You have got to give 10 per cent.?" That is the explanation of this tax. The right hon. Gentleman says: "That may be all right, but how do you account for exceptions?" We defend exceptions by saying that they are not on quite the same basis as the case of the man who walks into property which lie has done nothing to build up. It is rather different when a man invests hard cash and spends money on it; whether for 30 or 40 years is a totally different matter. The hon. Member for Windsor has shown that in some cases perhaps 30 years is rather too strict a line. It is not a question of principle between 30 or 40 years. The question is whether you should make these exceptions; whether by making these exceptions you are getting rid of the whole principle of your tax. I say not. I say that they are on a totally different footing. We say that in order to start a new tax we want to do everything in our power to make it impossible that there should be hardship in individual

311
cases, and I think we are doing so by making exceptions of this kind. I do agree that there is a case for the reconsideration of the 30 to 40 years. The right hon. Gentleman says that value over 30 years is much more speculative than under 30 years, it is so in the market. The cases given by the hon. Member for York are cases admittedly in which there is not the same element of speculation. There are several cases in England of continuous, progressive, steady growth in ground value which has gone on not merely for generations, but for centuries, and which you can depend upon continuing to progress so long as this country continues at all, and the City of London seems to be a case of that kind. But I may point out to the hon. Member for York that I have got the cases he referred to. I sent for them, and I find that the number of years purchase is only 27½. That is only 3½ per cent., and in an investment of that kind it does not leave much margin for reversion. It will be a very good investment on the ground rent itself.
Mr. FABER: It did not fetch anything like what the auctioneer expected.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think it fetched a higher price than any property of the same kind would fetch in any other part of the world. I think you would find very great difficulty in selling it in order to produce merely 3½ per cent., so I think on the whole you have done very well. The reason is the reversion there was so remote that it had not got very much of value at all, although it was in the City of London. I still say that there is a case for reconsideration between 30 and 40 years, but that is a matter that will come up later on.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman said that I was not present when the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Ridsdale) was discussed. I was present during the discussion. The Amendment was not moved by the hon. Member for Brighton. It was moved by my hon. Friend behind me. It was for
that, among other reasons, that I did not recognise the description given of it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was another reason why I did not recognise the description of it, which was that the Chancellor said that the discussion on that Amendment was a discussion on the clause. So far from that being the case, I may point out that I observed in the speech which I made in that discussion, at which the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought I was not present, a speech which occupies nearly three columns of the Official Report, "I do not intend at this moment to dwell at any length on the underlying principle of this clause. That will more properly come up on the Motion that this clause be added to the Bill." I did not anticipate when I said that, that the Motion that this clause be added to the Bill would come up at quarter-past five in the morning. So much for the statement that the essence of this question has been discussed. It has not. It was not discussed on the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton, and I understand it was not discussed at any later hour. In the reply given now by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what is his justification for this tax? He says that this tax is proper, because it is upon an increased value not due to the brains, trouble or exertion of the person who gets the reversion. May I ask what trouble, or brains, or exertion are bestowed by the man who invests his money in a reversion in 30 years, if the man who takes a longer reversion spends neither brains, money, or exertion? Where do the brains, the trouble, and the exertion come in? They do not come in in one more than another. Again, I ask, on what possible principle is this kind of exemption to be justified, if the tax is a just one? That question, despite the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, remains in even greater obscurity after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman than it was before.
Question put, "That the word 'where' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 97.

Division No. 334.]

AYES.

[6.5 p.m.

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

Atherley-Jones, L.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Barnes, G. N.

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

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Barran, Sir John Nicholson

Agnew, George William

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Ambrose, Robert

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Bell, Richard

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Barker, Sir John

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

Astbury, John Meir

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Black, Arthur W.

Higham, John Sharp

Pointer J.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Bowerman, C. W.

Hodge, John

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Brace, William

Hogan, Michael

Price, C. E. Edinburgh, Central)

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Holland, Sir William Henry

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

Brodle, H. C.

Holt, Richard Durning

Radford, G. H.

Brooke, Stopford

Hooper, A. G.

Rainy, A. Holland

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Horniman, Emslie John

Rees, J. D.

Byles, William Pollard

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Rendall, Athelstan

Cameron, Robert

Hudson, Walter

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Idris, T. H. W.

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

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Illingworth, Percy H.

Richardson, A.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Jenkins, J.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Chance, Frederick William

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Channing, Sir Francis Aliston

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Jowett, F. W.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Joyce, Michael

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Clough, William

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Clynes, J. R.

Kilbride, Denis

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Laidlaw, Robert

Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Rowlands, J.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lamont, Norman

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

Lehmann, R. C.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

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

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Crosfield, A. H.

Lewis, John Herbert

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Cross, Alexander

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon, David

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

Crossley, William J.

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Seddon, J.

Cullinan, J.

Lundon, T.

Shackleton, David James

Curran, Peter Francis

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Lyell, Charles Henry

Sheehy, David

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Lynch, H. B.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Maclean, Donald

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Snowden, P.

Delany, William

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

M'Kean, John

Steadman, W. C.

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

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

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

M'Micking, Major G.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Maddison, Frederick

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Summerbell, T.

Dillon, John

Marnham, F. J.

Sutherland, J. E.

Donelan, Captain A.

Massle, J.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Dunne, major E. Martin (Walsall)

Mechan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Evans, Sir S. T.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Everett, R. Lacey

Micklem, Nathaniel

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Fenwick, Charles

Middlebrook, William

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Ferens, T. R.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Mond, A.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Findlay, Alexander

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Tomkinson, James

Flynn, James Christopher

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Toulmin, George

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Mooney, J. J.

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Fuller, John Michael F.

Morrell, Philip

Verney, F. W.

Fullerton, Hugh

Morse, L. L.

Walton, Joseph

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Wardle, George J.

Gill, A. H.

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

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

Napier, T. B.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Glover, Thomas

Nolan, Joseph

Watt, Henry A.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Norman, Sir Henry

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Weir, James Galloway

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Nussey, Sir Willans

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Nuttall, Harry

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Harcourt. Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Whitehead, Rowland

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Hart-Davies, T.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas F.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Dowd, John

Wiles, Thomas

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Williamson, Sir A.

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

O'Malley, William

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

Hazleton, Richard

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Hedges, A. Paget

Paulton, James Mellor

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Henry, Charles S.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

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

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

314

315

NOES.

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

Fell, Arthur

Percy, Earl

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Baldwin, Stanley

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Pretyman, E. G.

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

Gretton, John

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Renton, Leslie

Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester)

Helmsley, Viscount

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Eccleshall)

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

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hill, Sir Clement

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hills, J. W.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bertram, Julius

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Joynson-Hicks, William

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Kerry, Earl of

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kimber, Sir Henry

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

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Cave, George

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

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

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

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Thornton, Percy M.

Clyde, J. Avon

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

M'Arthur, Charles

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

Cox, Harold

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Dairymple, Viscount

Morpeth, Viscount

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Newdegate, F. A.

Younger, George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Oddy, John James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

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

Parkes, Ebenezer

Ronaldshay and Mr. G. D. Faber.

Fardell, Sir George T.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question that the words of the Clause down to the word 'thirty' ['within thirty years'] stand part of the clause, be now put."
Question put, "That the Question that the words of the Clause down to the word 'thirty' stand part of the Clause, be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 98.

Division No. 335.]

AYES.

[6.11 p.m.

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

Byles, William Pollard

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cameron, Robert

Donelan, Captain A.

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

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Agnew, George William

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Ambrose, Robert

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Armitage, R.

Chance, Frederick William

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Everett, R. Lacey

Astbury, John Meir

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Fenwick, Charles

Atherley-Jones, L.

Clough, William

Ferens, T. R.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Clynes, J. R.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Findlay, Alexander

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Flynn, James Christopher

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

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

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Barker, Sir John

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Fuller, John Michael F.

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

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

Fullerton, Hugh

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Barnes, G. N.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Gill, A. H.

Barran, Sir John Nicholson

Crosfield, A. H.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Cross, Alexander

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

Bell, Richard

Crossley, William J.

Glover, Thomas

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

Cullinan, J.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Curran, Peter Francis

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Daiziel, Sir James Henry

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Black, Arthur W.

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Guest, Hon Ivor Churchill

Bowerman, C. W.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Harcourt. Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Brace, William

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

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

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Brodie, H. C.

Delany, William

Hart-Davies T.

Brooke, Stopford

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

Hayden, John Patrick

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Hazleton, Richard

Molteno, Percy Alport

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

Hedges, A. Paget

Mond, A.

Seddon, J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Shackleton, David James

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

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

Henry, Charles S.

Mooney, J. J.

Simon, John Allsebrook

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

Morrell, Philip

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Morse, L. L.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Higham, John Sharp

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

Snowden, P.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Napier, T. B.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Hodge, John

Nolan, Joseph

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Norman, Sir Henry

Steadman, W. C.

Holt, Richard Durning

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Hooper, A. G.

Nussey, Sir Willans

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Nuttall, Harry

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Summerbell, T.

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sutherland, J. E.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Hudson, Walter

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Dowd, John

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Jenkins, J.

O'Malley, William

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Paulton, James Mellor

Thomasson, Franklin

Jowett, F. W.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Thome, William (West Ham)

Laidlaw, Robert

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Tomkinson, James

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Toulmin, George

Lambert, George

Pirie, Duncan V.

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Lamont, Norman

Pointer, J.

Verney, F. W.

Lehmann, R. C.

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Walsh, Stephen

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Walton, Joseph

Levy, Sir Maurice

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Wardle, George J.

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Radford, G. H.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Rainy, A. Rolland

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Lundon, T.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Watt, Henry A.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Reddy, M.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Lynch, H. B.

Rees, J. D.

Weir, James Galloway

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rendall, Athelstan

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Maclean, Donald

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

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

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Richardson, A

Whitehead, Rowland

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

M'Kean, John

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas

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

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Wiles, Thomas

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

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wilkie, Alexander

M'Micking, Maior G.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Maddison, Frederick

Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Marnham, F. J.

Rowlands, J.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Massie, J.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Masterman, C. F. G.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Menzles, Sir Walter

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

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

Micklem, Nathaniel

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Middlebrook, William

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

NOES.

Balcarres, Lord

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Kerry, Earl of

Baldwin, Stanley

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Kimber, Sir Henry

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Dalrymple, Viscount

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

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

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

Du Cros, Arthur

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

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Bertram, Julius

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

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Fardell, Sir T. George

M'Arthur, Charles

Bowles, G. Stewart

Fell, Arthur

Magnus, Sir Philip

Bull, Sir William James

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Gretton, John

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hamilton, Marquess of

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Morpeth, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Newdegate, F. A.

Cave, George

Helmsley, Viscount

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Oddy, John James

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hill, Sir Clement

Parkes, Ebenezer

Chaplain, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hills, J. W.

Percy, Earl

Clyde, J. Avon

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Joynson-Hlcks, William

Pretyman, E. G.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

318

319

Remnant, James Farquharson

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

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

Ridsdale, E. A.

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

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

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

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Starkey, John R.

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

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

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

Younger, George

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Thornton, Percy M.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

A. Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

Forster.

Question put accordingly, "That the words of the clause to the word 'thirty' stand part of the clause."
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD (seated and wearing a hat): I understood the question which you have just now attempted to put from the chair is a question involving the moving down from one point to another in the clause, which I submit is not competent, except for the Speaker on Report or the Chairman of Ways and Means to accept.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): The closure has been passed, and this is the Motion consequent on the closure.
Mr. AUSTIN TAYLOR (seated and wearing a hat): I beg to call your attention to the fact that the Bar of the House has been altered. I wish to ask you on whose authority that has been done. I think it is due to the House that they should know why the Bar has been altered, and on whose authority it has been altered? I take the earliest opportunity of raising the matter.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order at this stage.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 101.

Division No. 336.]

AYES.

[6.20 p.m.

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

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

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

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

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

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hart-Davies, T.

Agnew, George William

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

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Alden, Percy

Cotton, Sir H. J. S

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Ambrose, Robert

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hayden, John Patrick

Armitage, R.

Cross, Alexander

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Crossley, William J.

Hedges, A. Paget

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Cullinan, J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Astbury, John Meir

Curran, Peter Francis

Henry, Charles S.

Atherley Jones, L.

Daiziel, Sir James Henry

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

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Higham, John Sharp

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

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

Hodge, John

Barker, Sir John

Delany, William

Hogan, Michael

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Holland, Sir Willam Henry

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

Holt, Richard Durning

Barnes, G. N.

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

Hooper, A. G

Barran Sir John Nicholson

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hops, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

Beck, A. Cecil

Donelan, Captain A.

Horniman, Emslie John

Bell, Richard

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Howard. Hon. Geoffrey

Bethell, Sir J H. (Essex, Romford)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Hudson, Walter

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Idris. T. H. W.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Black, Arthur W.

Evans, Sir S. T.

Jenkins, J.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Everett, R. Lacey

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Bowerman, C. W.

Fenwick, Charles

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Brace, William

Ferens, T. R.

Jowett, F. W.

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Joyce, Michael

Brooke, Stopford

Findlay, Alexander

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Flynn, James Christopher

Laidlaw, Robert

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lambert, George

Byles, William Pollard

Fullerton, Hugh

Lamont, Norman

Cameron, Robert

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lehmann, R. C.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gill, A. H.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Levy, Sir Maurice

Cawley, Sir Frederick

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Chance, Frederick William

Glover, Thomas

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Lundon, T.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lynch, H. B.

Clough, William

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Clynes, J. R.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Maclean, Donald

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Strachey, Sir Edward

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Summerbell, T.

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

Pirie, Duncan V,

Sutherland, J. E.

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

Pointer, J.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

M'Micking, Major G.

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Maddison, Frederick

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Marnham, F. J.

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

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Massie, J.

Radford, G H.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Rainy, A. Holland

Thomasson, Franklin

Meagher, Michael

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

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

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Rees, J. D.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Rendall, Athelstan

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Toulmin, George

Middlebrook, William

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

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Molteno, Percy Alport

Richardson, A.

Verney, F. W.

Mond, A.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Walsh, Stephen

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Walton, Joseph

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Wardle, George J.

Montgomery, H. G.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Mooney, J. J.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Morrell, Philip

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Morse, L. L

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Waterlow, D. S.

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

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Watt, Henry A.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Rowlands, J.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Napier, T. B.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Weir, James Galloway

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Nolan, Joseph

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Norman, Sir Henry

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

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

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Whitehead, Rowland

Nussey, Sir Willans

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

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Nuttall, Harry

Seddon, J.

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Shackleton, David James

Wiles, Thomas

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

Wilkie, Alexander

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Sheehy, David

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

O'Dowd, John

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Snowden, P.

O'Malley, William

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

Parker, James (Halifax)

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Steadman, W. C.

NOES.

Balcarres, Lord

Fardell, Sir T. George

Parkes, Ebenezer

Baldwin, Stanley

Fell, Arthur

Percy, Earl

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

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gretton, John

Pretyman, E. G.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Hamilton, Marquess of

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Roberts S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Beckett, Hon, Gervase

Helmsley, Viscount

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Bertram, Julius

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hill, Sir Clement

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hills, J. W.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bull, Sir William James

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Joynson-Hicks, William

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Kerry, Earl of

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kimber, Sir Henry

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Cave, George

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

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

Clive, Percy Archer

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Thornton, Percy M.

Clyde, J. Avon

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

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

Craik, Sir Henry

M'Arthur, Charles

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Dalrymple, Viscount

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott-

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Younger, George

Du Cros, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Newdegate, F. A.

Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W.

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

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Forster.

Mr. AUSTIN TAYLOR: I put a question to you, Sir, with regard to certain structural alterations in this House, and you told me it was not in order at this stage. May I ask to whom that question ought to be addressed, and when it will be in order?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question ought to be addressed to Mr. Speaker, or at Question-time a question might be put to the First Commissioner of Works.
Sir E. CARSON: Is it in order for hon. Members to stand inside the Bar on the floor of the House?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It does not appear to me that hon. Members are standing inside the Bar on the floor of the House.
Mr. RADFORD Mr. RADFORD moved to leave out "thirty" and insert "sixty" ["the lease on which the reversion is expectant determines.…within thirty years of the date of the purchase"]. This is the clause containing exemptions in respect of Reversion Duty in the case of transactions prior to the date of the Act, consisting of purchases of reversions of leases with less than 30 years to run at the date of the transaction. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when pressed to give his reason for selecting 30 years, stated, as I understood, that in practical legislation you must draw the line somewhere. That may be a good reason, but I think I know a better one, which probably influenced the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter, and that is that, under the circumstances stated in this clause, it would be unconscionable to demand of a man who purchased a reversion prior to the date of this Act with less than 30 years to run any Reversion Duty in respect of that transaction. What is the nature of the transaction? It took place before this Bill was introduced, and before any man dreamt of a reversion. The purchaser bought two things, namely, the right to receive the ground rent during the term of 30 years, and, in addition, the right to receive during a further term of probably 30 years the rack rental of the premises which he purchased. I suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not justify to the good sense and fair feeling of the country a proposal to deprive that man of a part of the value for which he has long since paid. In all these transactions, when a man buys a short reversion of less than 60 years, the purchase may be divided in the mind of the buyer into two parts. He is buying the ground
324
rent, and also the increased rent, which he will derive on the termination of the lease. It is obviously unfair, when that transaction has been entered into before the date of this Act, to say to him, "We are going to deprive you of one-tenth of the value for which you have long since paid your money." That seems a very good justification for the exemption contained in the clause; but I am not sure that the clause goes far enough. The proposal would be unconscionable if the term were extended to 40 years, and even if 50 years were inserted there would be the same difficulty. The reason I have chosen 60 years is that a reversion at the expiration of 60 years has no substantial value, and for practical legislative purposes may be ignored. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot accept my Amendment, I hope he will explain the matter in such a way that I shall be justified in supporting him in the Lobby.
Question proposed, "That the word 'thirty' stand part of the Clause."
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It would be interesting, since my hon. Friend asks me to explain why I cannot accept his Amendment, if he would explain why having opposed the last Amendment he thinks there is sufficient distinction between the two to support the present proposal. There is no substantial difference between the two cases. My hon. Friend will admit that if the period is over 50 years the value of a reversion is a negligible amount; so that if you take 60 years you might as well have no time limit at all. We have already decided that there shall be a time limit, and the question is whether it shall be 30 or 60 years. Personally, I should be disposed to meet those who think that 30 years is inadequate by adopting the suggestion of the hon. Member for North-West Manchester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) and of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. James Mason), who propose to substitute 40 for 30. There may be certain exceptional cases, such as in the City of London and elsewhere, where a reversion with over 30 years to run has a substantial value, and to meet these cases I should be prepared to substitute 40 for 30.
Sir EDWARD CARSON: I suppose we have been allowed to discuss this Amendment because it is comparatively unimportant. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has twitted his supporter with inconsistency in opposing the last Amendment and supporting this one. I think the hon.

325
Member gets a good example of inconsistency from the right hon. Gentleman, because while we are allowed to argue this point we are not allowed to argue the question whether a man who has bought the land and created a reversion within the last 30 years ought to come within the same principle at all. The hon. Member (Mr. Radford) talked of the proposal in the clause as being unconscionable. I do not know when he began to think what was unconscionable in this Bill if he thinks it is unconscionable not to allow a reversion purchased within 60 years to be excepted, but does not see anything unconscionable in taxing reversions generally or taxing reversions created by the owner of the land purchased within the last 10 or 20 years. So far as I am concerned I look upon this Amendment as absolutely trivial. It makes no difference whether you put in 30 or 40 years; and I suppose the right hon. Gentleman has really made this so-called concession at the present time to try to get us all in a good humour again after his drastic action of a few minutes ago.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is quite true what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that I had put down an Amendment to make the word 40 instead of 30, but my intention, when I came to make further inquiries into the value of the reversion, was to put down a further Amendment to substitute 100 for the word 30. On the whole, however, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed his willingness to accept 40, so far as I am concerned I will accept 40, although I would prefer to have had 60.
Sir ARTHUR BIGNOLDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was not the case that if the owner of the ground rent acquired the rack rent and thereby created what was known in law as a merger, the duty proposed by the Government of 10 per cent, would thereby become immediately payable, and that consequently the imposition of the duty would operate as a deterrent to the ownership of the property passing into one hand.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not think I am pressing him too hardly when I ask him the reasons why the Government draw these subtle distinctions. Anything that ameliorates the injustice of the tax is so far good, but I am very unwilling to vote for any further exemptions until I know really what the Government mean. Having drawn a distinction which he considers just, I want to know how really the
326
right hon. Gentleman draws that distinction between what he admits to be just' in the shape of a reversion, but not just in the shape of land which is bought and turned into a reversion? I cannot, for reasons with which the Committee are familiar, raise or argue in a substantive form the question of the exemptions of land. That would be out of order, because we have passed over that part of the Bill; but I am perfectly in order in asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he can justify these distinctions. On what possible principle can he say that a man who buys a reversion which has 40 years to run has not to pay this tax, and the man who turns his land so that it has reversionary value at the end of 40 years has to pay it? A distinction has been attempted to be drawn, because it is said that in the one case industry, ability, and brains are required, whereas in the other case it is not necessary that they should be exercised; but in the one case it requires neither industry, ability, nor brains, but only a certain amount of hard cash.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me a question, and has said that he cannot vote for any more exemptions. We are not making further exemptions. The exemptions are coming from the hon. Members sitting behind the right hon. Gentleman and from some of the hon. Members sitting upon this side of tin House. The right hon. Gentleman in his question first of all puts on one side the distinction between the case of a purchaser and the case of the original lessor. He says, assuming there is a distinction there, how can you draw a further distinction between 40 and 50 years—
Mr. BALFOUR: No, my question was this: You have two cases, in both of which the reversion falls in within 40 years, which, if the Amendment be accepted, is the term which saves it from taxation under this part of the Bill. There are two reversions of equal value. In one case the reversion is created by the man turning his own land into a property which has this reversionary value. In the other case somebody with a sufficient amount of money comes forward and purchases the reversion. What is the difference between the two? Why is the one taxed and not the other?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Oh, I see. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was asking me a new point. That is practically the question he put to me before, and which I attempted to give an answer to.
Mr. BALFOUR: No; I particularly forbore. I did ask the right hon. Gentleman a question as to the nature of the principle upon which he founded his proposal, but I did not particularly mention the case of the creation or turning land into a corpus with a reversionary value. I thought that would come up more properly on the Amendment on the Paper. That Amendment has been wiped out owing to the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I therefore now press him to say as to how he draws the distinction between these two cases?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I may be a little obtuse, but I cannot see the difference between the question of the right hon. Gentleman now and the question which he put to me before. How can I draw the distinction, he says, between the two reversions? In one the land is not let at all, and the owner has not parted with it; he has created a lease with a reversion, and at the end of the 60 years that lease falls in, and he is taxed. There is a second lease, which is created in the same way. The owner has parted with it. Then the right hon. Gentleman says, you exempt the second case because the landlord has had full value for the reversion.
Mr. BALFOUR: No, I do not know what your reasons are.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Since he has had value for it you exempt it. The right hon. Gentleman says, "How can you draw a distinction?" I think that was the point I addressed myself to before. The distinction I endeavoured to draw between these two cases is this: I do admit that there is a difference between them. We have tried to provide for the case of the man who gives a consideration by letting his land for a nominal consideration. I think we have met that case. We are only taking 10 per cent, of the real value off the landlord. The right hon. Gentleman says that in the other case the man has put neither industry, ability, nor brains, but only cash into the transaction. My answer is that it is a hardship that when a man complains that he has paid what he considers full value for the whole reversion that he is to be deprived of 10 per cent, by the way of tax. It is purely an attempt to adapt the tax to the conditions existing in this country. It is in order to get rid of what may well be considered a hardship. If we had not made the exemption the right hon. Gentleman would have certainly supported an Amendment for the exemption.
Mr. BALFOUR: If the landlord bought the land 40 years ago, or within 40 years, in order to create the reversion, he has given full value. He has done everything he could. I do not see what is the distinction.
Sir SAMUEL SCOTT: The Government would do well to stick to the limit of 60 years for the reason that reversions, as a rule, are not dealt with within the limit of 60 years. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, having given 40 years, to go a step further and accept 60 years.
Mr. CAVE: One word about the general question. I did not follow the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman. Take this case. A man has land, and lets it for a term at a nominal or peppercorn rent, making it a part of his bargain that the lessee shall build a house upon it, which at the end of the term shall belong to the owner. It may be quite properly said that this is met by Clause 21 of the Bill. Take another case: A man has land worth £20 a year, and he lets it for £10, making the same bargain that at the end of the term he shall have the house put upon it. In the second case, the man has just as much paid for his house as in the first. He has allowed his lessee to occupy the land for the term at a rent below the real rental value of the land under the express bargain that when the lease falls in the house shall be his. I cannot understand why, in the second case, he has less bought and paid for his house than in the first case. I submit that the exemption in Clause 21 for leases at a nominal rent does not nearly cover the whole ground. It is wholly illogical, and the insertion of Clause 21 shows a lurking fear on the part of the Government, that in the clause we are discussing, justice is not being done. Coming down to the Amendment, I take it that the principle of the sub-section is this, that you ought not to charge duty upon that which a man has bought and paid for. But to carry that out you ought to make sure that in other cases, where the man has paid something for the reversion, he shall not be charged duty. How are you to make sure of that? There is only one way and that is to find out from the experience open to all of us at what period of the lease a man purchasing the ground rent pays for the reversion. Every business man and every surveyor and valuer will tell you that if the lease has between 50 and 60 years to run the purchase money for the ground rent includes

329
something for the value of the reversion, which comes at the end of the term. That is generally understood by business men, and that is why I put down 50 years so as to be well within the mark, so that if you paid something for the reversion you should not be taxed upon that.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: You would have paid very little.
Mr. CAVE: The right hon. Gentleman says very little. I agree, if you paid a small sum 50 years ago that amounts at compound interest to a very large sum when the term comes to an end. Throughout the whole of the 50 years odd you stood out of your money and the interest upon it, and according to all business principles you are entitled at the end of the fixed term to have back not only the small sum you paid 50 years ago, but the interest upon it I do not see how on any principle of justice or business you can defend 30 years or 40 years. I think 50 years is well within the mark, and I hope, unless it is accepted, the hon. Member will keep to his Amendment.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking about the value of the reversion lately, said that over 40 years they had very little value. I ask him, does he not know that surveyors ascertain this matter by calculation called the "inward staple," by which process it is found that the valuation of 50 years is about 13½ per cent, of the whole, 60 years about 9 per cent., and they even allow, though it rarely occurs, for 99 years 2 per cent, for the reversionary value. I do not quite understand why the learned Solicitor-General has not answered the question put by my hon. and learned Friend.
Sir ARTHUR BIGNOLD: Will the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer kindly answer my question?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, I will reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman, although I do not think it arises here. The answer is, at the termination of the lease, but I do not want to raise that question here now.
Mr. PRETYMAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very fair and a very gallant attempt to answer all the questions put to him upon this Amendment, but I am bound to say the principle remains, and he has defended his principle in regard
330
to this particular Amendment, and he told us because we object to his principle we are not therefore entitled to criticise his exemption. I perfectly admit there must be some exemption. You place a tax upon a wide area, and it is quite obvious that the granting of a small exemption of the tax that covers a wide area does not admit the whole principle of the tax. Here is a tax based upon reversions of leases, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer exempts all leases in the simple words "All leases which have changed hands." What possible justification can there be for a tax placed upon a particular form of property? Over a large area the proportion of leases or reversions which have changed hands in the last 40 years is enormous. I think we have to look a little lower down to get the real reason of this exemption. The real reason of this exemption is that it will affect an enormous number of voters.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman appears to be discussing the whole question of exemption.
Mr. PRETYMAN: Take this exemption of 40 years. The object of the exemption of this long period appears to me to be this. It is within the last 40 years that a very large number of owners of ground rents owning a great number of votes have acquired that form of property, and the object is to release them from the tax, and so to make the tax less unpopular, and at the same time to confine the actual incidence of the tax—and that is what the effect of it will be—to landlords of existing leases which still remain in the hands of those for whom they were originally granted. What you are really doing is, you are imposing a fine upon a number of owners of property who have created ground rents in the past in the hope that they should take the reversion when the leases fall in. It is perfectly obvious that this tax must in the future have a very serious effect upon the creation of further ground rents. It is perfectly obvious that any tax you may impose upon any form or class of property, it must be admitted that the persons who own that class of property will in future deal with that property in relation to the tax, and if the whole of this tax is to be discounted and dealt with in future with 40 years' exemptions on no principle except that property which has changed hands is going to be exempt, an enormous area of persons will be exempted, and you are going to make this a penalty, a fine, an abstraction on a certain few, who, we are told on Govern-

331
ment platforms, have obtained something which does not belong to them. There is no principle in it whatever, except the principle of Barabbas, and, therefore, I think that there is no Amendment perhaps accepted by the Government which more clearly shows the real character of their tax than this Amendment.
Sir JOHN DICKSON-POYNDER: I really think the speech just delivered by the hon. and gallant Gentleman requires a few words in response. The hon. Gentleman, in his desire to oppose the whole principle of the tax, has, I think, quite excelled himself in his arguments against the modifications which have been proposed by the Government. As it presents itself to my mind, this concession or modification by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a very considerable one. It is a substantial concession to extend the period from 30 to 40 years, because, instead of its being a matter for condemnation of the Government for exempting a large body of people, that is, those between 30 and 40 years, it does to a very considerable extent make more equitable the Reversionary Tax. I have always felt the only danger of a Reversionary Tax is in these cases, where the reversions have been paid for 30 or 40 years previous to the expiration of the lease. Thirty years appears to me to be too short a time where people have paid for a longer period than that, and paid large sums, with a view to enjoying the increment on the expiration of the lease—I say that it will be found there are many cases beyond 40 years, and where there are many cases, it will not be found that a very expensive sum was paid. It will be found much nearer the ordinary price, consistent with the site value of the property, would be paid in a period beyond 40 years. The Leader of the Opposition could not understand the difference between the owner who had converted land himself and undertaken its development and those who had merely bought it. There is a very wide distinction. The owner who converts land and allows someone else to build upon it does not do so on a lease of 30 or 40 years. I do not think it will be found in any part of England that leases under these conditions have been made for 40 years. The period is invariably 90 or 99 years. They would run through the whole course of the time, and at the end enjoy the increment owing to becoming possessed of the rack rent. In all these cases where purchase has been
332
made, their full price has been paid at the end of 40 years, and it would be doubly unjust to tax it.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the hon. Member who moved this Amendment will withdraw it, it will enable us to move to insert 40 years.
The CHAIRMAN: When the word thirty goes, forty can be moved instead of sixty.
Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I really do not see why in the case of a reversion there should be any date at all. If you look at the Death Duties you will see—
The CHAIRMAN: That is not the point we are on, the question is whether 30 or some other number of years should be included.
Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I wish to deal, then, with the number of years, and my objection is that 60 years is an unsuitable period—there ought to be no number of years at all.
The CHAIRMAN: That has already been decided upon.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: So far as I am concerned, I would certainly vote with the hon. Member for the excision of the word "thirty." When we come to discuss the question whether "forty" ought to be inserted or not a different matter arises.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is quite impossible to make concessions if every concession is to be made the subject of a separate Debate. On that principle, after the excision of the word "thirty" and on the Motion to insert the word "forty," it would be quite open to the Committee to go over the same ground again.
Mr. GEORGE CAVE: What my Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil) meant was that the word "thirty" would go out and the Motion then will be "that the word 'sixty' be there inserted." Then I suppose somebody will move to leave out "sixty" and put in "forty" and we must vote against that Amendment.
Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. Radford) will now consent to withdraw his Amendment.
Mr. RADFORD: I am anxious to relieve the Committee from the trouble of an unnecessary Division, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Leave withheld.
Question put, "That the word 'thirty' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 319.

Division No. 337.]

AYES.

[7.17 p.m.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Jenkins, J.

Steadman, W. C.

Adkins, W Ryland D.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Summerbell, T.

Barnes, G. N.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Sutherland, J. E.

Bowerman, C. W.

Lehmann, R. C.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Brace, William

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Byles, William Pollard

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Clynes, J. R.

Mond, A.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

Morrell, Philip

Toulmin, George

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Pirie, Duncan, V.

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Pointer, J.

Walsh, Stephen

Findlay, Alexander

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Fullerton, Hugh

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Wardle, George J.

Gill, A. H.

Richards, Thomas (West Monmouth)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Glover, Thomas

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

Wiles, Thomas

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Richardson, A.

Wilkie, Alexander

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Hodge, John

Seddon, J.

Horniman, Emslie John

Shackleton, David James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. George Roberts and Mr. J. Parker.

Hudson, Walter

Snowden, P.

NOES.

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

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

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

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

Chance, Frederick William

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

Agnew, George William

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Alden, Percy

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Gretton, John

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Grey, Rt. Hon Sir Edward

Armitage, R.

Clive, Percy Archer

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

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Clough, William

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Clyde, J. Avon

Hamilton, Marquess of

Astbury, John Meir

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

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

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Balcarres, Lord

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hart-Davies, T.

Baldwin, Stanley

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Craik, Sir Henry

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Crosfield, A. H.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Cross, Alexander

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Crossley, William J.

Hazleton, Richard

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Cullinan, J.

Hedges, A. Paget

Barker, Sir John

Dalrymple, Viscount

Helmsley-Viscount

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Daiziel, Sir James Henry

Henry, Charles S.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

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

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Barran, Sir John Nicholson

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

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

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

Higham, John Sharp

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Delany, William

Hill, Sir Clement

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hills, J. W.

Beck, A. Cecil

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

Hobart, Sir Robert

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Bell, Richard

Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott

Hogan, Michael

Bertram, Julius

Dillon, John

Holland, Sir William Henry

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

Donelan, Captain A.

Holt, Richard Durning

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Du Cros, Arthur

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

Black, Arthur W.

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Boulton, A. C. F.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Idris, T. H. W.

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Evans, Sir S. T.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Brooke, Stopford

Everett, R. Lacey

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

Faber, George Denison (York)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Bryce, J. Annan

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

Joynson-Hicks, William

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Falconer, J.

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Bull, Sir William James

Fardell, Sir T. George

Kekewich, Sir George

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Fell, Arthur

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Fenwick, Charles

Kerry, Earl of

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Ferens, T. R.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Carlile, E. Hildred

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Flynn, James Christopher

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Cave, George

Forster, Henry William

Laidlaw, Robert

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lambert, George

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Lamont, Norman

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Simon, John Allsebrook

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Nussey, Sir Willans

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Nuttall, Harry

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Levy, Sir Maurice

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Lewis, John Herbert

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Oddy, John James

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

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

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Starkey, John R.

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

O'Dowd, John

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Lundon, T.

O'Malley, William

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Parkes, Ebenezer

Strachey, Sir Edward

Lyell, Charles Henry

Paulton, James Mellor

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Lynch, H. B.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Percy, Earl

Taylor, Theodore C. (Ratcliffe)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Maclean, Donald

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Thomasson, Franklin

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Thornton, Percy M.

M'Arthur Charles

Pretyman, E. G.

Tomkinson, James

M'Kean, John

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

Valentia, Viscount

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Radford, G. H.

Verney, F. W.

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

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Walton, Joseph

M'Micking, Major G.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Maddison, Frederick

Reddy, M.

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

Magnus, Sir Philip

Redmond, William (Clare)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Marnham, F. J.

Rendall, Athelstan

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Waterlow, D. S.

Massle, J.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Meagher, Michael

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Whitehead, Rowland

Micklem, Nathaniel

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Middlebrook, William

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Rowlands, J.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Molteno, Percy Alport

Runciman, Rt Hon. Walter

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

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

Morse, L. L.

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Younger, George

Napier, T. B.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Newdegate, F. A.

Sears, J. E.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Sheehy, David

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

Nolan, Joseph

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Norman, Sir Henry

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Question put, "That the word 'sixty' be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 96; Noes, 277.

Division No. 338.]

AYES.

[7.28 p.m.

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

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Helmsley, Viscount

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Clive, Percy Archer

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Balcarres, Lord

Clyde, J. Avon

Hill, Sir Clement

Baldwin, Stanley

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Hunt, Rowland

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Craik, Sir Henry

Joynson-Hicks, William

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Dalrymple, Viscount

Kerry, Earl of

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

Beck, A. Cecil

Du Cros, Arthur

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

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

Bertram, Julius

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Bowles, G. Stewart

Fardell, Sir T. George

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Bull, Sir William James

Fell, Arthur

M'Arthur Charles

Carlile, E. Hildred

Forster, Henry William

Magnus, Sir Philip

Cave, George

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gretton, John

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Hamilton, Marquess of

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Chance, Frederick William

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Newdegate, F. A.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Oddy, John James

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Valentia, Viscount

Parkes, Ebenezer

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Paulton, James Mellor

Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Percy, Earl

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

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

Pretyman, E. G.

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Younger, George

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Viscount.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Morpeth and Mr. Lane-Fox.

NOES.

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

Evans, Sir S. T.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Everett, R. Lacey

Lyell, Charles Henry

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Falconer, J.

Lynch, H. B

Agnew, George William

Fenwick, Charles

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Ferens, T. R.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Alden, Percy

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Findlay, Alexander

Maclean, Donald

Armitage, R.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Fuller, John Michael F.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Fullerton, Hugh

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Astbury, John Meir

Gibb, James (Harrow)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Atherley-Jones, L.

Gill, A. H.

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

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

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

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

M'Micking, Major G.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Glover, Thomas

Maddison, Frederick

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Barker, Sir John

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Marnham, F. J.

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Massie, J.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Masterman, C. F. G.

Barnes, G N.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Meagher, Michael

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Barran, Sir John Nicholson

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Bell, Richard

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

Middlebrook, William

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

Hart-Davies, T.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Mond, A.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Black, Arthur W.

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Hedges, A. Paget

Worrell, Philip

Brace, William

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morse, L. L.

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Henry, Charles S.

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Brooke, Stopford

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

Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Napier, T. B.

Bryce, J. Annan

Higham, John Sharp

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nolan, Joseph

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Norman, Sir Henry

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hodge, John

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Hogan, Michael

Nussey, Sir Willans

Byles, William Pollard

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nuttall, Harry

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Holt, Richard Durning

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Brien, Patrick, (Kilkenny)

Charming, Sir Francis Allston

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hudson, Walter

O'Dowd, John

Clough, William

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N,)

Clynes, J. R.

Hyde, Clarendon G.

O'Malley, William

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Idris, T. H. W.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Jackson, R. S.

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Crosfield, A. H.

Jenkins, J.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Cross, Alexander

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Crossley, William J.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Pointer, J.

Cullinan, J.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Jowett, F. W.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Kekewich, Sir George

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

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

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Delany, William

Laidlaw, Robert

Reddy, M.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Redmond, William (Clare)

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

Lambert, George

Rendall, Athelstan

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

Lamont, Norman

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

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

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lehmann, R. C.

Richardson, A.

Dillon, John

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Donelan, Captain A.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lewis, John Herbert

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lundon, T.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

338

339

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Waterlow, D. S.

Rowlands, J.

Summerbell, T.

Wedgewood, Josiah C.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Sutherland, J. E.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

Tay|or, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Whitehead, Rowland

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Thomasson, Franklin

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

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

Wiles, Thomas

Sears, J. E.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Wilkie, Alexander

Seddon, J.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Shackleton, David James

Tomkinson, James

Wills, Arthur Walters

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

Toulmin, George

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

Sheehy, David

Verney, F. W.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Vivian, Henry

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Walsh, Stephen

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

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Walters, John Tudor

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Walton, Joseph

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Snowden, P.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Wardle, George J.

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

Steadman, W. C.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved the insertion of the word "forty."
Question put, "That the word 'forty' be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 94.

Division No. 339.]

AYES.

[7.38 p.m.

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

Crossley, William J.

Hobart, Sir Robert

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

Daiziel, Sir James Henry

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Agnew, George William

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Hogan, Michael

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Alden, Percy

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Holt, Richard Durning

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Delany, William

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Astbury, John Meir

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

Idris, T. H. W.

Atherley-Jones, L.

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Dillon, John

Jackson, R. S.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Barker, Sir John

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Evans, Sir S. T.

Kekewich, Sir George

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Everett, R. Lacey

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Barran, Sir John Nicholson

Falconer, J.

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Fenwick, Charles

Laidlaw, Robert

Beck, A. Cecil

Ferens, T. R.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Bell, Richard

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lambert, George

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

Findlay, Alexander

Lamont, Norman

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Flynn, James Christopher

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Forster, Henry William

Lehmann, R. C.

Black, Arthur W.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lewis, John Herbert

Brooke, Stopford

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

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

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

Bryce, J. Annan

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Lundon, T.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Luttrell, Hugh Fewnes

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Lyell, Charles Henry

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Maclean, Donald

Chance, Frederick William

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

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hart-Davies, T.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

M'Arthur Charles

Clough, William

Hazleton, Richard

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Clyde, J. Avon

Hedges, A. Paget

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

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Henry, Charles S.

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

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

Maddison, Frederick

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

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Marnham, F. J.

Crosfield, A. H.

Higham, John Sharp

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Cross, Alexander

Hill, Sir Clement

Massie, J.

Masterman, C. F. G.

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

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Meagher, Michael

Radford, G. H.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Reddy, M.

Thomasson, Franklin

Middlebrook, William

Redmond, William (Clare)

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

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Remnant, James Farquharson

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Rendall, Athelstan

Tomkinson, James

Mond, A.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Toulmin, George

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Verney, F. W.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Vivian, Henry

Worrell, Philip

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Morse, L. L.

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Walters, John Tudor

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Walton, Joseph

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

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Rowlands, J.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Napier, T. B.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Nolan, Joseph

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

Waterlow, D S.

Norman, Sir Henry

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

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

Nussey, Sir Willans

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Nuttall, Harry

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Whitehead, Rowland

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Sears, J. E.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Sheehy, David

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

O'Donnell C. J. (Walworth)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

O'Dowd, John

Simon, John Allsebrook

Wills, Arthur Walters

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

O'Malley, William

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

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

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

Pirie, Duncan V.

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

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Glover, Thomas

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

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gretton, John

Richardson, A.

Balcarres, Lord

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

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Baldwin, Stanley

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Helmsley, Viscount

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Barnes, G. N.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

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

Hodge, John

Seddon, J.

Beech, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Shackleton, David James

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Horniman, Emslie John

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hudson, Walter

Snowden, P.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hunt, Rowland

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Brace, William

Jenkins, J.

Steadman, W. C.

Byles, William Pollard

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Jowett, F. W.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cave, George

Kerry, Earl of

Summerbell, T.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Sutherland, J. E.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Clive, Percy Archer

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Clynes, J. R.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Walsh, Stephen

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wardle, George J.

Craik, Sir Henry

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Morpeth, Viscount

Wiles, Thomas

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Wilkie, Alexander

Du Cros, Arthur

Newdegate, F. A.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Oddy, John James

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Percy, Earl

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Pointer, J.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

Fardell, Sir T. George

Renwick, George

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. George Roberts and Mr. J. Parke.

Fullerton, Hugh

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Gill, A. H.

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Thornbury Division of Gloucestershire (Mr. Rendall) is covered by the decision just come to.
Mr. S. ROBERTS: In regard to that, may I point out that in the Bill as it stands
342
there is nothing to prevent the taxation of a reversion falling in immediately after the 30th April this year? This Amendment provides that at least 15 years must elapse.
The CHAIRMAN: There is no question about it, since it has been decided to

343
insert 40 years. The Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) seems to be covered by Clause 7.
Viscount HELMSLEY: I have put in an Amendment which I suggest raises rather a new point, seeing it is an alternative in the event of the "forty years" not having the anticipated result.
The CHAIRMAN: No, I consider that that point has been settled.
Sir E. CARSON Sir E. CARSON moved to add the following words at the end of section (1):—"No Reversion Duty shall be charged on the determination of a lease where the owner of the reversion demises the premises included in the lease on the same terms and conditions as are contained in the lease which has determined and without receiving any fine or any other consideration for such demise." Last night the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when we were discussing the demising of leases, said that the Bill in its present form would do what my Amendment now proposes. I dissented from that view. The words of the right hon. Gentleman were:—
"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 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."
What suggested to me the putting down this Amendment is not what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, because I had my Amendment down before, but a consideration of a class of cases which arises particularly in small towns and villages owned by large proprietors living in the neighbourhood. I know myself of a case of a tenant who had been a long time in occupation, and whose predecessors had also been in occupation; when the lease fell through the owner of the property, in consequence of the relations between the parties, renewed it without raising the rent. He, in fact, relet on the same terms as the old lease. I know of one town in the North of Ireland where a number of leases held at a nominal ground rent granted years ago fell in quite recently, and the landlord, having excellent relations with his tenants, and having regard
344
also to the length of time they had been tenants of the property, renewed the old leases without charging any fine and without raising the rent. That is a condition of affairs which ought to be very much encouraged. If the land-owner in one of these places desires to relet on the expiration of the lease to the tenant without charging anything in the nature of a fine or raising the rent, I do not think this House should prevent him doing so. But if the Bill is allowed to remain in its present form what will happen will be that on the expiration of the lease the increase in the value will have to be duly returned, and the landlord will have to pay duty thereupon. It will, therefore, be impossible for him to relet to the tenant without charging something. It will be necessary for him to go to the tenant and say. "I am quite willing to relet at the old rent, but I must charge you what I am being charged by the Government on the transaction, and you must pay me that before I can give you another lease." That is a very deplorable state of affairs. Of course, it will not arise in the case of valuable houses or estates in London. It is only likely to crop up in villages and small towns. In order to prevent hardship in cases of this kind I move this Amendment, and I submit it is not only right and fair, but that it really comes within what was said last night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that if a landlord was not taking or getting a windfall he should not be charged, but that if he chose to allow the tenant to remain on at the old rent he should be encouraged to do so.
The SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): There is only one way of testing Amendments of this kind, and that is by seeing what principle underlies them. In this case the principle is clear. It is that when a man who has taxable property gives it away for some benevolent purpose it should escape taxation. That principle was raised over and over again in the discussions some years ago over charitable legacies. There were tremendous Debates in this House upon it, in the course of which it was ascertained upon what ground Parliament had uniformly proceeded in this matter. The policy has not been to let a man off taxation merely because he made a charitable use of his property. Every argument advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman would apply to gifts to charitable purposes. In this case he takes the type of man who has property

345
let on lease; the lease falls in, and he is willing to renew it to the tenant on the old terms, notwithstanding that the property has increased very much in value. When you eliminate the principle you must follow precedent and policy. So far as policy is concerned it is either unnecessary or it is wrong. It is unnecessary if the reason for renewing the lease on the old footing is that the property has not become more valuable, and, in substance, he is only allowing the man to retain a position exactly the same as before. It is wrong if it is the case of exemption, because then he is making a charitable donation. Moreover, it will be almost impossible in every case, even with the sweetened language of this Amendment, to prevent every kind of collusion, not in such meritorious cases as that mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend, which I can conceive and which should be encouraged, but in that far larger and more numerous class of cases covered by the Amendment—that kind of case which would admit in the freest way of those transactions which we know always come in when people are trying to relieve themselves of the incidence of taxation. By no Amendment that I can think of can you earmark the meritorious cases mentioned by the hon. Member. He quoted my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as giving some sanction to this doctrine, but I listened attentively to his quotation of what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I did not see that that was so. For these reasons, much as I regret it, we cannot accept the Amendment.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting speech, and has endeavoured to discover the principle which lies at the root of this Amendment. Had we been more fortunate in our earlier discussions of these taxes, we might have had an opportunity of ascertaining exactly what is the principle which underlies the tax if the right hon. Gentleman would have aided us by his information. A clear statement of the principle which, in the minds of the Government, underlies the tax would have rendered a great service to the Committee, but that necessary part of his argument, in order to make his case complete, he entirely omitted, and we are thrown back, therefore, on the earlier declarations of the Government, which are not nearly so lucid as the right hon. Gentleman was in dealing with this Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend. The right
346
hon. Gentleman says that my right hon. Friend is proposing that you should exempt a charitable gift, and that that is the principle of my Friend's proposal; but I do not at all accept that description of the Amendment, and it is really quite incompatible with the language usually held by the Government, about the more common case, where the landlord does the improvement which led to the increased value, which has accrued on the termination of a lease. That brings me to what, as I understand, was stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as his conception of the principle underlying the tax when he first announced it to the Committee in his Budget statement. He said that the landlord, on the falling in of a lease, received a windfall, some unexpected advantage for which he had done nothing, to which he had contributed nothing, and which was, therefore, a fit subject for taxation. That is the nearest we have got to a principle. The Chancellor of the Exchequer last night amended his language, or altered his language. I do not know whether it was an Amendment or not, but instead of speaking of a windfall he spoke of it as a boon. I do not know whether he used it as a different thing. I concluded that he meant the same thing. It is possible that he thought the "windfall" theory had worn rather thin by this time, and that he had better use another word; but if there was intended to to be a distinction, I do not quite know what the distinction is. I suppose it would be true to say that when we get a night in bed that would be a boon, although we should not, in the ordinary course of things, say it was a windfall, but from the way in which our discussions are conducted, it is likely to be a windfall, which will soon be wholly unexpected, though not undeserved. But I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer means the same thing, whether he uses the word "windfall" or the word "boon." He means that the landlord gets something which is unexpected and unearned by him.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE assented:
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; he assents to my statement of the case, and, applying that to the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, I am sure that he will see at once that the Amendment ought to be accepted, because by the statement in support of this Amendment the landlord gets nothing of the kind. He gets no

347
boon, no windfall and no advantage, and, under those circumstances, on what principle, having regard to that on which the Government founded the tax, can you insist on collecting taxes in a case of this kind? The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War sought to strengthen what I think he felt was a very weak defence of his refusal, by saying that my right hon. and learned Friend's Amendment would lead or might lead to an indefinite amount of collusion. I confess I do not think so. I suppose the idea of the Secretary of State is that payments might be made by lessees to the lessor of which the Inland Revenue authorities would never obtain any knowledge, which would not be mentioned in any document. Anyone who makes or accepts a payment under such a condition as that, of course, puts himself in the hands of another, by whom he may be denounced at any moment, with all the consequences which occur when you do an illegal act to the knowledge of somebody else, who thereafter has you at his mercy. Do the Government think that, under these circumstances, there is any serious danger of the collusive and illegal arrangements which the right hon. Gentleman contemplates? I think there would not be, but if they do, of course, if they like to insert any special words to further guard against such a state of things, there would not be any particular objection on this side of the House. But if the Government remains where they stand now and refuse any consideration to a case of this kind, then it is undoubtedly the fact, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, that they make it impossible for the landlord to do again what in certain cases has been done by landlords in the past, and that is, out of regard for long family relations, on one side or the other, to renew leases without fines, or increase of rent, although the property has become much more valuable, or more valuable than when the original lease was granted. There 13 no reason why you should wish to penalise acts of that kind. On the contrary, it has been asserted very often that landlords ought to do much more in this direction than they are accustomed to do, and the only landlord who is defended for taking the utmost farthing is the greatest of all landlords, and certainly the most exacting, namely, the State. When the State is the landlord, as the Crown or any public Department, they exact full measure, but here you have certain landlords who do not exact it for the sake of old
348
relationship, and you are going to penalise those landlords and make it impossible for them to do the same thing in future.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I cannot help thinking that the Government must have some better answer than has been made by the Secretary of State for War, otherwise I cannot account for their resisting this Amendment. The Secretary of State for War told us two things. He said the object of this Amendment was to assist those landlords who assisted their tenantry, and that was an unsound principle in the Finance Bill, because you could apply it to all other charitable proceedings, on the part of the landlord or anybody else. That is what I understood him to say, but why is that so improper a principle? I agree it would be a very improper principle in most Finance Bills, but why in this? The Bill teems with indirect objects for which a tax is created, and why is it worse to assist a good landlord than, to bring in a tax for the purpose of obtaining a new Domesday Book, which has been avowed by more than one Cabinet Minister to be the whole object of this clause. But it goes further, and if the Minister for War will read section (3) of this clause he will see that it proceeds on exactly the same principle as that advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin, that where the landlord and tenant agree to break a lease, and the landlord agrees to give a fresh lease to the same tenant on beneficial terms, that that transaction shall have an advantage. That is just the same principle that my right hon. Friend contends for. I listened very carefully to what my right hon. Friend said, and I thought it was exactly the same principle, namely, that where a sitting tenant is allowed to continue and get a new lease on the same terms as before, that the transaction ought to be favoured by this Committee if they think that the landlord was sacrificing a portion of the money which he could have got. Section (3) says: "Where a lease of any land is determined before the expiration of the term of the lease by agreement between the lessor and lessee, and a fresh lease of the land is then granted to the same lessee or his successor in title, the term of which extends at least twenty-one years beyond the date on which the original lease would have expired the Commissioners shall make an allowance," and so on. What does that mean? It was explained very clearly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech. He said, if a landlord comes and agrees with

349
his sitting tenant to give him a prolongation of his tenancy on terms agreed between them, and therefore fair, that that is a case which we ought to treat more kindly than the ordinary one. I remember the passage very well. He said it would encourage such agreements, and such agreements ought to be made. What is my hon. Friend's Amendment? It does not provide for breaking agreements, but it provides for the continuance of the tenancy after the expiration of the lease. What is the difference between the two cases? The only argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was that such an Amendment as this would open the door to conclusive transactions. I quite agree that if there should be collusive transactions, not only under the Amendment but under every line of this clause, then such transactions can be carried through in hundreds of ways, and I have not the slightest doubt that a great proportion of these taxes will be evaded when people begin to understand them. But I do not see that this is more open to collusive transactions than other parts of the Bill. If you assume that two people will join together to tell lies, I agree that they can get off by this Amendment. So they can under any provision of the Bill, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman sees the importance of doing something to encourage the landlords, particularly the town landlords, to renew their tenancies on the same terms, or not more onerous terms, than those under which their tenants hold. Things may be different in Scotland, but no one who sits for an urban constituency in England will deny that he has constantly brought to his notice cases of great apparent hardship where a tenant has for a long time occupied a tenancy in a town and has built up a business of great value, and then at the end of his tenancy he finds that the landlord has, in order to obtain a little extra rent, let the house over him to someone else, I do not say that case is capable of remedy, but it is simply criminal of the Government to give a direct incitement to landlords to do that very thing which undoubtedly, whether rightly or wrongly done, inflicts a very great amount of hardship on their tenants. Unless you put in some protection, such as is suggested, the landlord will not only have the inducement of ordinary gain to prevent him from reletting his house upon the same terms as the tenant had it before, but he will know that he has to pay, if the property has gone up in value, 10 per cent. to
350
the Government, and that the only resource open to him is, at any rate, to get back as much as he can from other people. I am convinced he is being very hardly treated by the Government in numberless cases. I regard this tax as the least defensible of all the three. I incline to think it is even more indefensible than the Undeveloped Land Tax, and certainly much more indefensible than the Increment Duty, though that was bad enough. I cannot myself see the slightest defence to the tax. It appears to be founded on the grossest injustice and inequality, and is to be made use of in order to incite landlords to exact the uttermost farthing at the end of their lease. Unless you put in soma modification to meet that case it is not only going to foe unjust and unequal, but it is going to add very greatly to the hardship of a class that I personally have a great sympathy with—the town tenants of this country.
Sir EDWARD CARSON: Having regard to the case I have in my mind, I am astounded that the Government have not given some friendly consideration to the Amendment. When Amendments of this kind, which are moved in the best interests of the relations between landlord and tenant, and entirely in favour of the tenant, are refused, I begin more and more to wonder at the hypocrisy of hon. Gentlemen on the other side, who are always talking of monstrous actions of landlords and of their grasping everything that has been done by the tenant, and when an Amendment is moved, the sole object of which is to enable the landlord to re-let at the same rent, and upon the same conditions, they come forward and say that is a transaction which we cannot possibly allow. You must screw it out of the tenant and make him pay part of the tax. I hope the owners of small holdings throughout the country will notice what is being done on this Amendment. I hope they will notice that the Government say no longer in the future may a landlord re-let at the same rent to a tenant, no matter how well disposed he may be towards him, and how anxious he may be to serve him. I hope they will notice that that is the doctrine laid down by this Liberal Government, that they say if you want to do any such thing as that you must at least exact from the tenant one-tenth part of the value which has accrued by reason of the falling in of the lease. It is a most regrettable thing that any such proposition should be laid down in this House, and I am perfectly sure

351
when it comes to be understood, as I hope it will be, many people in the country will see that the oppressed tenant is being put forward as a stalking-horse for political purposes.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has done justice to himself or to his own Amendment. In the first place, it has absolutely nothing to do with small holdings. I never heard of small holdings being let at terms of 50 or 60 years. Apart from that the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to know the practical difficulty there is in the case. If the landlord is letting on the same identical terms there is no charge, because there is no increment. I have never heard of a landlord who re-let at the same identical terms. There might be a single case here and there, but I should be really surprised if anyone could produce half a dozen cases where there was a real increment, where the landlord took the same identical terms. There are cases. I admit, where he would re-let to an old tenant on easier terms, but that would not cover this case at all. I approached the Amendment feeling that if it could be carried out it might be accepted. Then the point was put to me, and I do not see how it is to be got over, that it would only apply to very exceptional cases, and if words of this kind are included I do not see what there is to prevent collusive transactions between landlord and tenant. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) recognised the possibility of that, and said words might be introduced, but I am not so sure that words will be a sufficient guarantee against things of that sort. At any rate, I think we ought to see the Amendment on the Paper. A landlord, in the circumstances indicated, may deserve exceptional consideration, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has not put down an Amendment which would have the effect he desires under conditions of that kind.
Sir E. CARSON: I wish to say a word with regard to collusion. I am bound to accept what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, that that is one of his main reasons for not accepting the Amendment. The same argument applies to every case of making a lease or effecting a transfer. In every lease you can have collusion. You can put in a wrong consideration, and you need not put in what is given for the lease
352
at all. You can put in a fine and send the lease to be stamped in accordance with the consideration. If you sell or lease property, you may say to a man, "I will give it to you for a few pounds less, because by doing so I can save a few pounds on the stamping." These questions of collusion arise in all cases. I believe myself that they occur very rarely. I believe people, as a rule, are very honest. I do not doubt that some people are dishonest about Income Tax. Of course, there may be frauds, but there is no more chance of fraud in the case I put than in other cases. I believe that this Amendment would only relate to small holdings, such as tenements in towns. I cannot believe that any man for the purpose of defrauding the Exchequer of a small amount would think it worth while to put himself in the power of an5' person who might give him away and subject him to severe penalties for breaking the law. My belief is that the question of collusion is very far distant from this Amendment.
Mr. J. RAWLINSON: The risk of collusion in this connection is of the most trifling description. Such a risk exists always in such transactions, but it is a risk which cannot be taken without involving the possibility of the persons being brought within the criminal law. Whatever the risk is in this case, I would point out that it is greatly minimised. There is only one person with whom you could collude, namely, the tenant, and he must be a tenant under a lease of 21 years, and, therefore, the field for fraud is very much narrowed if this Amendment is accepted. I venture to say that that is not the real reason of the Government for refusing to accept the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that this would only apply to exceptional cases. At present it applies to long leases. A landlord may be in doubt whether he should raise the rent if the increment appears to be somewhat small. If this Amendment is carried, a landlord will be tempted to allow the tenant to remain in possession on the same terms as now. I cannot give the exact figures, but I can assure the Committee that there are a large number of cases where tenants have been allowed to remain on the same terms. According to the provisions of this Bill it will be the duty of the lessor at the end of the lease to make a return as to whether or not there is any increment upon the land at the time he grants a fresh lease. If this Amendment is carried,

353
he will be absolved from the necessity of making that return. He will, therefore, have the temptation to renew the lease on the same terms. Supposing he grants a lease on the same terms, believing that there is no increment to tax, some person, who does not particularly love him, inquires into the facts, and finds that there is really an increment on the land. He has also to give information to the Revenue Authorities, and the landlord becomes liable for a considerable penalty. Section (3) of Clause 9 says: "If any person, who is under an obligation to deliver an account under this section, fails to deliver such an account, he shall he liable to pay to His Majesty a sum equal to 10 per cent, upon the amount of any duty payable under this section, and a like penalty for every month after the first month during which the failure continues."
It is absolute nonsense to say that a penalty should be inflicted on a landlord who has let his property on the same terms as before. I submit that the excuse put forward by the Government is not the real one for refusing to accept the Amendment. The Secretary of State for War says he would be in favour of such an Amendment if it were not for the risk of collusion. The right hon. Gentleman has come up in defence of this Bill just as the Old Guard at Waterloo came up to defend a difficult position. The right hon. Gentleman had talked about this Bill as if it were a Finance Bill. He forgets that in the Bill these exceptions occur continually. An exception is made in favour of agricultural land, and later on provision is made for exempting from the tax land which is used as a cricket ground, football field, or for purposes of a similar nature. I give these instances to show that the principles which were stated by the Secretary of State for War are really not applicable to this Bill at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he could not accept the Amendment because of the possibility of collusion and fraud.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: This Amendment illustrates very clearly the difference between fact and hypothesis. The advocates of the Reversion Duty may make out a very plausible case for taxing a real benefit coming to the lessor on a reversion when he comes into possession. But if you take the first section of the last clause that was passed, you will see there that the tax is to be a tax oh the value of the benefit accruing to the lessor. In the case covered
354
by the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend there is no real benefit accruing to the lessor. There is a possibility of benefit that might accrue to the lessor had he not been more alive to his social relations with his tenants than to the financial benefit that he might have got for himself. It is surely very hard that a man in that position, who really gets no benefit at all, should be taxed on the advantage that he might have got, but which he deliberately foregoes. He is hit by the section (2) of the last Clause, 7, whereby the value of the benefit is accrued; but in this case he does not get it. The wording of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment provides simply for cases in which the parties may go on as they went on before, and in which the lessor does not get any benefit. It is very unfair that the Government should adopt the principle of inducing every landlord to screw the utmost penny that he can out of his tenants. If he thinks more of the position of his tenants and his good feelings towards them and their amenities than of his own interests, he would be open to the relief which this Amendment would afford him. But if this Amendment is not passed, and the words of the Bill remain as they are, he would be taxed in respect pf an advantage that he does not get. Really, I do not think that the Government can wish to bring about a disturbance of the state of things that happily subsists between landlord and tenant, wherever they agree to continue the existing arrangement to their common mutual advantage. The only effect of refusing this Amendment will be to make it a matter of necessity for landlords to put aside every consideration except that of exacting the utmost penny that they can from the reversion of the land.
Mr. ROBERT DUNCAN: It seems to me that this Amendment is only in accordance with common sense. There is a popular opinion in certain quarters that the landlord is a hard-hearted man, whose sole idea is to get the most he can from his tenant, but there are many men who champion public rights, and who have far less kindliness of heart. The apparent object of this Bill would be to make it the legal duty of the landlord to try to screw out of his tenant all that he can. That has only got to be understood by the public of England, Scotland, and Ireland to be rejected. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway do not understand that this is the case, but when they come to consider what the Bill really means they will admit that it is conceived on wrong lines.
Mr. ERNEST GARDNER: It appears to me a great hardship when a lease has run out, and the landlord chooses for any reason, among others because he has got a good tenant, to allow him to continue on on the same terms as before, that he has to present his account to some Commissioners, and that they will examine it and say that the man has not done the best he could for himself, and that therefore there really is some increment due, because the property is really worth more than he has let it for. The result is that the man must go back to the tenant and say, "the Commissioners have told me that I am not act-
ing wisely in letting you have this property on the same terms as before, as it is worth more now, and if they make me pay increment I must screw the increment out of you." Is that what the Government wish. If so, it will create a great deal of friction and ill-will between tenants and owners, and any increment that is imposed must of necessity fall on the tenant who is going to take this property.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 54; Noes, 212.

Division No. 340.]

AYES.

[8.45 p.m.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Oddy, John James

Balcarres, Lord

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Baldwin, Stanley

Faber, George Denison (York)

Pretyman, E G.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Fell, Arthur

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

Forster, Henry William

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gardner, Ernest

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Haddock, George B.

Renwick, George

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bull, Sir William James

Helmsley, Viscount

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Starkey, John R.

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

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

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

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Clyde, J. Avon

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Newdegate, F. A.

A. Acland-Hood and Mr. Pike Pease.

NOES.

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

Clynes, J. R.

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

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hart-Davies, T.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

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

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Alden, Percy

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Armitage, R.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hayden, John Patrick

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cowan, W. H.

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Astbury, John Meir

Crosfield, A. H.

Hedges, A. Paget

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cross, Alexander

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Crossley, William J.

Henry, Charles S.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

Barker, Sir John

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

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Delany, William

Higham, John Sharp

Barnes, G. N.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon Charles E. H.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

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

Hodge, John

Beale, W. P.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hogan, Michael

Beck, A, Cecil

Donelan, Captain A.

Holt, Richard Durning

Bell, Richard

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hooper, A. G.

Bennett, E. N.

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Horniman, Emslie John

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

Elibank, Master of

Hudson, Walter

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Essex, R. W.

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Black, Arthur W.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Idris, T. H. W.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Everett, R. Lacey

Illingworth, Percy H.

Brace, William

Falconer, J.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Fenwick, Charles

Jackson, R. S.

Brodie, H. C.

Ferens, T. R.

Jenkins, J.

Brooke, Stopford

Findlay, Alexander

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

Flynn, James Christopher

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

Fuller, John Michael F.

Jowett, F. W.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Fullerton, Hugh

Kekewich, Sir George

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gill, A. H.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Glover, Thomas

Laidlaw, Robert

Byles, William Pollard

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lamont, Norman

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Haldane, Rt Hon. Richard B.

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Chance, Frederick William

Hall, Frederick

Lehmann, R. C.

Clough, William

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Philipps, John (Longford, S.)

Summerbell, T.

Lewis, John Herbert

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Sutherland, J. E.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Pirie, Duncan V.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Pointer, J.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Lynch, H. B.

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Thomasson, Franklin

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

Maclean, Donald

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

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Radford, G. H.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Macpherson, J. T.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Toulmin, George

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Rendall, Athelstan

Vivian, Henry

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Walsh, Stephen

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

Walters, John Tudor

Maddison, Frederick

Richardson, A.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wardle, George J.

Marnham, F. J.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Waterlow, D. S.

Meagher, Michael

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Watt, Henry A.

Middlebrook, William

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Rogers, F. E. Newman

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Mond, A.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

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

Whitehead, Rowland

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

Wilkie, Alexander

Napier, T. B.

Sears, J. E.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Nicholson, Charles H. (Doncaster)

Seely, Colonel

Wills, Arthur Walters

Nolan, Joseph

Shackleton, David James

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

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

Nuttall, Harry

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

O'Dowd, John

Snowden, P.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

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

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Lord ROBERT CECIL Lord ROBERT CECIL moved to add at the end of section (2) the words, "and this section shall apply to such reversions, mortgaged or charged, before the said date for more than a nominal amount as if they had been purchased."
The framework of this section, as we know, has been designed to include the reversion of a certain length which has been purchased before the Bill comes into operation. There is another class of operation where the reversion is not purchased, and where the money has been advanced upon its security. That is, of course, quite a common transaction indeed, a transaction which is carried out very largely, and it takes this form: A man mortgages or charges the reversion, and the person who advances the money obtains the reversion, or, rather, gets the power to obtain the reversion as the security for the money which he advanced. The Government come in and propose to take away—that is the effect of this duty—a certain portion of the value of the reversion. The man who has advanced the money has, of course, taken into consideration, in making the advance, what the reversion will be worth when the lease comes to an end. That is the business side of the transaction. What I submit to the Committee is that in that case, if you are not going to except that transaction from the operation of this duty, you are really distinctly
358
interfering with contracts. There is no doubt about it that you are really interfering with contracts entered into before this Act. You are taking away portions of the security on which the lender relied. The Government had a kind of glimmering of the strength of this argument, because they do deal with the case where the purchaser had actually paid out his money for the reversion. It makes no difference really in substance whether you bought it out and out or whether you lent money on it as a security. It is the same thing. I cannot see any distinction in principle between the two cases. If it is right, as the Government thinks it is, to exempt the case of purchase where the contract has been entered into before 30th April last, then it must be equally right to exempt cases where the contract is not one of purchase but one of lending money on the security of the reversion. The two are absolutely on all fours. The Government may say that this will open the door to collusion, as they did to the last Amendment, and that you may have transactions which are not bonâ fide, and which will escape. I do not think it is really open to the Government to say so, because in the first place it only deals with transactions which took place before 30th April. I have put in, in order to guard against that, the words, "For more than a nominal amount." That is to deal with real bonâ fide, honest, commercial

359
transactions, and not transactions of a collusive or colourable character. I do press on the Committee the desirability of some such Amendment as this. Immense sums of money are at this minute due from owners of reversions who have mortgaged or charged their reversions. No one can say how much that sum is. It may be that the charge has gone up to two-thirds or three-fourths, and if you take from that 10 per cent, you are materially diminishing the security and interfering with the contract entered into in these transactions. I think the Amendment is one the Government ought to meet.
Sir W. ROBSON: Of course, from the point of view of those who regard this Bill as mischievous in its origin and application, this Amendment is just, but I confess I cannot see any justification for it on any other ground. The scope of the exemption we are dealing with in the present case has nothing whatever to do with such a proposal as that now before us from the Noble Lord. He, of course, assumes the tax is bad. We do not, and the Committee does not assume that the tax is bad for the purpose of deciding on those exemptions. We have passed it, and the tax must now be assumed to be legitimate. When we came to the question of dealing with exemptions it was pointed out that the tax in general would only apply to cases where unearned increment is being received, and where the lessor has got at the termination of the lease, not owing to any expenditure of his own, some benefit far in excess of that which he let to the lessee. Now it is said that is a bad subject for taxation. We apply it only to long leases, but it was suggested that you might find someone before 30th April, 1909, who had not anticipated this Budget, and who had bought the reversion practically at the value he would give for the land. It was suggested an exemption should be made on behalf of such a purchaser. This Government is expected to discriminate between different classes affected by taxes to an extent which has not been heard of in any previous Budget. I do not remember when we were discussing taxes revised on Budgets by the last Government that there was this great care to see that the tax would ever fall upon any person so as to cause the slightest degree of hardship. We have done our best to exclude cases of hardship, so we made the exemptions of purchasers of that class
360
who had really purchased the reversion. The reversion in such a case is a security for the ground rent. We made that exemption, but what on earth has that exemption got to do with the exemption of the Noble Lord? There is no connection between the two cases. There was an argument in favour of the purchaser who was hit by an unforeseen Budget, but I can see no such argument in favour, it may be, of the hereditary holder of the reversion who had to borrow money. He is exactly upon the same footing as other holders of reversions. Why should an exception be made in such a case, and against owners who had not found it necessary to borrow money. It would be a reward for having borrowed money. I say, therefore, under these circumstances there is no reason whatever for the Amendment proposed by the Noble Lord. He says that the tax is an interference with contracts because the holder of a reversion may have mortgaged it; the mortgagee has advanced his money without anticipating this Budget: the Budget will therefore to that extent affect his security, and because it affects the security between the two parties it is an interference with the contract. What a very singular argument. I wonder if the Noble Lord thought it out before he laid it before the Committee. Every tax in that sense interferes with contracts. When the Noble Lord's Friends were putting on the Sugar Tax they were affecting the value of the subject-matter of perhaps hundreds of thousands of contracts. Persons had entered into contracts in which the value, of sugar was a material and important factor, when suddenly down came the Government and chose them rather than the holders of tea for additional taxation. Why should the owner of one kind of property have been taxed and another let off? Why should the holder of sugar have been taxed and the holder of tea left? Why should the exporter of coal have been taxed and the exporter of some other commodity allowed to escape? If it is an interference with contracts to tax a reversion because it affects the security of a mortgage, then every tax ever imposed is an interference with some contract, because they all affect the value of some commodity which is of necessity the subject of some contract, and therefore that contract is varied to the detriment of one party or the other. The argument seems to have even less application here than it generally has where it is used. The Government cannot accept the Amendment.
Mr. PRETYMAN: The Attorney-General must have forgotten the answers previously given in the course of these Debates, or have overlooked the very foundation on which taxes are based, and certainly he has forgotten all the arguments on taxation perpetually urged by Members on the other side of the House. He has solemnly compared as parallel cases the duty upon sugar or coal, which are articles of general consumption, with a tax imposed on a subject such as that referred to in the Amendment; whereas we have heard resounding on every platform that whatever duty or tax you put on any article of consumption must be and is immediately passed on to the consumer. That does not touch the case we are discussing at all. The tax to which the Attorney-General has referred as an instance he cannot maintain is going to be paid, at any rate in full, by anybody other than the persons responsible for handing it in.
Sir W. ROBSON: It is not passed on to the consumer where a particular person in a contract has bargained to pay a given price for the article. That is the point I was dealing with.
Mr. PRETYMAN: It is perfectly easy for him to pass it on. All he has to do is to charge a little more for the article. These contracts are nearly always entered into subject to the tax. If the argument applies at all, it applies only during the short period for which the contract has to run, whereas here you can have a period of 40 years. The cases are quite different. As has happened in nearly every case where Amendments have been moved from this side of the House, the Attorney-General has quoted a case which my noble Friend neither advanced nor suggested, and then demolished it to his own satisfaction. He contrasted what he called the proposal of my Noble Friend, that for some long period back, which he did not specify, all these mortgaged properties were to be ex empted, whereas all that the Government proposed was that for some time "just before"—those are the words he used—
Sir W. ROBSON: I was merely giving an illustration.
Mr. PRETYMAN: An illustration in the nature of romance, I should say. The exemption proposed by the Government was to apply from "just before," which he contrasted with some untold antecedent period suggested by my Noble Friend, over-
362
looking that the very words of the Amendment proposed exactly the same period as is provided for in the sub-section. All my Noble Friend suggests is that the exemptions which by this clause the Government apply to a purchase should apply equally in the case where a property has been mortgaged. If the Attorney-General had addressed himself to that simple argument, and had explained why, when the deeds are handed over on purchase, the conditions are wholly and entirely different from when they are handed over on mortgage, we should have listened with great interest. But he did not explain that at all. The whole theory of the exemption as we understand it, is that where you come within certain period which is fixed by the Government at 40 years, of the actual falling in of a reversion, it is no longer a case of the unexpected happening, or of a "windfall" or a "boom," but you have something which is bound to come, which is under contract to come, and which in one case a person has given money for, and in the other he has borrowed money upon. Where is the difference? He has anticipated in both cases. He has entered into a contract, and he has a right to expect the fulfilment of that contract. The Attorney-General commenced his argument by saying that the whole foundation of this Amendment was that the tax is bad. I do not accept that at all. We say that the tax is bad, but whether the Amendment is good or bad has nothing whatever to do with that point. In what respect does the Amendment differ from that point of view from the sub-section itself? It simply applies to a mortgage what the sub-section applies to a purchase. I do not want to find fault with the Attorney-General. He has to defend a bad Bill, and we all greatly admire his ingenuity in attempting to defend the indefensible. But we are bound to continue to expose fallacies which are put up for the purpose of being knocked down again, and to bring the attention of the Committee back to the Amendments actually moved, to which no satisfactory answer is given. The points raised on this side are not dealt with, and after a certain period we are accused of repetition, and the closure is moved. The fact is that the tax is an unjust one, and you cannot make it anything else. Its injustice is exposed by Amendments of this character. I am bound to say that the explanations in the speech of the Attorney-General, however ingenious, and however much they may do credit to his

363
learning and his ability in Debate, only serve even more to expose the hollowness and injustice of the whole of these taxes than was apparent before.
Viscount HELMSLEY: It is always very pleasant to hear the defence of the learned Attorney-General for the Bill, and his arguments against the Amendments which are urged. But I would submit that a large part of the arguments in the speech which he has just given to the House are not relevant. He treated the sub-section as if now, owing to the kindness of the Government in making certain concession to the opponents of the Bill, that therefore it was quite beyond the bounds of reason that the concession should be in any way extended. I rather deprecate the way in which the Front Bench opposite seem to look at what they are pleased to call concessions in this Bill. I would like to point out that they are not concessions to us or our views, but they are concessions to common-sense. Without this provision in the Bill, if we are to make some attempt to deal with the injustice of the case—without these concessions, the Bill would be even more unworkable than it is at the present moment. They are absolutely necessary and inevitable if the Bill is to be practical at all. The Attorney-General seemed to think that it was quite new in this Budget to refer to what was just and what was unjust. He actually compared the proposals contained in this Budget—which everybody will admit, at all events, are of a far-reaching character—with Budgets which have been previously introduced by Governments of opposite opinions. I venture to say that there is no analogy or comparison in the least possible, because hitherto taxation has always proceeded on well-defined and recognised lines, and on certain canons which, up to this Budget, have been common to both sides of the House. In this Budget they are entirely dispensed with. The Attorney-General seemed to think that it was quite absurd that anybody who had borrowed money on his reversion should be treated differently to someone who had not borrowed money on his reversion. What is the essential difference in these two cases? In the one case a man comes into money, which, whether he expected, it or not, is an advantage to him. In the other case the man has already reaped that advantage, and has nothing left that will be subject to taxation. I submit they are on an entirely different plane.
364
The Attorney-General never once in the whole course of his remarks against this Amendment attempted to prove in what way a mortgage or a charge on a reversion differed from purchase, because that was the point of my hon. Friend's argument. He said that by this sub-section the Government have admitted that in certain cases where a reversion is purchased, and where all these effects of the reversion are known to the purchaser—including the ultimate benefits which he will receive—in these cases, under circumstances set out in the sub-section, no Re-version Duty should be charged. What the Attorney-General has to prove is that that sort of circumstance did not apply in the case of a mortgage or charge. I submit that they do. It is quite true that in his criticism of my Noble Friend's Amendment he pointed out that there was no mention in the Amendment of the amount of the mortgage or the charge, except that it should exceed a nominal amount. I think there is a certain amount of truth in that criticism, but I daresay my Noble Friend will be quite willing to alter his Amendment in that direction. It might be necessary to stipulate that a certain proportion of the reversion ought to have been charged. But supposing we take the case where money has been advanced on a reversion to its full value. What is the position of the person who advanced the money when this reversion is to be paid? Who is to pay it? Say he forecloses. Has he to pay the duty or the person who borrowed the money, who, of course, has no longer the wherewithal to pay it? That seems obviously difficult in practice, and is a matter which I think demands closer consideration than appears to have been given to it up to the present time. After all, one has to look at these things in making legislation of this sort, and it is perfectly obvious that it would not be in any way fair for the mortagee who has advanced money on the reversion, knowing full well what the maximum benefit was, should suddenly have his security diminished to the extent of the duty, and be called upon to pay, after foreclosure, this extra 10 per cent. The Attorney-General tried to make out that this is the same whenever any tax is imposed; that it was a similar breach of contract. I really think that that sort of allegation has no foundation in fact. It seems to me that the true analogy would be if you were to impose an Income Tax upon the income of the previous year, and not upon the year in

365
which the Income Tax is imposed. The idea is that you ought to be retrospective in your imposition of taxes. That is practically what is being done in this case. That is the true analogy, and yet we maintain that in putting on taxes of this sort you are breaking contracts. I really think, whether these words are accepted or not, that something will have to be done to provide for the position of the mortgagee of the reversion under this section. So far, at all events, we have heard no sort of argument relevant to the question as to why it should not be done.
Mr. A. FELL: We can accept, as we are bound to do, the statement which we have now passed as to this duty. We cannot contest it. We may object to it, but we cannot contest or argue against it any longer. Whilst, however, we are forbidden to argue against this tax any longer, we are not going to pass a distorted statement of the Attorney-General as to the effect of this imposition. I submit that his description of this clause by no means tallies with the fact, and by exposing the effect of this tax we on this side of the House come to the question before us, which is, whether the mortgagee does not stand in the same position as the person from whom he has taken the interest. The difference between these two is in many cases extremely slight. We have made provision in the case of the one. We are now suggesting that to be logical we must extend this provision to cover the mortgagee who has lent money on the reversion. In the past it has been perfectly possible to estimate with the greatest degree of accuracy when you are coming into any particular property which is bringing in a certain income what the value of that property may be, and by deducting the interest on this you will have to pay on this amount, as it were. You can advance upon that, the reversion being practically held without incurring any risk. What will happen in future?
What is to happen in the case of a man who advanced money standing in the same position as other people? I cannot see any difference between them and the case of a reversion. The man in advancing this money knew perfectly well what he was going in for in a fixed time when the reversion came in. He calculated exactly how much he would advance, but now this mine is sprung upon him by which 10 per cent. of the value of the reversion is to be taken away. What position does such a man find himself in? If he advanced anything like the total value, he will find himself with a capital loss; but even that will be
366
very small compared with the loss which a tax of this kind will inflict upon the whole community and upon the whole of this country. People will find it impossible to get advances of this kind in the future; it will hamper ordinary transactions amongst lawyers and people of that kind in business. We know the whole of this leasehold principle is being attacked by these clauses of the Budget. We know that it will suffer, and that still more large business transactions of this kind will be hampered and prejudiced. People will not know where they are. They know that 10 per cent. is to be imposed as the tax now, but they do not know what the amount will be in the future. Why should there be a distinction drawn between the mortgagee and the man himself? There is no distinction, and if you exempt the man himself why not exempt the mortgagee also?
Mr. RAWLINSON: As I understand the Amendment, its object is this: Clause 8, sub-section (1), says that where the reversion is purchased before April last, and there is 40 years yet unexpired, no duty shall apply. The Amendment suggests that where reversion in the same circumstances is not purchased outright, such as in the case of the mortgagee, the same rule should apply to the mortgagee. In fact, the Amendment simply says that if you apply the existing provisions of the Bill to an out-and-out purchase which was created before April last, apply the same provisions to the mortgage executed before April last. What possible difference would that mean in principle between persons who bought a reversion before 30th April last and the persons who advanced money upon the reversion before 30th April last? Of course, there must be a considerable amount of unexpired lease to run, and, therefore, in such a case the result of the tax would not be felt for a long time. But what possible difference can there be between the case of a mortgagee who advances his money and who ought to be in the same position as the purchaser? Why should a mortgagee who forecloses be in a different position from the purchaser? I really think the Attorney-General, when he talked of hereditary holders of property as being favoured by this Amendment, used an argument which was hardly worthy of a person in his great position. We know people who advance money on mortgage, whether it is money which is known as "pledges," or whether it is money promised for mortgage, are not necessarily

367
hereditary holders of land, and are not favoured by this clause. The Amendment is simply a plain Amendment, which says that if you are giving purchasers of reversion exemption, why should you not extend that to a mortgagee? I would like an answer to that question, and I would also like to know what is the meaning of the word "purchase" before 14th April last. Is the word used in the legal sense or in the popular sense? Is it used in the popular sense of money having passed in a transaction of sale, or in the legal sense of purchase, which, of course, is a very much wider sense? If the word is used in the popular sense, is it not a somewhat dangerous matter to include a word in the popular sense in a legal document? Unless the Government shows some vital distinction between these two points, I venture to submit to the Committee that they should support the Amendment, although I believe that the drafting of the Amendment itself would require some consideration. I should accept the assurance of the Government if they would accept the spirit of the Amendment.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I should like to refer to the argument of the Attorney General and to the analogy which he drew from the Coal Tax. I should like to re mind him of the circumstances under which the Coal Tax was brought in some eight years ago. At that time, it will be remembered, a controversy arose about the existing contracts, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is going into a side issue altogether; that has nothing whatever to do with the Amendment.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I was not discussing it. I was only adverting to the argument of the learned Attorney-General himself, who referred to the tax upon coal, and the point I venture to urge was that the Government of the day, when representations were made to them about existing contracts, accepted the point and exempted existing coal contracts. Therefore, I submit that in the case of a mortgagee of a reversionary interest, the Government ought to act in the same manner and respect these contracts upon the same principle, because, after all, the position of the mortgagee is entirely different from that of the owner of the rever-
368
sionary interest. He lent money upon, security, and now his security and the value of his assets are greatly diminished. It is exactly the analogy of the case of the debenture holder—neither the mortgagee nor the debenture holder contemplates any reversionary benefit at all. They merely contemplate safe security for their money. Of course, in all these cases they can enter into possession. It is not what they would like, and what they look for is a safe return upon good security; and they do not contemplate entering into possession of the property in every case, therefore this is an entirely different and a much stronger ease than that of the holder who looks to the reversionary benefit. They merely look to their own security, and if this Amendment be not accepted the security, and thereby the value of the asset, will be diminished in each case, and the tax will fall upon a class of men whom the Government do not propose to tax. Under this part of the Bill they propose to tax the windfall. The mortgagee expects no windfall, and therefore you have no right to tax him on the same principle. Unless you accept the principle that any tax is just in proportion to its ease of collection, you undoubtedly ought to exempt a class of men who are in no sense included in the scheme of the Government, and upon whom this tax will act in an arbitrary manner, diminishing their security and cutting away from the value of their existing estates. For the sake of consistency, I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.
Sir EDWARD CARSON: I think we ought to have some answer on this point. There is one question we really must have cleared up. If a man lends money upon the mortgage of a reversion and if afterwards he is not paid, his remedy is to foreclose the mortgage, and he would enter into possession of the whole reversion for the purpose of repaying himself the amount advanced. He would then be the owner of the whole reversion. I should like the Solicitor-General for Scotland to tell us what is the difference between that man and the man who has purchased. He has paid his money and has got the reversion, so has the man who has purchased; and as far as I can see there is no provision in the Bill to meet such a case.
Mr. ARTHUR DEWAR: That is a question which has been debated the whole of the afternoon, and the answer to it has been given by the Attorney-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer over and

369
over again. It may not have been a satisfactory answer to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it is the answer of the Government, and I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite does not expect me to deal with that point now.
Sir E. CARSON: I entirely deny this point has been answered, and we cannot be put off with a statement of that kind. The point has never been mentioned by the Attorney-General or the Chancellor of the Exchequer on any of the previous Amendments because they have not raised the question. I think the Solicitor-General might give us his own views upon this point.
Mr. ARTHUR DEWAR: This point is one of the conundrums which have been stated with great force over and over again, and replied to by the Government.
Sir E. CARSON: The point we put is where the mortgagee having advanced his money finds he is unable to obtain the interest; he then forecloses and buys for the sum he has advanced upon this reversion. Does he become a purchaser or does he not?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that question is involved in this Amendment.
Sir E. CARSON: Yes, it is.
Viscount HELMSLEY: The Solicitor-General says this point has been debated over and over again. It certainly has not, because it has not been raised in any shape or form before on this clause. The hon. and learned Member is right when he says it cropped up upon the Income Tax, and then the Government accepted
an Amendment dealing with mortgages, which raised the very same point. So great was the strength of the arguments and so unanswerable that the Government inserted an Amendment dealing with mortgages which went to show that the original grant should be taken to be such sums as had been advanced by the mortgagee if it exceeded the amount which had been held to be the first total value. The words which were inserted on that occasion occur in section (5) of Clause 2, as amended, as follows: "Or where the mortgagee of any land proves that he or any of his predecessors in title has advanced upon mortgage on the land an amount which exceeds that total value such sum, etc." Those words were put in at my instigation by the right hon. Gentleman, and they deal with the very same sort of point we are now raising. I think this must have been what the hon. and learned Gentleman had in his mind when he said this point has already been debated. It is true it was debated last week on a totally different clause, but it has never been discussed at this point. Exactly the same arguments which induced the Government to accept it then apply now, and I cannot understand why it is receiving such scant treatment from those sitting on the Front Ministerial Bench. As the Solicitor-General does not realise what the point is, and as there is nobody else representing the Government who has heard the Debate, I beg to move to report Progress.
Question put, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 252.

Division No. 341.]

AYES.

[9.45 p.m.

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

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Newdegate, F. A.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Faber, George Denison (York)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Oddy, John James

Baldwin, Stanley

Forster, Henry William

Parkes, Ebenezer

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gardner, Ernest

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Pretyman, E. G.

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

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

Haddock, George B.

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamilton, Marquess of

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Renton, Leslie

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Renwick, George

Bull, Sir William James

Hunt, Rowland

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kerry, Earl of

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Starkey, John R.

Cave, George

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

Valentia, Viscount

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

Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

Clyde, J. Avon

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

M'Arthur, Charles

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Craik, Sir Henry

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Viscount

Dairymple, Viscount

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Helmsley and Lord R. Cecil.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Morpeth, Viscount

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morrison-Bell, Captain

NOES.

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

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Nuttall, Harry

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Kid)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Alden, Percy

Hall, Frederick

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Armitage, R.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

O'Dowd, John

Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

Parker, James (Halifax)

Astbury, John Meir

Hart-Davies, T.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Barker, Sir John

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Barnes, G. N.

Hedges, A. Paget

Pirie, Duncan V.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pointer, J.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Henry, Charles S.

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Beale, W. P.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Beauchamp, E.

Higham, John Sharp

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Beck, A. Cecil

Hobart, Sir Robert

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

Bell, Richard

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Radford, G. H.

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Hodge, John

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Bennett, E. N.

Hogan, Michael

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Rendall, Athelstan

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Holt, Richard Durning

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Black, Arthur W.

Hooper, A. G.

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

Boulton, A. C. F.

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

Richardson, A.

Brace, William

Horniman, Emslie John

Ridsdale, E. A.

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Hudson, Walter

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Brodie, H. C.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Brooke, Stopford

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

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

Idris, T. H. W.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Bryce, J. Annan

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Jackson, R. S.

Rogers, F. E Newman

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Jenkins, J.

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rowlands, J.

Byles, William Pollard

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Cameron, Robert

Jowett, F. W.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapei)

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Kekewich, Sir George

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

Cawley, Sir Frederick

King, Arthur John (Knutsford)

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

Chance, Frederick William

Laidlaw, Robert

Sears, J. E.

Clough, William

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Seaverns, J. H.

Clynes, J. R.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Seely, Colonel

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lambert, George

Shackleton, David James

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lamont, Norman

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

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

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

Lehmann, R. C.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Levy Sir Maurice

Snowden, P.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Lewis, John Herbert

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Cowan, W. H.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Crosfield, A. H.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Cross, Alexander

Lynch, H. B.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Crossley, William J.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Sutherland, J. E.

Cullinan, J.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Maclean, Donald

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Delany, William

Macpherson, J. T.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Thomasson, Frarklin

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

Dillon, John

Maddison, Frederick

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Marnham, F. J.

Toulmin, George

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Massie, J.

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Elibank, Master of

Masterman, C. F. G.

Verney, F. W.

Essex, R. W.

Meagher, Michael

Vivian, Henry

Esslemont, George Birnie

Menzies, Sir Walter

Walsh, Stephen

Evans, Sir S. T.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Walters, John Tudor

Everett, R. Lacey

Middlebrook, William

Walton, Joseph

Falconer, J.

Moiteno, Percy Alport

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Fenwick, Charles

Mond, A.

Wardle, George J.

Ferens, T. R.

Mooney, J. J.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Findlay, Alexander

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Flynn, James Christopher

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Waterlow, D. S.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Watt, Henry A.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Fullerton, Hugh

Napier, T. B.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Gill, A. H.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Glover, Thomas

Nolan, Joseph

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

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Nussey, Sir Willans

Whitehead, Rowland

372

373

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Wilkie, Alexander

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

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Winfrey, R.

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

Wills, Arthur Walters

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: This question as to how far the mortgagee who has bonâ fide advanced his money prior to the date of the Budget shall be protected is, of course, a complicated one. It has been raised in one shape or the other both on the Increment Tax and also on the Reversion Duty, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer intimated last night that there would be conceivably a form of words which the Government might possibly accept to protect all really bonâ, fide mortgages so far as the personal liability of the mortgagee is concerned, except, of course, those mortgagees who prior to the Act coming into force foreclose, and thereby become the owners of the property. Several Amendments which are more or less difficult to follow are down upon the Paper with the object of carrying that into effect; but I have reason to believe that if a reasonable Amendment on the subject were proposed as a substantial new section to this clause the words of such an Amendment might be accepted. Perhaps it would help. In this discussion we have now on, the whole subject of mortgages has been raised. I do not know whether I am in order in reading the words of this Amendment which would deal with the point and effectually dispose of it—an Amendment which it is intended to propose at a slightly later stage. All I can say is that I understand it is the intention of the Government to accept an Amendment to this sub-section in proper words which will meet this difficulty, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say whether it is so or not. If he replies in the affirmative I would appeal to my Noble Friend to withdraw his Amendment.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Those who were present last night when a discussion on a similar Amendment was raised at the instance of the Hon. Member for the West Derby Division (Mr. Watson Rutherford) will recollect I said that an Amendment in this form went too far and wholly beyond the equities of the case, but that we were anxious to safeguard the interests of the man who had advanced money on the security of the reversion before 29th April this year, and, consequently, without notice of any charge of this kind. We realise that in such a case the mortgagee might be tempted to foreclose and that the money realised on the sale of reversion might not
374
meet the whole of the charges included in this 10 per cent. We quite recognised the fairness of the contention that the mortgagee ought to be in the same position as a purchaser in a case of this kind, and I promised the hon. Member if he submitted an Amendment which would meet that case I would give it favourable consideration. I think I shall be able, at the end of this clause, to accept an Amendment which will cover that case, but I would rather not, at the present moment, pledge myself to the absolute words. All I can say is I hope we shall be able to accept an Amendment which will substantially safeguard the interests of the mortgagee and insure that he at any rate is not damnified in this matter.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The Chancellor of the Exchequer invited me to submit an Amendment, and one has been prepared and informally discussed. I have received an intimation unofficially to the effect that the Amendment will be accepted, but that the Government reserve full right to consider the exact words later en. Under these circumstances, I appeal to my Noble Friend, in order that the interests of the mortgagees may not be prejudiced by any action he may take, to withdraw this Amendment.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Of course I should not wish by any action on my part to prejudice the Amendment of my hon. Friend but I must confess that the position is a rather, astonishing one. Not a quarter of an hour ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University (Sir Edward Carson) raised this very point, and the Solicitor-General for Scotland, in reply, said that the matter had already been discussed and that the Government had expressed its utter inability to meet his views and it was absurd for my right hon. Friend to expect any other answer. A Motion was then made to report Progress to enable the Government to further consider the point. Now a different situation has arisen. I do not think that the concession offered to my hon. Friend really covers the whole of the ground raised by my Amendment, but, if I am told that a Division on my Amendment would preclude a discussion on my hon. Friend's Amendment, then I would desire to with-

375
draw my Amendment. At the same time I do not think that the Government has given me any substantial answer to my case.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): Does the Noble Lord withdraw or not?
Lord ROBERT CECIL: My question is intended to be extremely courteous. Will you tell me whether, if I persist in pressing it to a Division, it will preclude a discussion on my hon. Friend's Amendment?
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: On a point of order. May I ask whether, having regard to the Amendment which has been handed in, you consider that if my Noble Friend's Amendment went to a Division, it would preclude a discussion upon the Amendment, of which notice has been
given, to come in at the end of the subsection?
The CHAIRMAN: I quite understand the point. I have not had time to consider it carefully. I think the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Derby is rather more limited, inasmuch as it refers to mortgages under foreclosure only; but, under the circumstances, I do not think a Division on the Noble Lord's Amendment would preclude a discussion on the hon. Member's Amendment.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Then I propose to take a Division.
Question put, "That these words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 274.

Division No. 342.]

AYES.

[10.7 p.m.

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

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

Newdegate, F. A.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fell, Arthur

Oddy, John James

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Parkes, Ebenezer

Baldwin, Stanley

Gardner, Ernest

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Pretyman, E. G.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

Haddock, George G.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamilton, Marquess of

Remnant, James Farquharson

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Renton, Leslie

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Renwick, George

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bull, Sir William James

Hunt, Rowland

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kerry, Earl of

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Keswick, William

Starkey, John R.

Cave, George

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Thornton, Percy M.

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

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

Valentia, Viscount

Clyde, J. Avon

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Wiloughby de Eresby, Lord

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

Craik, Sir Henry

M'Arthur, Charles

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

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Du Cross, Arthur

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Morpeth, Viscount

R. Cecil and Viscount Helmsley.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

NOES.

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

Beck, A. Cecil

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bell, Richard

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bennett, E. N.

Chance, Frederick William

Alden, Percy

Berridge, T. H. D.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Clough, William

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Black, Arthur W.

Clynes, J. R.

Armitage, R.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Bowerman, C. W.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Astbury, John Meir

Brace, William

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

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

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

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Brodie, H. C.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Brooke, Stopford

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Barker, Sir John

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

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

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

Cowan, W. H

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Bryce, J. Annan

Crosfield, A. H.

Barnes, G. N.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Cross, Alexander

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Crossley, William J.

Barry. Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Cullinan, J.

Beale, W. P.

Byles, William Pollard

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Beauchamp, E.

Cameron, Robert

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

Lehmann, R. C.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Delany, William

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Roche, John (Galway, East)

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

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rowlands, J.

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Lynch, H. B.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Elibank, Master of

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

Essex, R. W.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Maclean, Donald

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Evans, Sir S. T.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

Everett, R. Lacey

Macpherson, J. T.

Sears, J. E.

Falconer, J.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Seddon, J.

Fenwick, Charles

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Seely, Colonel

Ferens, T. R.

M'Micking, Major G.

Shackleton, David James

Findlay, Alexander

Maddison, Frederick

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

Flynn, James Christopher

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Marnham, F. J.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Fuller, John Michael F.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Fullerton, Hugh

Massie, J.

Snowden, P.

Gill, A. H.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Glover, Thomas

Meagher, Michael

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Menzies, Sir Walter

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Middlebrook, William

Sutherland, J. E.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hall, Frederick

Mooney, J. J.

Taylor Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Morrell, Philip

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Harmsworth, R L. (Caithness-sh.)

Morse, L. L.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Hart-Davies, T.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Thomasson, Franklin

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

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

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Hayden, John Patrick

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Napier, T. B.

Toulmin, George

Hedges, A. Paget

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nolan, Joseph

Verney, F. W.

Henry, Charles S.

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Vivian, Henry

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Nussey, Sir Willans

Walsh, Stephen

Higham, John Sharp

Nuttall, Harry

Walters, John Tudor

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Walton, Joseph

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Hodge, John

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Wardle, George J.

Hogan, Michael

O'Dowd, John

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Holt, Richard Durning

O'Malley, William

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Hooper A. G.

Parker James (Halifax)

Waterlow, D. S.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Watt, Henry A.

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Horniman, Emslie John

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

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Hudson, Walter

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Pirie, Duncan V.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Idris, T. H. W.

Pointer, J.

Whitehead, Rowland

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wiles, Thomas

Jackson, R. S.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Wilkie Alexander

Jenkins, J.

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

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Radford, G. H.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Jowett, F. W.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Kekewich, Sir George

Rendall, Athelstan

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

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Laidlaw, Robert

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

Winfrey, R.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Richardson, A.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Lambert, George

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Amendment made, in section (2), after the word "charged" ["no Reversion Duty shall be charged"], to insert "on the determination of the lease of any land which is at the time of the determination agricultural land, nor."—[Mr. Lane-Fox].
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS moved, in section (2), after "lease" ["on the deter-
378
mination of a lease"], to insert "unless the benefit accruing to the lessor shall exceed ten per cent, of the capital value of the consideration for the original grant of the lease." During the Debate on the Increment Duty the Government consented to Amendments that there should be no payment of Increment Duty unless the

379
increment was 10 per cent, of the original value, in order to prevent the small and unnecessary payments of a few pounds on any transfer or grant of the lease. The opinion of many of us is that increments are not likely to be large in amount except where they are very large, such as the sudden springing up into large value of agricultural land into building land. The Government came to the conclusion that it would be fair or necessary, for the purpose of their tax, to make Increment Duty payable when there was only a very small increment. The object of the Amendment is to put the Reversion Duty exactly on the same lines as the Increment Duty. I understand the object of this tax is to tax the large increment of value which accrues to ground landlords at the expiration of building leases. When the ground landlord compels the tenant to build a house on his land, and to restore the land plus the building, there is a very large increment arriving to him in the shape of what has been called a windfall. Assuming for a moment that it is right to tax this windfall, and it is the object of this portion of the Bill to tax large windfalls, I suggest that exactly in the same way as the Government do not see fit to tax a small increment it is not necessary to put landlords and others to the trouble of paying where the Reversion Duty would be very small. This duty does not apply merely to the case of a 99 years' building lease, but to all leases of over 21 years' duration. That means that at the expiration of every ordinary lease of every ordinary house, if the rental value has gone up by a shilling, a minute Reversion Duty would thereon be payable. The proposal of my Amendment is that these fractions of reversionary increment should not be made to pay any duty any more than the small increment under the previous section of the Bill. It seems to me the only way to find out whether a reversionary increment is a large or a small one is to make it a percentage of the capital value of the consideration for the original grant of the lease. In my first Amendment dealing with this matter I put it at a fixed sum merely to raise the question on Debate. I have now amended it. This unfortunate Amendment got twice caught in the meshes of the closure last night, but it seems to bear a charmed life, and it reappears to-night in what I conceive to be the proper place for being discussed. I submit that the Government,
380
having accepted the principle of letting off small increments in an earlier part of the Bill, there is nothing to be said against letting off small reversionary increments in the way I propose.
Mr. HALDANE: When we were dealing with the case of agricultural land there was some pretext for giving an exemption from the Increment Tax, but no sooner have we done so than an Amendment is moved in terms so comprehensive as to cover any kind of transaction, great or small. The acute intelligence of my hon. Friend the Member for the Central Division of Manchester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) must not be surprised if even a simple person like myself can find a difference between the class of cases of which he spoke and the class of cases which the Amendment is intended to cover. It is the fashion on the Benches opposite to move the largest kind of Amendment, and then to argue it as if it applied only to the smallest class of cases. Unfortunately the words of this Amendment cover cases of the largest trnasactions and the greatest value. Let me point out the difference between the 10 per cent, in this case and the 10 per cent, in the previous case. When in an earlier part of the Bill we were discussing increment value, 10 per cent, was conceded at once because we were discussing site value, the ascertainment of which involved a certain amount of expense. To-day we are dealing with actual value, which is quite a different thing, ascertained in a different fashion. There is no analogy between the disentanglement of site value and the ascertainment of actual value in cases which are the subject every day of commercial transactions; and therefore the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised if I tell him that it is perfectly impossible to accept this Amendment, founded as it is on a false analogy, and covering many persons to whom we do not propose to extend the exemption.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman may take me for a very simple person when I confess that I am surprised not only that he refuses to accept the Amendment, but even more so by the reasons which he gives for that refusal. He says the Amendment might have had some proper reference to agricultural land, but that the Government have excluded agricultural land from the Increment Tax.
Mr. HALDANE: Some pretext of relevance.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: He says that it has no pretext of relevance after we have excluded agricultural land. Then why did they put it into the Increment Tax after they had arranged to exclude agricultural land? Among the many difficulties into which the Committee is led by the conditions under which we are conducting this Debate is this: that the same Ministers cannot remain permanently in charge of our discussions on this Bill, and, accordingly, what one Minister does in one clause another Minister repudiates as having no pretext of relevancy in an exactly parallel case occurring in another clause. That must only be settled between the Secretary of State for War and the Chancellor of the Exchequer when they are happy enough to meet. At the present time they are like the old people in the weather glass—as soon as one comes out the other goes in, and they have no opportunity of exchanging ideas, or for one of them to find out what the other has said. But, take the Chancellor of the Exchequer's second objection to my hon. Friend's Amendment. It is that it would not merely exclude small values, but that it; might exclude very big values, because, being concerned with a percentage of the increment—no doubt it is the increment which falls due on the reversion—and taking the form of a reference to the percentage which that bears to the original total value of the land and the buildings, no doubt, if the original total value was very large a 10 per cent, increment might also be very large. That is perfectly clear. But if that be true, as it is, in relation to the Amendment in this place, it is equally true that the percentage which the Government have allowed as site value might cover very big sums. That objection never occurred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or rather it did occur to him and he rejected it as worthless. He thought it a very shallow objection, and declined to found his case upon it, and accepted the Amendment which is analogous to this and put it in. I do wish the Government could arrange to keep their principles the same for two clauses running or two taxes the same. Really, these taxes are difficult enough to understand, and our discussions become the most perplexing of conundrums. At least the Government might do what in them lies to keep a thread of consistency running through their decisions, and not allow the Secretary of State, for reasons which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has rejected,
382
to refuse Amendments which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has accepted.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: The Secretary for War added one other argument which I do not think my right hon. Friend has dealt with, and it was this, that the reason why a small increment value was excluded was that, owing to the machinery of the tax, considerable expense was necessary, and considerable difficulty would arise with reference to valuation. I think that was the right hon. Gentleman's argument. But the right hon. Gentleman quite forgot that the Government did not propose to exclude, as far as we know at present, the valuation in that case at all. The valuation goes on just the same. The whole expense will be incurred just the same, whether the increment is small or great, and it is only when it is ascertained after the whole expense of the valuation, that the increment is small, that the duty is remitted. I agree that the proposition of the Government is absurd and illogical. That is, in Fact, the condition in which the Bill stands at the present moment. Therefore, every single one of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely baseless. The Under-Secretary for the Home Office does not agree with me. As far as I understand, three objections were raised to the Amendment. One, that it is not necessary, because agricultural land is excluded. I think my right hon. Friend has shown that argument to be equally true in the case of increment. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that because there might be very large transactions in connection with reversions, therefore the 10 per cent, if excluded altogether would exclude very large transactions. That was equally true in regard to increment. I do not see that the right hon. Gentleman has given any valid reason against the Amendment.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I understand from the Secretary for War that this Amendment cannot be accepted because it is too big a slice to exclude. I think we on this side of the House are entitled to ask whether there is not some smaller fraction with which the Government can see their way to deal. In the discussion on the Increment Duty it was pointed out that there would be hundreds of cases where there would be only a few shillings to pay. After the agricultural exemption in the case of Increment Duty, the Chancellor of the Exchequer then proceeded to accept an Amendment to the effect that 10 per

383
cent. on the site value should be allowed in case of the increment being so small that it should not be collected. All the trouble and annoyance of the valuation, however, would have to be incurred. Now we come to this Reversion Duty, and this Amendment asks that a small class should be exempt from this duty. It has been pointed out by the Secretary of State that if we accept this Amendment in this shape we shall lose a great many transactions which might represent a considerable sum. I admit that is so, because the Amendment, although it is contended to be analogous to that of Increment Duty, obviously includes a very much larger amount, because 10 per cent. from the original consideration of the lease is a different thing from 10 per cent. from the original prairie or site value. Surely if the Government cannot see their way to give this exemption, they might, in the interests of the general community who will be charged with paying this tax, agree to some smaller proportion which would have the effect of freeing very small cases from having to account for this duty. There is no doubt about it, what the Government really want by this tax is to get at big landowners who, years ago, granted leases when the land was comparatively of very, very small value, who are now coming into very valuable land and very valuable buildings. If that is the object, why not keep it and give some substantial relief. If this relief is too much, give something smaller; but why not give some relief to the small person who has a plot, and who has committed no crime against Society. It may be only a person whose land is worth £200 or some small amount like that, and who when the Reversion Duty comes to be collected will only pay about two or three pounds or something of that sort. Why not do so to relieve this person, who is a voter after all, and who will probably, when the Government come to think of it, be a person who will be entitled to some reasonable consideration. The Amendment of my hon. Friend invites the Government in this place, which is the proper place in the Bill, to give some consideration to the small person, and if this is too big, to say what they would do.
Mr. ROBERT DUNCAN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) has inherited business ability which no one in this House has for a moment disputed, but I think he has expected too
384
much from that Front Bench opposite. We know that on that Front Bench there is not one business man. They are professional politicians, who do not profess to know anything about business.
Mr. PHILIP MORRELL: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member in order in making those reflections which are entirely foreign to the Amendment?
The CHAIRMAN: I did not understand the hon. Member to be making reflections.
Mr. R. DUNCAN: I am not out of order when I say I think one of the best qualifications of our Friend the Chairman is that he is a business man.
The CHAIRMAN: That is outside the Amendment.
Mr. R. DUNCAN: Thank you for calling me to order after I had made the remark. We are a business nation, and we cannot have a prosperous nation unless we have business men in it, and when the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire asks that we should have consistency of business method on the Front Bench opposite, I think he is really asking too much.
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: My hon. Friend has appealed to the Government to make an exception in favour of a small man, and he has pointed out that the small men have a vote. The Government have told us that they have brought in this tax on the ground of principle, namely, that where unearned profit has been obtained the State should take a certain part. If they depart from that principle and make a difference in the case of the man who makes a little profit, they will embark upon a dangerous course. The only defence of this Reversion Duty is that it is imposed because the person is receiving something which he has done nothing to deserve. It is just as bad whether a person makes £5 or £500; the principle is exactly the same. I hope the Government will not descend so far as my hon. Friend suggests in their desire to obtain votes. If a tax is right it ought to be imposed whether the person affected is poor or rich.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I submit that there is an analogy between this duty and the Increment Value Duty. The Secretary of State for War was not in charge of the Bill when the Increment Value Duty was discussed. The concession of 10 per cent. on site value was not made in any degree because of the difficulty of disentangling the site value. The object was to get out of the difficulty of making small payments

385
to the Exchequer—cases which were of little advantage to the Exchequer, but were a considerable disadvantage to the taxpayer.
Mr. BALFOUR: My hon. Friend is really unreasonable in asking that the Government should be consistent in their explanations. He ought to know by this time that they have a different principle for every Amendment and for every clause. Every Minister has his own theory of the Bill, and the theory of one Minister is not consistent with that of any other. The Solicitor-General for Scotland has one view, the Lord Advocate has a second, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a third, the Secretary of State for War has a fourth, and the Prime Minister, who gives his views in the country, but not in the House, has a fifth. I must ask my hon. Friend to remember that we are fighting this Bill under quite unusual circumstances, and that to ask from this at least five-headed monster, which is trying to defend the Bill, a consistency incompatible with its five mouths, is really to ask what cannot be given. The Secretary of State for War has not pretended that his answer is consistent in any sense with the answer given upon the earlier clause. He has not suggested that there is not a reason for dealing with small increments in this case as in the other, although there may be a different of opinion as to the fraction. As the Government have given up the attempt to bring their Bill into any sort of consistent or logical harmony with its own Divisions or their own statements, my hon. Friend must be content with expressing his opinion in the Lobby, without asking from the occupants of that Bench anything in the nature of a consistent defence of their own proposals.
Mr. HALDANE: The right hon. Gentleman might have remembered in his illustration of the five-headed hydra that when you cut off one head you do not extinguish the life of that most formidable animal. The right hon. Gentleman has accused us of having supported the propositions which are the foundation of this Bill upon divergent grounds. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was in the House when I spoke. I put the case on very simple grounds, which appear, in my humble estimation, not even to be touched on in the
points which have been answered. I pointed out that site value was something wholly different from the value which is being discussed under this clause, and that 10 per cent, was given for the total site value, and that it does not apply to this clause. That may have been right or wrong, but it was a perfectly consistent and intelligible view of things, and it is not to be disposed of by the analogies drawn.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman tries to distinguish between the claims made clear and the claims only expected in regard to land value on two grounds. The first is that the 10 per cent, granted in the case of the Increment Tax was to cover the expenses or the cost of valuation. That was not the whole reason. On the contrary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having first given the 10 per cent, on that account, proceeded to meet at least two other claims put forth. It was therefore not at all confined to the purposes to which the right hon. Gentleman now seeks to confine it, but was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for reasons which are applicable to the present clause. The second reason is that the site value is a different thing from the total value. Of course it is. In what does the difference consist? The site value is merely the total value in some cases—not in all. But in any case, no doubt in the majority of cases, the site value is smaller than the total value. That might be a reason for allowing a less percentage to escape under this tax, which deals with the total site value, than you allowed in the case of the tax which deals with site value. But it is no possible reason for refusing any allowance at all here, after you have made an allowance in the other case. If the right hon. Gentleman said 10 per cent, is too much, having regard to the fact that it is 10 per cent, of the total instead of the site value, well then there is room for compromise. But if he will not give anything at all because it is total and not site value, then it is not logical, and he has not found any defence for passing it.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 96; Noes, 291.

Division No. 343.]

AYES.

[10.50 p.m.]

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

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

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

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Balcarres, Lord

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Baldwin, Stanley

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hamilton, Marquess of

Oddy, John James

Bull, Sir William James

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Carlile, E. Hildred

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Percy, Earl

Cave, George

Helmsley, Viscount

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hill, Sir Clement

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Clive, Percy Archer

Hunt, Rowland

Renton, Leslie

Clyde, J. Avon

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Renwick, George

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Kerry, Earl of

Roberts. S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Keswick, William

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Craik, Sir Henry

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

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

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Starkey, John R.

Du Cros, Arthur

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

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Thornton, Percy M.

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

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Valentia, Viscount

Fell, Arthur

M'Arthur, Charles

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

Forster, Henry William

Magnus, Sir Philip

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Gardner, Ernest

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Gretton, John

Morpeth, Viscount

Younger, George

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds)

Newdegate, F. A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joynson-Hicks and Mr. Lane-Fox.

Haddock, George B.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

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

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Agnew, George William

Cory, Sir Clifford John

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

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cotton, Sir H J. S.

Hart-Davies, T.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cowan, W. H.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Harwood, George

Armitage, R.

Crosfield, A. H.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cross, Alexander

Hayden, John Patrick

Astbury, John Meir

Crossley, William J.

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Cullinan, J.

Hedges, A. Paget

Balfour Robert (Lanark)

Daiziel, Sir James Henry

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

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

Barker, Sir John

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Henry, Charles S.

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

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

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Barnes, G. N.

Delany, William

Higham, John Sharp

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

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

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Beale, W. P.

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

Hodge, John

Beauchamp, E.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hogan, Michael

Beck, A. Cecil

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Holland, Sir William Henry

Bell, Richard

Dillon, John

Holt, Richard Durning

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hooper, A. G.

Bennett, E. N.

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

Black, Arthur W.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Horniman, Emslie John

Boulton, A. C. F.

Elibank, Master of

Howard, Hon Geoffrey

Bowerman, C. W.

Essex, R. W

Hudson, Walter

Brace, William

Esslemont, George Birnie

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Evans, Sir S. T

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Brodie, H. C.

Everett, L. Lacey

Idris, T. H. W.

Brooke, Stopford

Falconer, J.

Illingworth, Percy H.

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

Fenwick, Charles

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

Ferens, T. R.

Jackson, R. S.

Bryce, J. Annan

Findlay, Alexander

Jenkins, J.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Flynn, James Christopher

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Fuller, John Michael F.

Jowett, F. W.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Fullerton, Hugh

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Byles, William Pollard

Gill, A. H.

Kekewich, Sir George

Cameron, Robert

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Glover, Thomas

Laidlaw, Robert

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Chance, Frederick William

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lambert, George

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Lamont, Norman

Clough, William

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Clynes, J. R.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Lehmann, R. C.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hall, Frederick

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Cooper, G. J.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Lewis, John Herbert

388

389

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Lundon, T.

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Pirie, Duncan V.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Lynch, H. B.

Pointer, J.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Thomasson, Franklin

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

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

Macpherson, J. T.

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

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Radford, G. H.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Reddy, M.

Toulmin, George

M'Micking, Major G.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Maddison, Frederick

Rendall, Athelstan

Verney, F. W.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Vivian, Henry

Marnham, F. J.

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

Walsh, Stephen

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Richardson, A.

Walters, John Tudor

Massle, J.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Walton, Joseph

Masterman, C. F. G.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wardle, George J.

Meagher, Michael

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Middlebrook, William

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Waterlow, D. S.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Watt, Henry A.

Mond, A.

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Mooney, J. J.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Morse, L. L.

Rowlands, J.

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

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Whitehead, Rowland

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

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

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wiles, Thomas

Napier, T. B.

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Wilkie, Alexander

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Nolan, Joseph

Sears, J. E.

Williamson, Sir A.

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Seddon, J.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Nussey, Sir Willans

Seely, Colonel

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Nuttall, Harry

Shackleton, David James

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

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

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Winfrey, R.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Snowden, P.

Wodehouse, Lord

O'Dowd, John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

O'Malley, William

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Parker, James (Halifax)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Strachey, Sir Edward

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

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

Sutherland, J. E.

Mr. G. D. FABER Mr. G. D. FABER (York) moved, in section (2), to leave out "twenty-one" '["the original term of which did not exceed twenty-one"], and to insert the word "thirty."
Although I welcome any concession which will grant exemption from this Reversion Duty, of which I have a most holy and unmitigated horror, I think its effect will not turn out to be exactly what the Government said it would be. It will drive leases into the rack rent direction rather than into the long and building lease direction. I think it would be much better to preserve the dual system we have at present. The long lease system is favoured by a large portion of the community; it is certainly a favourite form with builders and with investors. If you penalise the long lease system, you will, after a certain time, drive people into the rack rental system, which may have its advantages, but which certainly has its disadvantages also. It would be far more advantageous to leave the dual system open. The
390
Chancellor of the Exchequer has, during the course of the Debate, expressed dislike of long leases altogether. He was very uncompromising in his reference to owners of reversions. He talked about outrageous and extortionate rents, and evidently, so far as he was concerned, the horse on which he was content to put his money was rack rents and not long leases. The Attorney-General, on the other hand, did not express any opinion against long leases; he was perfectly prepared to acquiesce so long as the Government obtained 10 per cent, of the spoil. When did the Government first discover that they were hostile to long leases? Two years ago when the Small Holdings Bill was before this House we, upon this side, protested over and over again that the long leasehold system in that connection was a bad one, and that purchase was the right system. The Government then said that the best thing in the whole world for the small holder was that he should be a long leaseholder, and

391
that was the system the, Government set up. The long leaseholder for 80 years paid all that time not a nominal rent, but a rack rent, and he also paid into a Sinking Fund every year so that at the end the holding should become—his property, not at all, but that it should become the property of the County Council! The Government actually proposed that legislation and carried it through the House two years ago. If the system of long leaseholds is iniquitous in this instance, surely the position of the long leaseholder, under the Small Holdings Act, is far more unjust. This is but another instance of the inconsistency of the Government. Two years ago the long leasehold system was the best in the world; to-day it is the worst, and as a protest against this inconsistency, and also because I believe it is not in the best interests of the country to stifle the long leasehold system and to set up a rack rent system, I move the Amendment which stands in my name.
The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. C. F. G. Masterman): I do not suppose the hon. Gentleman requires a very long answer to his Amendment, because he stated that he had moved it as a protest against the inconsistency of the Government, and such a ground does not demand so much argument as an Amendment advanced for more definite reasons. This Amendment originates out of a concession—the second of the big concessions made under this Reversion Duty clause. It occupies a very parallel position to the various Amendments moved to the first sub-section; it is an example of the case in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having given a substantial concession, there are immediate demands for a great extension of them; in fact, the Amendments on the Paper would, if carried, practically mean abolishing the Reversion Duty altogether; for instance, if you accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for N.-W. Manchester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), extending the term to 99 years, the Reversion Duty would cease to exist altogether. The only argument which was advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite was that we had a prejudice against the leasehold system and we were trying to kill it by a Reversionary Duty. That is a peculiar travesty of the fact, because we propose to tax upon the increased value of the reversions when they fall due, above the capitalised value of the original considera-
392
tion. It is absurd to suggest that that implies some insane prejudice against the leasehold system; but I might remind the hon. Gentleman that there is another alternative besides that which he suggests as the only alternative to long leaseholds. You may, if you can—I do not think you can—by manipulation of this Bill, squeeze building leases into 21 years. I do not think the builders of this country intend to do it. I think it is impossible. That is one of the reasons why we fixed 21 years. There is also a freehold system as well as a rack rented system, and the development of such a system in this country on Scottish lines, I submit, would not be a bad alternative to the leasehold system. I only throw that out as a suggestion, but it is not a point upon which I wish to develop an argument in regard to this particular point. We think we have given the full amount of exemption that can be claimed, up to the limit of dangerous possibility, and we really cannot extend it.
Mr. BALFOUR: I take it that this duty is not merely a Revenue Duty; it is a duty based upon some theory which the Government have in their mind, as to the proper method in which land should be dealt with for the purpose of building. They have views as to the proper method by which the owner of land and the owner of buildings should deal with his property. What is the theory which they have underlying this particular section? They think leases of over 21 years injurious, and they evidently think they should penalise them. It is quite evident that this section, if carried in any shape, will put a considerable premium upon any owner never to let under a lease for more than 21 years, because if he lets it for more than 21 years he will be penalised and have to pay the tax, and if he lets it for 21 years or less, he will not be penalised, and he will not have to pay the tax. Is that done because the Government think that 21 years is the proper length of lease, and they wish to encourage it by that peculiar system of taxation? Do they want to make it penal, practically, to give more than 21 years? That is what they are doing, and the Under-Secretary and the Secretary for War do not deny that the inevitable effect of this section is to make every landlord who owns a house which he proposes to let take care that the lease which he gives to the tenant should not exceed 21 years. Is it the view of the Committee that it is

393
contrary to public interest that leases of houses for more than 21 years should be given? It seems to me to be incredible if the doctrines of political economy which we hear from the other side have any basis.
I cannot understand why that should be so. You charge 10 per cent, over 21 years, and nothing under 21 years, and that means that there will be a distinct fine. I wish to ask the Government, is that their policy, and is that what they are aiming at, and, if it is so, why do they aim at it? What virtue is there in 21 years? Is there any advantage in restricting leases for 21 years? Frankly, I should have thought the longer the lease the better for the community. That is to say, if they are prepared to take a long lease they are prepared to spend a great deal of money on the property. A long lease is usually an improving lease. But the Government object to that system. A 21 years' lease is probably not an improving lease. Why should you penalise the longer lease? I am sure there must be some policy behind it, though I have not the faintest suspicion what it is. I should have thought the greater freedom you gave to the lessors and the lessees of land to make what arrangements they please between themselves, the better for the community and for the persons directly interested. The Government take a different view. They have deliberately put a tax upon the longer lease. They have deliberately refused to tax the shorter lease. That must be because they object to the longer lease and prefer the shorter lease. If that is their policy, on what principle is it based? We have never had a hint. This is the first time we have heard of this new policy, and I should like to know its justification and what there is behind the section.
The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The right hon. Gentleman has not heard what has been stated over and over again. This Bill has not to be taken as a Bill with hidden purposes and far-reaching policies behind it. It is a Bill to raise revenue for the purposes for which revenue is absolutely necessary, and to those purposes it is confined. But there is an obligation in framing a Bill of this kind to take care that you do nothing that is contrary to good policy, and the right hon. Gentleman has put a very relevant question—not when he asks what is the hidden policy behind the clause, but when he asks us to tell him how we justify the policy as one which does not impinge on some interest which he conceives to be of
394
great importance. The thesis of the right hon. Gentleman is that there is something very wrong in taking a tax from the owner of the reversion expectant under a long lease. I wonder whether it has occurred to him why it is that owners of land make long leases, and insist on refusing to grant a freehold, and insist on remaining the owners of the reversion on longer leases. It is not from benevolence. It is not from any consideration except for their own interest. It is because it is convenient for them to take this course. The reason why a man who owns land in London lets on building lease for 99 or 88 years is because he thinks that at the end of that time his estate may, probably will, have the benefit of some very considerable increase in the value of property, brought about by the growth of a great city. He refuses to part with his charges. You cannot get a fee simple of land in London without paying altogether exorbitantly for it and beyond market rate. The result of that is that, in the leases which are granted, there is this possibility of increase in the value over the time for which the lease is granted. In that case the increase is only ascertained by valuation, and on that the tax is based. The reason why we think that it is quite just to tax this kind of property is because it is a very tangible asset of which the owner has the advantage. If people chose to deal with land tenure in this form and to take the course they are perfectly entitled to take of granting long building leases and retaining the reversion and all the expectancies, they may do that, but it is quite right that the Government should select them for the subject of taxation. I think I have given the right hon. Gentleman a perfectly intelligible answer.
Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has given particular attention to the 99 years system. I should have thought we were not on that question. The question I asked was: Why are you penalising leases over 21 years? The right hon. Gentleman said: "I like freeholds and I do not like 99 years leases." What has that got to do with my question? I quite understand—and I am not sure that I do not share this view—that a 60 years lease is better than a 21 years lease, that a 99 years lease is better than a 60 years lease, and that the system of Scottish feus is still better. That would be my own personal prejudice. Then why penalise everything over 21 years? That is the question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. HALDANE: The period of 21 years marks just about the time to distinguish between short leases and long leases. It marks off broadly the class of transaction under which a lease is a short lease falling into a different category. I think that to anybody familiar with this class of transaction it will be obvious that by selecting that term we have eliminated those leases which we do not want to tax.
Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAM: The Secretary of State for War stated that my right hon. Friend (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was not present earlier to-day when we discussed this question. Well, we have got very little light on the point now at issue. There were only four speeches, and then the closure was moved. We were left in a tantalising state of curiosity, and again at twenty-five minutes past eleven the right hon. Gentleman has stimulated our curiosity on a point which demands satisfaction. On both occasions he has tried to ride two horses astraddle. He put forward two perfectly different reasons this morning and again to-night. He said that the justification of this tax was to get revenue and then by a rapid transition—a rather difficult performance—it then appears that the justification of the tax was not to get revenue but to enable those who desire freehold to purchase it instead of being obliged to take a lease. Either reason is arguable. I do not think the first is easily argued. I do not think when you say there is to be no revenue to the Exchequer from a twenty-one years' lease that it is easy to argue that your main object is to get revenue, because you put away all prospect of getting revenue from leases under twenty-one years, or that may be made under twenty-one years. Hon. Members who sit behind the right hon. Gentleman cheer his other argument when he says that the lessee ought to be able to buy the freehold. They are back there on familiar ground. Why, if that is their main battle horse, did the Government refuse the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman)? And when the lessor gave an option of purchase, when this new paradise was within the sphere of practical politics, why did they refuse that Amendment, which would have carried out the whole of that object?
The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is not in order in discussing a previous Amendment.
Mr. WYNDHAM: My right hon. Friend was not present when we were discussing this principle, and we have had very few opportunities of discussing the principle. I am quite satisfied to ask the Government whether they stick to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's justification of this tax, that its main object is to get revenue, or whether they adopt the second justification in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, which is that it would be a good thing if a man has a lease to convert it into a freehold, and why, if they think a long lease a good thing, they let off a short lease and penalise a long one?
Mr. W. R. PEEL: The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Haldane) tells us that this Bill has no underhand purpose in it; but the Bill is of such complexity that we may be pardoned if we imagine there is more in it than strikes the observer on the surface. The right hon. Gentleman told us that this is a measure for fiscal purposes, and not for any other ulterior motive. Why then does he produce a tax which he tells us is introduced to cut away the only revenue which that particular tax is intended to get? As far as I gather he wishes to assimilate the London practice to that which obtains in the North of England and in Scotland. I have not got the same enthusiasm for the Scottish practice as the right hon. Gentleman, or even perhaps the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Balfour), but we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman that he does not wish to discourage long leases, but wishes to encourage the granting of freeholds. That is an object entirely different from the fiscal object, and if any reason entirely distinct from that object is avowed, I think it is fair to examine whether that object is a good one or a bad one.
I certainly hold without any doubt at all that that object is not a good one. I am perfectly confident that if in and around London you say to the builder: "You shall only purchase freeholds; you shall not take building leases," you will stop an enormous amount of building. After all the right hon. Gentleman's lengthy arguments, the real object of penalising leases of more than 21 years is at last dicovered to be an object which will have the result of stopping the building of houses, and stopping the operations of building companies, certainly over a very large part of the South of England. I cannot help thinking that it would have been better had the right hon. Gentleman pro-

397
vided rather a better reason for his tax than the one that he has already given. I cannot help thinking that the real reason was an after-thought. He felt himself in a difficulty. He felt that he could not explain why this particular penalty is to be thrown on long leases as against short leases, and he could hot explain why it seems to be to the interest of everybody to have short leases and avoid long leases. Therefore, with his Scotch inventiveness and imagination, he gave reasons which are wholly inapplicable to the South of England, with which the right hon. Gentleman is probably not very familiar. At any rate, in the South of England the effect on the building trade will be very serious, and it will prevent the development of building estates.
Captain CRAIG: Earlier I tried to call attention to the fact that last Session in the Town Tenants Bill for Ireland we dealt with this particular point. The difficulty we had was that in many instances the landlords could not be induced to give sufficiently long leases. The complaints in many parts of Ireland were that they kept properties in their own hands under short leases; and in the Town Tenants Bill we were legislating in the direction of giving the town tenants the same facilities as were given to agricultural tenants to purchase their holdings. This clause as it stands is putting back the hands of the clock, because these leases, which it is desirable should be as long as possible in Ireland, at all events in regard to house properly, will in future undoubtedly be changed to leases of 21 years and under. I take that to be a very grave objection, and I cannot conceive why the right hon. Gentleman puts this extraordinary premium upon the granting of short leases while penalising those who grant long leases. I know from experience that as far as Ireland is concerned this clause will have a very serious effect indeed, one that the right hon. Gentleman does not quite grasp. He stated that there was nothing contrary to good policy. If that be so, I would like to know whether the legislation of last Session in regard to town tenants was contrary to good policy? Either one or the other was contrary to good policy. I do think the right hon. Gentleman was absolutely wrong when he said that it was fair treatment to mete out to the long leaseholder to tax him in the way proposed by this Bill, and that the short lease should be exempted from the tax. The right hon. Gentleman stated that it was very difficult to get a fee simple
398
in London. I wish he would study the question in regard to Ireland. No one except the learned Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General could be expected to understand the intricacies of Irish tenure, both of building and agricultural leases. I rather think it is not treating this House with courtesy, when these matters crop up, as to the tenure of land of all sorts which is so different in various parts of the United Kingdom, that one at least of the Law Officers of the Crown for Ireland should not be present in his place to answer the criticisms that are made by those who represent Irish seats in the House; whether those criticisms are correct or not. I have had occasion to refer to this matter before. For some reason or other they seem to treat the whole land of the United Kingdom as being held under the one class of tenure. That is where this part of the Bill will fail, because, as everybody knows, the tenure is quite different.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting away from the subject of the Amendment.
Captain CRAIG: I was simply saying—
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is repeating himself.
Captain CRAIG: I try to be as courteous to the Chair as to anyone else in the House. The difficulty that I have in my mind is that if the policy outlined by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Haldane) is carried to its logical conclusion, we shall suffer more in Ireland than you do in England. I venture to suggest that he should extend this limit from 21 years—which may be some cut and dried figure as far as England is concerned, but which is not a cut and dried figure so far as Ireland is concerned—to something more in harmony with the suggestion of my hon. Friend. I strongly support the Amendment.
Mr. HALDANE Mr. HALDANE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
The CHAIRMAN The CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question, as he thought the Committee was prepared very shortly to come to a decision without that Motion.
Debate resumed.
Captain CLIVE: There is another point, and that is the way in which it affects small holdings.
The CHAIRMAN: I do not see that that quite refers to the section.
Captain CLIVE: I am not sure whether it would affect small holdings, and if, at the end of the small holdings, the land might develop more than agricultural land. I should be glad to know whether it is the intention of the Government to charge this Reversion Duty in cases of that sort. It may be the intention of the County Council in that sort of case not to
charge the small holders, if continuing the lease, an increased rent; but if the Reversion Duty is charged to the County Council on any presumed increase in the value of the land, they will be driven to try and recover it.
Question put, "That the word 'twenty-one' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 103.

Division No. 344.]

AYES.

[11.40 p.m.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Laidlaw, Robert

Acland, Francis Dyke

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Lambert, George

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

Lamont, Norman

Agnew, George William

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Elibank, Master of

Lehmann, R. C.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Essex, R. W.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Esslemont. George Birnie

Levy, Sir Maurice

Armitage, R.

Evans, Sir S. T.

Lewis, John Herbert

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Everett, R. Lacey

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Astbury, John Meir

Falconer, J.

Lundon, T.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Fenwick, Charles

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Ferens, T. R.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lynch, H. B.

Barnes, G. N.

Findlay, Alexander

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Fuller, John Michael F.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Fullerton, Hugh

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Beale, W. P.

Gill, A. H.

Macpherson, J. T.

Beauchamp, E.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

McKenna, Rt Hon. Reginald

Beck, A. Cecil

Glover, Thomas

M'Micking, Major G.

Bell, Richard

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Maddison, Frederick

Bellairs, Carlyon

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. George)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Marnham, F J.

Bennett, E. N.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Massie, J.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Masterman, C. F. G.

Black, Arthur W.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Boulton, A. C. F.

Hall, Frederick

Micklem, Nathaniel

Bowerman, C. W.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Middlebrook, William

Brace, William

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Mond, A.

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Brodie, H. C.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Morse, L. L.

Brooke, Stopford

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

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

Harwood, George

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Bryce, J Annan

Hayden, John Patrick

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Nolan, Joseph

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hazleton, Richard

Nugent, Sir Waltery Richard

Byles, William Pollard

Hedges, A. Paget

Nuttall, Harry

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

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

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Henry, Charles S.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Chance, Frederick William

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

Parker, James (Halifax)

Charming, Sir Francis Allston

Higham, John Sharp

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hobart, Sir Robert

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

Clough, William

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon Charles E. H.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Clynes, J. R.

Hodge, John

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hogan, Michael

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

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

Holland, Sir William Henry

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Cooper, G. J.

Holt, Richard Durning

Pirie, Duncan V.

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

Hooper, A. G.

Pointer, J.

Cowan, W. H.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Crosfield, A. H.

Horniman, Emslie John

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Cross, Alexander

Hudson, Walter

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

Crossley, William J.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

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

Cullinan, J.

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Rendall, Athelstan

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Idris, T. H. W.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Illingworth, Percy H.

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

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Richardson, A.

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

Jackson, R. S.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Jenkins, J.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Jowett, F. W.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Dillon, John

Kekewich, Sir George

Robson, Sir Wiliam Snowdon

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Sutherland, J. E.

Waterlow, D. S.

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Watt, Henry A.

Rowlands, J.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

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

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

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Thomasson, Franklin

Wiles, Thomas

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

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

Wilkie, Alexander

Seddon, J.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Seely, Colonel

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Williamson, Sir A.

Shackleton, David James

Tomkinson, James

Wills, Arthur Walters

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

Toulmin, George

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

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Verney, F. W.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Simon, John Alisebrook

Vivian, Henry

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Snowden, P.

Walsh, Stephen

Wintrey, R.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Walters, John Tudor

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Walton, Joseph

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Summerbell, T.

NOES.

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

Fardell, Sir T. George

Newdegate, F. A.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fell, Arthur

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Forster, Henry William

Oddy, John James

Balcarres, Lord

Gardner, Ernest

Parkes, Ebenezer

Baldwin, Stanley

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Percy, Earl

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Gretton, John

Pretyman, E. G.

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

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hamilton, Marquess of

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Renton, Leslie

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Renwick, George

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bull, Sir William James

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Carlile, E. Hildred

Helmsley, Viscount

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cave, George

Hill, Sir Clement

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

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Starkey, John R.

Clive, Percy Archer

Kerry, Earl of

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Clyde, J. Avon

Keswick, William

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

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Thornton, Percy M.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Valentia, Viscount

Courthope, G. Loyd

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

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Craik, Sir Henry

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Dalrymple, Viscount

Lyttelton, Rt Hon. Alfred

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

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott-

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Younger, George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Meysey-Thompson E. C.

Du Cros, Arthur

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. George Denison Faber and Mr. Joynson-Hicks.

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Mr. HALDANE Mr. HALDANE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That the words of the Clause to the second word "the" […"to the same lessee or his successor in title the"]' be now put."
Question put, "That the Question, 'That the words of the Clause to the second word "the" stand part of the Clause' be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 101.

Division No. 345.]

AYES.

[11.55 p.m.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Bennett, E. N.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Barnes, G. N.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Agnew, George William

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Black, Arthur W.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Beale, W. P.

Bowerman, C. W.

Armitage, R.

Beauchamp E.

Brace, William

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Beck, A. Cecil

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Astbury, John Meir

Bell, Richard

Brodle, H. C.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Brooke, Stopford

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

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

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

Higham, John Sharp

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

Bryce, J Annan

Hobart, Sir Robert

Rendall, Atheistan

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hodge, John

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

Byles, William Pollard

Hogan, Michael

Richardson, A.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Holt, Richard Durning

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hooper, A. G.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Chance, Frederick William

Hope, John Deans (Fife, W.)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Horniman, Emslie John

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Clough, William

Hudson, Walter

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Clynes, J. R.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Rowlands, J.

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Cooper, G. J.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

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

Jenkins, J.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Cowan, W. H.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Scarisbrick. Sir T. T. L.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

Crosfield, A. H.

Jowett, F. W.

Seddon, J.

Cross, Alexander

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Seely, Colonel

Crossley, William J.

Lambert, George

Shackleton, David James

Cullinan, J.

Lamont, Norman

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Lehmann, R. C.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Snowden, P.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lewis, John Herbert

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Stanley, Hon. A Lyulph (Cheshire)

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

Lundon, T.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Strachey, Sir Edward

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lynch, H. B.

Summerbell, T.

Duncan, J. Hastinges (York, Otley)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Sutherland, J. E.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Elibank, Master of

Macpherson, J. T.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Essex, R. W.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Esslemont, George Birnie

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

M'Micking, Major G.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Everett, R. Lacey

Maddison, Frederick

Thomasson, Franklin

Falconer, J.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

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

Fenwick, Charles

Marnham, F. J.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Ferens, T. R.

Massie, J.

Tomkinson, James

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Masterman, C. F. G.

Toulmin, George

Findlay, Alexander

Menzies, Sir Walter

Verney, F. W.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Micklem, Nathaniel

Vivian, Henry

Fuller, John Michael F.

Middlebrook, William

Walsh, Stephen

Fullerton, Hugh

Mond, A.

Walters, John Tudor

Gill, A. H.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Walton, Joseph

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Morse, L. L.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Glover, Thomas

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Waterlow, D. S.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Nolan, Joseph

Watt, Henry A.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Hall, Frederick

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wiles, Thomas

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Wilkie, Alexander

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

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

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Williamson, Sir A.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Harwood, George

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

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

Hayden, John Patrick

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Hazleton, Richard

Pointer, J.

Winfrey, R.

Hedges, A. Paget

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

Henry, Charles S.

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

Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

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

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Balcarres, Lord

Bowles, G. Stewart

Clive, Percy Archer

Baldwin, Stanley

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Clyde, J. Avon

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

Bull, Sir William James

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Carlile, E. Hildred

Courthope, G. Loyd

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

Cave, George

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Craik, Sir Henry

404

405

Dalrymple, Viscount

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Kerry, Earl of

Remnant, James Farquharson

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Keswick, William

Renton, Leslie

Du Cros, Arthur

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Renwick, George

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Lane-Fox, G. R,

Ridsdale, E. A.

Faber, George Denison (York)

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

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

Long, Charles W. (Evesham)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Fell, Arthur

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Forster, H. W

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Gardner, Ernest

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Starkey, John R.

Gretton, John

Micklem, Nathaniel

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Thornton, Percy M.

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

Morpeth, Viscount

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Hamilton, Marquess of

Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Newdegate, F. A.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Oddy, John James

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

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Parkes, Ebenezer

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Helmsley, Viscount

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Younger, George

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

Hill, Sir Clement

Percy, Earl

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Pretyman, E. G.

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and

Joynson-Hicks, William

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

Viscount Valentia.

Question put accordingly, "That the words of the Clause to the second word 'the' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 99.

Division No. 346.]

AYES.

[12.3 a.m.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cowan, W. H.

Hayden, John Patrick

Acland, Francis Dyke

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Agnew, George William

Crosfield, A. H.

Hazleton, Richard

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cross, Alexander

Hedges, A. Paget

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Crossley, William J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Cullinan, J.

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

Armitage, R.

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Henry, Charles S.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

Astbury, John Meir

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Higham, John Sharp

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

Hobart, Sir Robert

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

Hodge, John

Barnes, G. N.

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

Hogan, Michael

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Holt, Richard Durning

Beale, W. P.

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Hooper, A. G.

Beauchamp, E.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Beck, A. Cecil

Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

Bell, Richard

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Horniman, Emslie John

Bellairs, Carlyon

Elibank, Master of

Hudson, Walter

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Essex, R. W.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Bennett, E. N.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Evans, Sir S. T.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Black, Arthur W.

Everett, R. Lacey

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Boulton, A. C. F.

Falconer, James

Jenkins, J.

Bowerman, C. W.

Fenwick, Charles

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Brace, William

Ferens, T. R.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Jowett, F. W.

Brodie, H. C.

Findlay, Alexander

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Brooke, Stopford

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Lambert, George

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

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lamont, Norman

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

Fullerton, Hugh

Lehmann, R. C.

Bryce, J. Annan

Gill, A. H.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Levy, Sir Maurice

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Glover, Thomas

Lewis, John Herbert

Byles, William Pollard

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Lundon, T.

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Lyell, Charles Henry

Chance, Frederick William

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Lynch, H. B.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hall, Frederick

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Clough, William

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Clynes, J. R.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Macpherson, J. T.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

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

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Cooper, G. J.

Harmsworth, R. L (Caithness-sh.)

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

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

Harvey, A. G C. (Rochdale)

M'Micking, Major G.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Harwood, George

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Marnham, F. J.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Thomasson, Franklin

Massie, J.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

Masterman, C. F. G.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Menzles, Sir Walter

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Tomkinson, James

Micklem, Nathaniel

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Toulmin, George

Middlebrook, William

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Verney, F. W.

Mond, A.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Vivian, Henry

Morse, L. L.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Walsh, Stephen

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Walters, John Tudor

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

Rowland, J.

Walton, Joseph

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Nolan, Joseph

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

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Wason, John Cartcart (Orkney)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Waterlow, D. S.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Seddon, J.

Watt, Henry A.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Seeley, Colonel

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Shackleton, David James

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

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

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Snowden, P.

Wiles, Thomas

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wilkie, Alexander

Pirie, Duncan V.

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Pointer, J

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Williamson, Sir A.

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wills, Arthur Walters

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Summerbell, T.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, H.)

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

Sutherland, J. E.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Winfrey, R.

Rendall, Athelstan

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

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

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

Richardson, A.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

NOES.

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

Fell, Arthur

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gardner, Ernest

Newdegate, F. A.

Arksright, John Stanhope

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Baldwin, Stanley

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Oddy, John James

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Parkes, Ebenezer

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gretton, John

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

Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester)

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

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

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

Percy, Earl

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamilton, Marquess of

Pretyman, E. G.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Remnant, James Farguharson

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Renton, Leslie

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Renwick, George

Bull, Sir William James

Helmsley, Viscount

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Ronald shay, Earl of

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Hill, Sir Clement

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Cave, George

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hunt, Rowland

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

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

Joynson-Hicks, William

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

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

Clive, Percy Archer

Kerry, Earl of

Starkey, John R

Clyde, J. Avon

Keswick, William

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Thornton, Percy M.

Courthope, G. Lloyd

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Valentia, Viscount

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

Walker, Col. W H. (Lancashire)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

Craik, Sir Henry

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

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Dalrymple, Viscount

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Du Cros, Arthur

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Younger, George

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

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

Morpeth, Viscount

Mr. BALFOUR Mr. BALFOUR moved, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
In my judgment the conditions under which the House is being asked to conduct its business is little short of a public scandal. The hours we have sat over this Bill during the last few days are these:
408
On Monday week we sat from a quarter to three to four o'clock on Tuesday morning; from a quarter to three on Tuesday to three o'clock on Wednesday morning; from a quarter to three on Wednesday to nine o'clock on Thursday morning; and from a quarter to three yesterday to six o'clock this morning. These are the facts with regard to

409
the length of our sittings; now let me consider, if I may for a moment, the character of the business we are discussing during these hours. I have been in the House in the old days, when we sat till very late hours, though never, I think, when hours so late as this became the habitual practice of the House, but that was on Bills simple in their character, however contentious, in which there were not new, difficult, and complex questions raised by each clause and each Amendment. In the Bills which it was then the practice of the House to discuss, second reading points on almost every Amendment and almost every clause were not raised, and no one can say—and I am quite sure that what I am now going to state will not be disputed—no man who has really listened to the Debates on this Bill can say, that they have not really been very instructive to all those who have tried to master the Bill. The Bill is one of greater intricacy and complexity than I suppose has ever been submitted to Parliament. It contains proposals more numerous and more novel than have ever been contained in one measure submitted to Parliament, and the task thrown upon the critics of the Bill and upon the Government who are responsible for it, through these circumstances, it is not easy to exaggerate. These are the conditions we have to contend with. How do the Government require us to contend with them? We are asked to sit here continuously for fourteen or fifteen hours, sometimes more, discussing these details. It is quite impossible that any Chairman or any Minister should sit through all these hours, and no Minister attempts to do it. It is perfectly impossible for new and difficult questions properly to be dealt with at one, two, three, right down to nine o'clock. There have been plenty of all-night sittings, but there were not these complicated questions raised at these unearthly hours touching the immediate interests of every taxpayer in the community. That has never been attempted in my Parliamentary experience. The Government are now attempting it. I have made some observations in the course of these Debates about the absence of the Prime Minister and his readiness to explain his views on these great financial problems outside the House. On a subsequent occasion the Prime Minister recalled this observation to my notice, and I said I quite agreed that only one Minister could really be responsible for the Bill, except on important occasions, where big
410
principles come into question. I did not desire or require the presence of the Prime Minister to supplement the efforts of the Minister in charge of the Bill. But that argument was based on the fact that there was a Minister in charge of the Bill. No Minister, had he a constitution of cast iron, could really fight a complicated Bill of this kind day after day, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right not to try it. The result is that the House sits continuously, but the Ministry does not. I understand an arrangement has been made that the voting power of the Government should be divided into squads and given alternate holidays. I have not the smallest objection to that. Let the Government manage their followers as they like. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer must manage the Finance Bill of the year, and it is quite impossible for this or any Chancellor of the Exchequer who ever lived to manage a Finance Bill of this character in the hours which we are expected to sit. I frankly admit—I do not know what use may be made of the confession—that I am perfectly unable to sit all those hours. I have gone to bed usually about two or half-past two in the morning, thinking that on the whole I had done all that human nature could be asked to do if I had done my best to take part in our discussions between half-past three in the afternoon and two o'clock in the morning. How many of the Ministers whom I see ranged on the bench opposite at this relatively early hour in the morning have sat through these long hours? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is perfectly true, does not go to bed until you, Mr. Chairman, have finally left the chair, but he goes to bed in the interval.
Sir W. ROBSON: He has been here the whole time. [Cries of "No."]
Mr. BALFOUR: Nor has the learned Attorney-General.
Sir W. ROBSON: I did not say I had, but I have been here a great many more hours than the right hon. Gentleman-opposite.
Mr. BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman has been. He is paid for it. [Cries of "Oh."] Yes, it is his business. [Cries of "Very mean," and "Bad form."] Am I supposed to have said something disrespectful of the hon. and learned Gentleman?
Sir W. ROBSON: May I remind the Committee that, though the right hon.

411
Gentleman may not have said anything disrespectful, he has said something which is entirely inaccurate. It is exactly what the Attorney-General is not paid for. The Attorney-General is paid for doing legal work, and he is not paid for assisting his colleagues, though he very gladly does it.
Mr. BALFOUR: I have been a Member of a good many Governments, but I have never heard this doctrine of the Attorney-General's duties propounded before. I will make this admission to the learned Gentleman—I do not think the work he does in this House is legal work. I would really, in all gravity and sincerity, ask those Members of the Committee who have taken some trouble to follow the course of these Debates whether they do seriously think that a Bill of this difficulty and complexity can be discussed under these conditions, and whether they think that a Bill, forced through under these conditions, will leave the House, or can leave the House, with the authority which the Debates of this House ought to command? The thing is quite impossible. I believe that all the Ministers who have any natural connection with the Bill, whoever they may be, are alike anxious to do their duty in the matter, but their duty cannot be done, and it is not done under these conditions. They do not give us the explanations we have a right to ask. They do not give us the arguments we have a right to demand.
The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that the argument is not what is required. He is judging by experience and not by theory. He is basing upon what he has heard what his historic reading would induce him to believe. No Ministry can work a Bill upon these terms. It cannot be done. Under these circumstances, in what I venture to say are the interests of the House itself as a debating Assembly, I do venture to say that after sitting up to six o'clock yesterday morning it is rather preposterous to ask us to sit up beyond a quarter to one in the morning. And it is for that reason, because I think the Government are not merely failing to defend their Bill, but, I think, are bringing the whole of our proceedings into the utmost possible discredit, that, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in the absence of the Prime Minister, both reposing after the inordinate labours which have been thrown upon them by this method of conducting business in
412
their absence, though I gave notice in the proper quarter that I was going to raise this question now, in their absence, but under the circumstances which I have endeavoured to state as forcibly as I could, but I hope not intemperately, I now submit that you report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Mr. HALDANE: The right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House has not been able to be present during a great deal of the discussion which has taken place. I was here until twenty minutes to six this morning, and I was here from the first moment I could get away from the duties of my office this evening, and I have been here since then, and I have followed these discussions which the right hon. Gentleman—he will forgive me for saying so—has not done. The result is that he has made a most ungenerous charge against me. [Cries of "Withdraw."]
The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has said anything which requires to be withdrawn.
Mr. HALDANE: What was the charge made by the right hon. Gentleman? His charge against the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that of absenting himself from the conduct of the Bill.
Mr. BALFOUR: No. I believe I said that it was perfectly impossible from the way in which the business is being conducted that he could be here.
Mr. HALDANE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is now resting. He has attended to this Bill with closeness and industry; just what one would expect from him. He is resting in his room at this moment. I decline to disturb him, and I hope we shall hear no more of these reproaches. The right hon. Gentleman speaks as though all the discussions which have taken place on this Bill have been of the most mild, moderate, and simple character. We were told with an immense flourish of trumpets that a series of Budget Committees were subdividing the work of covering the Order Paper with pages of Amendments, which have been apportioned out among right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester is chairman of one section, and the result is that the paper is covered with yards of Amendments. These Amendments must take time. I am not complaining, but I am asking right hon. and

413
hon. Gentlemen opposite not to complain either. Do they imagine that we bring in a Budget from this side of the House with pleasure? Large sums of money are to be taken. There are purposes for which revenue is required on an unusual scale. The Budget is of an unusual kind, and it would have been a little more unusual had it been the Budget of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is not to be wondered at if we debate these propositions at unusual length. The clauses on which we are engaged tonight are clauses conferring exemptions. Because the Government are taking what they believe to be a fair course in putting into the Bill certain exemptions, those exemptions are discussed at great length.
I quite recognise that the Bill takes a great deal of discussion. It is a measure which requires an unusual effort on both sides of the House. We are not sparing ourselves. This Bill is of a highly technical character, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has dealt with every part of it except the small questions on which my hon. friend and I this evening and last evening have given assistance. I do think that on a measure of this magnitude it is only reasonable to expect that some short period of rest should be given to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is in charge of it—conceded without preliminary criticisms of hard-worked Ministers. What is the position to-night. There are no great questions of principle, there are no questions of substance. There is a very simple matter of discussion before we finish the section which deals with this Reversion Duty. The matter has been argued at no excessive length on this side of the House, but with a great deal, shall I say, of repetition from some hon. Members on the other side. The situation is a very simple one. What we have got to do is to carry out the plan and programme which was discussed between the two Front Benches, and very nearly the subject of settlement. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I heard the letter which the right hon. Gentleman opposite read out this morning, and it seemed to me a settlement was very nearly arrived at. I am not discussing that, I am not asking for that. What I have to say is that the purpose of the Government is to get Clauses 8 and 9 this sitting, and with a reasonable disposition on the part of hon. Members opposite the substance of what is contained in those clauses is not such as to preclude the possibility of this being obtained at a
414
reasonable hour. But whatever the hour at which they are obtained the purpose and intention of the Government is to obtain them.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If any illustration were required to enforce what my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) said a few moments ago we should find it in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Haldane). His labours in connection with the Budget have been small. He sat through the major portion of yesterday's sittings, and, I think, the major portion of to-day's sittings, but upon the Budget discussions as a whole his attendance has been scanty, and his labours, as I say, have been small. But even he, with an intellect which is the admiration of his opponents as well as of his friends, was so exhausted by his effort that he not only could not follow the argument of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour), but he could not understand even the plain English which he uses. My right hon. Friend expressly said what is recognised by all of us on this side of the House, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given all the attention to this Bill, and all the attention in our Debates that any man could possibly give; and, let me add on behalf of my friends as well as myself, that under most trying circumstances he has treated them with uniform courtesy. We make, and we have made, no shadow of complaint about the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to the attendance which he gives in the House, or the periods of rest which he necessarily takes.
The complaint of my right hon. Friend was that you insist on the House going on with the Bill when it is physically impossible for the present or any Chancellor of the Exchequer to be present, and that when the Bill is of such a character that the Prime Minister, who has been less present in this Parliament than any Prime Minister in my experience, has justified his absence on the ground that no man except the Chancellor of the Exchequer can deal adequately with the questions at issue. The right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to argue that the hours we are asked to sit are reasonable, or to show that it was possible for the House to do its duty by a Bill of this kind if we sat for those hours. He gave the go-by to the whole argument of the Leader of the Opposition, either because he is too tired to understand it, or because he has no answer to give. What did he say in justification of the strain which he is

415
putting upon the Committee? He said that my friends and I had divided ourselves into Committees for the study of the Bill in order to consider what Amendments we should put down. Is that an unreasonable procedure? The Government has no reason to complain if, when confronted with these novel proposals on such intricate and complicated matters, we tried to fit ourselves for the debates by some preliminary study of those proposals. It is just the attendance which my hon. Friends have given outside the hours of the sittings of the House, on those Committees, which is more than anything else responsible for the high standard which these debates have maintained, for the substance of the Amendments which have been moved, and for the closeness of the reasoning with which those Amendments have been supported. The right hon. Gentleman said that this clause was one conferring exemptions, and he seemed to think we were unreasonable in asking to discuss it at all. If the Government had not put down some of these exemptions we should have had to propose and discuss them; the Government would then very likely have met them with a contemptuous refusal, only to be forced to accept them at our hands after discussion. For a part of the time which has been occupied the Government themselves are responsible.
Working these long hours they have not time between the sittings of the House to consider the Amendments to be discussed the next day. They do not know what those Amendments contain; they are not prepared for the case presented to the House; they meet the proposals with a refusal in the first instance, sometimes with repeated refusals, only at last to accept them. These things are unknown to the majority of the Members of this House. When we are discussing these Amendments, when these questions arise, the House does not wear its present aspect. A few scattered Members are asleep upon those benches, and the great bulk, by whom the provisions of this Bill are to be voted, have not the least conception of the arguments which are used, or even what are the questions upon which they are asked to give a vote. Part of the time occupied is directly due to the unpreparedness of the Government to deal with the Amendments when they are moved, and to the fact that they refused, in the first instance, concessions which they had to make later. My right
416
hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Sir Edward Carson) the other day asked a question. The Solicitor-General for Scotland entirely declined to answer. We had a motion to report Progress. That brought in the Chancellor of the Exchequer—always courteous, always businesslike—and he accepted, not the Amendment under discussion, but another, which gave us—I will not say satisfaction, but very nearly. A discussion took place and we proceeded with the Bill. I use that, net for the purpose of bringing a charge against the Government on their conduct of the Bill, but to show that that kind of thing is inseparable from the conditions under which the Government are trying to do their business, and make us do ours. And so long as they proceed with these expressly late sittings—not as an occasional or exceptional thing, but every night—so long must the conduct of business be of the same unsatisfactory nature.
The right hon. Gentleman added a further argument that the Government were prepared to sit till they got that portion of the Bill that they desire. He said: "We must do it, because of the magnitude of the task which the House has in passing this Bill at all, and because of the financial necessities of the nation." Is it not time that the Government dropped that talk about the financial necessities of the nation in regard to these land clauses? It applies to a part of their Bill, but here it is the hollowest of hollow shams. The Government do not profess themselves to believe that they are going to get more than a quarter of a million for the Treasury out of this tax, and under these circumstances the financial necessities of the year have nothing to say to urgency in connection with this tax. They may have something to say to urgency for other portions of the Bill which the Government have put after that portion which is not urgent. As regards the magnitude of the task which the Government have before them that is no justification for their action. It is an aggravation of their offence; that is to say, they insist on measuring the time which they think fair to allot to the discussion of these difficult subjects by the importance and intricacy of the questions they raise; they are attempting to curtail the time in order to fit in with the bloated programme they are determined to push through during the present Session. If that plea is allowed to prevail it is only necessary for any Government to introduce enough business and say

417
that is their programme for the Session in order to abolish debate altogether, and to prove to the House that it is necessary there should be no discussion, because merely to divide on Amendments would occupy the whole of an ordinary Session. The Prime Minister has now come in. I may make one concluding observation in his presence, which my right hon. Friend could not have made, and would not have made. I speak within the recollection of all who were Members of the late Parliament, when I say that the most continuous, ungenerous, and untrue attacks were made upon my right hon. Friend, not merely by Gentlemen who now sit upon the back benches and below the Gangway opposite—[An HON. MEMBER: "No, no."]—not by the hon. Member for Salford, he was not a Member of the House then, but by right hon. Gentlemen now sitting upon the Treasury Bench, and were repeated again and again, charging my right hon. Friend with neglecting his duty as Leader of the House—
The PRIME MINISTER The PRIME MINISTER dissented.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not say the Prime Minister made these charges; I do not know whether he did or not, but he did nothing to check his friends and followers. They were made in this House, and they were repeated in the Press of the party opposite, and were echoed on every platform. The Prime Minister has not given a quarter of the time to the service of this House that my right lion. Friend gave. My right hon. Friend was always scrupulous to be present here when questions were raised relating to the dignity of our proceedings and the conduct of our business, and there was no shadow of foundation for the charges which right hon. Gentlemen opposite dealt out against the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister in the last Parliament. They do lie against the present Prime Minister, who is hardly seen in this House during these Debates.
Sir MAURICE LEVY: I was a Member of the last Parliament and I am in a position to state that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) is absolutely unfounded. The Leader of the Opposition, I admit, was constantly in the House, but he was pleading for his friends, the brewers and the publicans.
The CHAIRMAN: That is not very relevant to the Motion before the Chair.
Sir MAURICE LEVY: The Prime Minister was challenged by the right hon. Gentleman—
The CHAIRMAN: That has no bearing on the question whether we should report Progress or not.
Mr. EVELYN CECIL: We ought not to go to a division with only the very short answer we have had from the Government Bench. Far from being an argument to resist this Motion, the speech of the Secretary of State for War was an argument in favour of it. I quite agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer requires a rest, but surely that is an argument for reporting Progress. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot attend to the Bill of which he is specially in charge, are we expected to go on criticising it in his absence? When the right hon. Gentleman says that the Government are not sparing themselves, what does he suppose the Opposition are doing? Are we not doing our best to attend to our public duties? Do hon. Members opposite imagine that it is not our duty to criticise this Bill? Do they not realise that what we are considering is the most unjust Bill that has ever been brought forward by any Government? We feel inclined to sit up day and night to resist the injustices which abound throughout this Bill, and we should not be doing our duty to the country if we did not do so. There are limits to everyone's health, and it is not fair to any Opposition to press forward a Bill of this magnitude in season and out of season, day and night. If we are to be treated with common fairness it is only right that we should report Progress at this stage. I remember during the last Parliament the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the country was sick of the doings of the last Government, and if they went to the country they would have it proved to them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was then a perfectly true prophet. Standing here, I venture to say that the country is utterly sick of the present Government.
The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that this is a Motion to report Progress.
Mr. E. CECIL: I venture to think that I am a true prophet also, and that the country takes this view because the Government will not report Progress, and will not treat the Opposition fairly.
Mr. WYNDHAM: The Secretary for War made one statement in the course

419
of his reply of such far-reaching importance that it deserves the attention of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman created a precedent. He stated it was the intention of the Government to take a certain number of clauses—in this case two clauses—at this sitting, no matter how long that sitting continues. No Minister has ever made such a statement before. When a Government considers itself forced to exercise authority over the liberty of the House it begins in a small way, and any new precedent is always increased. The closure was first brought in tentatively; it has become a normal part of our procedure. When the guillotine procedure was brought in it was defended on the ground that it was an abnormal procedure, which was not likely to be repeated; it has become a normal part of our procedure. Let us then pause when a new instrument is brought forward. Never before has a Minister said that so many clauses are to be passed at a sitting, no matter what points we raise. I believe that if the Committee and the individual Members who make it up accept that precedent, that it will become part of our normal procedure. It will be argued by hon. Members who sit in all quarters of the House that if the Government is determined to take a certain number of clauses during a sitting, then why not go to bed at one instead of six or nine or ten the next day. If it becomes part of our normal procedure the liberties of this House will be gone for ever.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: As one who has been constant during the
whole time this Bill has been in Committee, and as one who is not a Member of any Committee on the Budget, I claim leave to add one sentence to this discussion. I speak with some knowledge of the subject under discussion. We have to discuss a number of novel, inconsistent, very involved and generally almost unintelligible propositions. Time after time when arguments have been such that it has been impossible to make any proper reply to them from the Government side, we have been met in three distinctly different ways. On some occasions the learned Attorney-General has got up and attempted to lecture us, introducing legal jargon into the discussion. Until yesterday, when there was a distinct advance, the Chancellor of the Exchequer got up and said the exact point raised by the Amendment was dealt with in some other part of the Bill, and when we came to look for it, it was not there. The third method adopted by the Government was for some messenger to go to the Gentleman sitting behind the Chair and ask what the answer was to the point raised. When he was told there was no answer the Government moved the closure. We have heard a great deal about three courses, but that is the three courses to which we have been treated by the Government.
Mr. HALDANE Mr. HALDANE rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 223; Noes, 102.

Division No. 347.]

AYES.

[1.10 a.m.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

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

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Acland, Francis Dyke

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

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

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

Bryce, J. Annan

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

Agnew, George William

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Byles, William Pollard

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

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Armitage, R.

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Chance, Frederick William

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Astbury, John Meir

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Elibank, Master of

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Clough, William

Esslemont, George Birnie

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Clynes, J. R.

Evans, Sir S. T

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Everett, R. Lacey

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone N.)

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

Falconer J.

Beauchcmp, E.

Cooper, G. J.

Fenwick, Charles

Bell, Richard

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

Ferens, T. R.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cowan, W. H.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Bennett, E. N.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Findlay, Alexander

Berridge, T. H. D.

Crosfield, A. H.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Black, Arthur W.

Cross, Alexander

Fuller, John Michael F.

Bowerman, C. W.

Crossley, William J.

Fullerton, Hugh

Brace, William

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Gill, A. H.

Brodie, H. C.

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Glover, Thomas

Mackarness, Frederic C.

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

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Macpherson, J. T.

Seddon, J.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

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

Seely, Colonel

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Micking, Major G.

Shackleton, David James

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

Hall, Frederick

Marnham, F. J.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Middlebrook, William

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Mond, A.

Summerbell, T.

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

Morrell, Philip

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Morse, L. L.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Harwood, George

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

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hayden, John Patrick

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Hazel, Dr. A E.

Nolan, Joseph

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Hazleton, Richard

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Thomasson, Franklin

Hedges, A. Paget

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

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

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Tomkinson, James

Henry, Charles S.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Toulmin, George

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

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Verney, F. W.

Higham, John Sharp

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

Vivian, Henry

Hobart, Sir Robert

Philipps, Col Ivor (Southampton)

Walsh, Stephen

Hodge, John

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Walters, John Tudor

Hogan, Michael

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Walton, Joseph

Holland, Sir William Henry

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Holt, Richard Durning

Pirie, Duncan, V.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Hooper, A. G.

Pointer, J.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Pollard, Dr.

Waterlow, D. S.

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Watt, Henry A.

Horniman, Emslie John

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Hudson, Walter

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

Whitbread, S. Howard

Hyde, Clarendon

Rendall, Athelstan

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

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

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Jenkins, J.

Richardson, A.

Wiles, Thomas

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wilkie, Alexander

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Williamson, Sir A.

Lambert, George

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Lamont, Norman

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

Lehmann, R. C.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Winfrey, R.

Lewis, John Herbert

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon David

Rowlands, J.

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

Lundon, T.

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

Lyell, Charles Henry

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Balcarres, Lord

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

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

Baldwin, Stanley

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

Faber, George Denison (York)

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

Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Fell, Arthur

Lyttelton, Rt Hon. Alfred

Barrie, H T. (Londonderry, N.)

Forster, Henry William

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gardner, Ernest

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Bowles, G. Stewart

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morpeth, Viscount

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Gretton, John

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Bull, Sir William James

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Oddy, John James

Carlile, E. Hildred

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

Parkes, Ebenezer

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

Cave, George

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Percy, Earl

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Pretyman, E. G.

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

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Helmsley, Viscount

Remnant, James Farquharson

Clive, Percy Archer

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Renton, Leslie

Clyde, J. Avon

Hill, Sir Clement

Renwick, George

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Hills, J. W.

Robert, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Hunt, Rowland

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Craik, Sir Henry

Kerry, Earl of

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Keswick, William

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

422

423

Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

Starkey, John R.

Winterton, Earl

A. Acland-Hood and Viscount

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

Valentia.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 104; Noes, 220.

Division No. 348.]

AYES.

[1.15 a.m.

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

Fell, Arthur

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gardner, Ernest

Oddy, John James

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Baldwin, Stanley

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

Goulding Edward Alfred

Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gretton, John

Percy, Earl

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Pretyman, E. G.

Barrie, H T. (Londonderry, N.)

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

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamilton, Marquess of

Remnant, James Farquharson

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Renton, Leslie

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Renwick, George

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bull, Sir William James

Helmsley, Viscount

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Hill, Sir Clement

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hills, J. W.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Cave, George

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hunt, Rowland

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

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

Joynson-Hicks, William

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

Chance, Frederick William

Kerry, Earl of

Starkey, John R.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Keswick, William

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Clive, Percy Archer

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Valentia, Viscount

Clyde, J. Avon

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

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

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

Courthope, G. Loyd

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Whitbread, S. Howard

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Winterton, Earl

Dalrymple, Viscount

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Younger, George

Du Cros, Arthur

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Faber, George Denison (York)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

Newdegate, F. A.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Elibank, Master of

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

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Esslemont, George Birnie

Agnew, George William

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Everett, R. Lacey

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Clough, William

Falconer, James

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Clynes, J. R.

Fenwick, Charles

Armitage, R.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Ferens, T. R.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Cooper, G. J.

Findlay, Alexander

Astbury, Thomas Meir

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

Fuller, John Michael F.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cowan, W. H.

Fullerton, Hugh

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Gill, A. H.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Crosfield, A. H.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Cross, Alexander

Glover, Thomas

Bell, Richard

Crossley, William J.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cullinan, J.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Bennett, E. N.

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Black, Arthur W.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hall, Frederick

Bowerman, C. W.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Brace, William

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

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Brodie, H. C.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

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

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

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

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

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Bryce, J. Annan

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

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

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Harwood, George

Byles, William Pollard

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Hayden, John Patrick

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Mond, A.

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

Hazleton, Richard

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Hedges, A. Paget

Morrell, Philip

Simon, John Allsebrook

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morse, L. L.

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

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

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

Strachey, Sir Edward

Henry, Charles S.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

Nolan, Joseph

Summerbell, T.

Higham, John Sharp

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hodge, John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hogan, Michael

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Parker, James (Halifax)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Holt, Richard Durning

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Thomasson, Franklin

Hooper, A. G.

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

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

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Tomkinson, James

Horniman, Emslie John

Phillips, John (Longford S.)

Toulmin, George

Hudson, Walter

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Verney, F. W.

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Vivian, Henry

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pointer, J.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Walsh, Stephen

Jenkins, J.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Walters, John Tudor

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rendall, Athelstan

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Lambert, George

Richards, Thomas W. (Monmouth)

Waterlow, D. S.

Lamont, Norman

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

Watt, Henry A.

Lehmann, R. C.

Richardson, A

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Ridsdale, E. A.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Wiles, Thomas

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Wilkie, Alexander

Lundon, T.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Williamson, Sir A.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wills, Arthur Walters

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

Macpherson, J. T.

Rowlands, J.

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

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

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

M'Micking, Major G.

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

Winfrey, R.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Marnham, F. J.

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

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

Masterman, C. F. G.

Seddon, J.

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

Menzies, Sir Walter

Seely, Colonel

Middlebrook, William

Shackleton, David James

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The hon. Member for Kingston is absent for a moment and he has asked me to move the Amendment standing in his name. It is to omit the words in section (3) "the term of which extends." The effect of the Amendment which I move is that this particular section is an exemption, and is intended to be an exemption in favour of the taxpayer. The Government, in drawing up their exemption, have stipulated that if there is going to be any allowance made at all the new lease should be one which extends at least 21 years beyond the lease as determined. The effect of the Amendment which I am moving is to take out this limitation of the exemption so that when there is a lease that is put an end to, and a new lease is granted to the same lessee, the fact that that is done shall create an exemption without being limited to its being a new lease of 21 years. When one examines what the exemption granted by the Government is, one sees that it is but limited. It seems to me that under the Government proposals it does not matter
426
a rap whether the lease is granted for six years or 26 years. Why do they say: "We will not grant you any exemption at all unless your new lease is more than 21 years?" I think it is a reasonable thing that, if this Reversionary Duty is going to be paid in a year or two, and the Government get it in advance, that they should give the small reduction of 2½ per cent, in respect of the years they get it in advance.
Sir W. ROBSON: Where a lease which is subject to Reversion Duty, and therefore must be a lease of at least 21 years, is determinable by agreement of the parties before the 21 years have expired, of course it will immediately become payable, notwithstanding the determination of the lease. We allow in that case 2½ per cent, for each year by which the lease has been shortened, but we only propose to allow that in cases where a renewal of the lease has been made. The object is the encouragement of long leasehold periods instead of short periods, so that we do not give the 2½ per cent, unless the renewal

427
of the lease is for a long leasehold period. We want at least a period of 21 years for the new lease, one reason being that we think it of advantage to the tenant that the period should be long.
Sir HENRY CRAIK: The Secretary of State for War on a previous section was asked why under that section he gave an abatement only to leases which were under 21 years. In the present section the Attorney-General will only give the abatement to leases which extend beyond 21 years. Is this not a specimen of what we have been saying, that those who watch carefully the discussions are simply confused and perplexed by absolutely opposite arguments to meet the exigencies of the particular moment? Those who attend closely to these Debates, instead of being enlightened or finding any guiding principle in the action that directs the Front Bench opposite, only discover in the successive discussions the very opposite principles advanced.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: Has the Attorney-General considered the case of mining leases in connection with this matter, because I had an Amendment, which I was unable to move on account of the closure, to encourage the granting of fresh mining leases? Very often it is desirable that there should be a re-lease for a few years, and that it should be made on the very best terms. Therefore, it is most desirable that such cases should have the same advantage as that proposed to be given by the Government to leases exceeding 21 years. It is an advantage both to the lessee and to the lessor. Very often these re-leases do not extend to 21 years, because the whole of the minerals would be worked out in perhaps five or ten years.
Sir W. ROBSON: I am much obliged to the hon. Member, because the illustration he gives strongly enforces my argument. I think it is particularly desirable in the case of mining leases that the lessor should be encouraged to renew the lease and to make it for a long term.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: But it would not be wanted for a long term, because, in most cases, the minerals would have been worked out.
Sir W. ROBSON: In that case it is only a short lease which is being given, and not a lease on which we should be able to collect Reversion Duty. I do not see any reason why the State should give
428
a bonus in such a case. It is only in the case of a long lease that the State has any interest in giving a bonus.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The whole object of this exemption will be defeated if the Government stick to their clause, because in 99 cases out of 100 the lease would be given for 22 years, and then next year it would be put in the fire, and I do not see why we should pass a stupid clause like this, which is sure to lead to evasion in the case of leases from which any revenue could be derived.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: It seems that the phraseology of the Bill is chosen so as to catch the lessor every way. If he makes a lease for a short number of years he is brought in for the Reversion Duty, and if for a long period the duty will be payable at the end. It seems to be the object of the Government to catch the lessor sooner or later; but there is neither logic, consistency, nor sense in it.
Mr. STEWART BOWLES: The Attorney-General has said that these words constitute what he called bonus upon long leases, and the object of the Government in inserting the words has been to make an alteration to have an effect upon the leasehold system of the country. All I should like to remind the Committee of is that this is not a bill to deal with the leasehold system. This is a Finance Bill, and the object of this Bill and of this clause should be, I hold, not to deal in one way or another with a system of building leases or other leases, but to fill the Exchequer with this Reversion Duty, and what the Government are doing by inserting these words is to effect an alteration, not of a financial character, but in the leasehold system of building land in this country, and in order to do that they are deliberately giving up a considerable portion of duty, and, as my hon. friend below me says with great knowledge, they are putting a direct temptation before persons to very easily evade the whole purpose of this clause. These are really not fiscal clauses at all; they have behind them a determination to effect changes, not in the fiscal system of the country, but in the system of tenure of land under the cover of a Finance Bill. For that reason, I think this Amendment a thoroughly reasonable one, and I hope my hon. Friend will go to a division.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I want to put a point of order—namely, whether this Amendment will cut out my succeeding

429
Amendment, to leave out "beyond the date on which the original lease would have expired" ["and a fresh lease of the land is then granted to the same lessee or his successor in title, the term of which extends at least twenty-one years 'beyond the date on which the original lease would have expired"]. Mr. Emmott ruled that it would depend on how the discussion on this Amendment went.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think I ought to be asked to decide at this stage whether future Amendments will be in order.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Then in case the Amendment should be ruled out of order I will put the point it raises now. This clause prevents the bonus accruing unless
the lease extends beyond 21 years beyond the date on which the original lease would have expired. I would point out that it will be very unfair to put a clause in this Act enabling a man under this Act to do something which in another Act he cannot do.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I should like to consider the point raised by the hon. Member. I will give it careful consideration. I am not at present prepared to accept his argument or his words.
Question put, "That the words 'the term of which extends' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 88.

Division No. 349.]

AYES.

[1.50 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Evans, Sir S. T.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

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

Everett, R. Lacey

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

Agnew, George William

Falconer, J.

M'Micking, Major G.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Fenwick, Charles

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Armitage, R.

Ferens, T. R.

Marnham, F. J.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Fuller, John Michael F.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Astbury, John Meir

Fullerton, Hugh

Menzies, Sir Walter

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Gill, A. H.

Middlebrook, William

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Mond, A.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Glover, Thomas

Montague, Hon. E. S.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Morrell, Philip

Bell, Richard

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Morse, L. L.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Bennett, E. N.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Berridge, T. H. D.

Hall, Frederick

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Black, Arthur W.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Bowerman, C. W.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Brace, William

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

Harmsworth, R L. (Caithness-sh.)

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

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

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Harwood, George

Philipps Owen C. (Pembroke)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hayden, John Patrick

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Byles, William Pollard

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hazleton, Richard

Pirie, Duncan V

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Pointer, J.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hedges, A. Paget

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Chance, Frederick W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

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

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Henry, Charles S.

Rendall, Athelstan

Clough, William

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

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Clynes, J. R.

Higham, John Sharp

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

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hodge, John

Richardson, A.

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

Hogan, Michael

Ridsdale, E. A.

Cooper, G. J.

Holt, Richard Durning

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

Hooper, A. G

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cowan, W. H.

Horniman, Emslie John

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hudson, Walter

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Crossley, William J.

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Jenkins, J.

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rowlands, J.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

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

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lambert, George

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

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

Lamont, Norman

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

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

Lehmann, R. C.

Seddon, J.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Seely, Colonel

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Shackleton, David James

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Lewis, John Herbert

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

Lundon, T.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Elibank, Master of

Macpherson, J. T.

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Walsh, Stephen

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Summerbell, T.

Walters, John Tudor

Williamson, Sir A.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Walton, Joseph

Wills, Arthur Walters

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Watt, Henry A.

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

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

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Tomkinson, James

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

Toulmin, George

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

Verney, F. W.

Wiles, Thomas

Vivian, Henry

Wilkie, Alexander

NOES.

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

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Oddy, John James

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Balcarres, Lord

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Baldwin, Stanley

Gretton, John

Percy, Earl

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Pretyman, E. G.

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

Haddock, George B.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamilton, Marquess of

Renton, Leslie

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hardy, Laurence, (Kent, Ashford)

Renwick, George

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Bull, Sir William James

Helmsley, Viscount

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hill, Sir Clement

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hills, J. W.

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

Clive, Percy Archer

Hunt, Rowland

Starkey, John R.

Clyde, J. Avon

Joynson-Hicks, William

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Kerry, Earl of

Valentia, Viscount

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

Craik, Sir Henry

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

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Dalrymple, Viscount

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

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

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Younger, George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Watson Rutherford and Mr. James

Fell, Arthur

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Forster, Henry William

Newdegate, F. A.

Hope.

Gardner, Ernest

Nicholson, Wm. G. Petersfield)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and agreed to.

Sir W. ROBSON Sir W. ROBSON moved, in section (3) after the word "determined" ["for every year of the original term of the lease which is unexpired when the lease is determined "] to insert the words "and any sum so allowed shall be treated as having been paid."
This is a small drafting amendment. It relates to the 2½ per cent, which is treated in section 3 as an allowance. When we come to section 4 a special benefit is given to a reversioner. If he has actually paid Reversion Duty he is allowed to put it against Increment Value Duty when the Increment Value Duty and the Reversion Duty fall to be due in respect of exactly the same value. The draftsmen declare that might be so and the allowance was not a payment, so that the reversioner would not be able to get the advantage. These words are added to say that the allowance is to be treated as a payment. That will give the reversioner the benefit proposed.
Mr. REMNANT Mr. REMNANT moved in section (3) to leave out the words "Provided that the allowance shall not exceed fifty per cent. of the whole duty payable." The Committee will see in reference to section 3 of Clause 8 that under certain circumstances where a fresh lease extends at least twenty-one years beyond the date on which the original lease would have expired, the Commissioners shall make an allowance in respect of the reversion duty payable of 2½ per cent, of the duty for every year of the original term of the lease which is unexpired when the lease is determined. Of course, it may be a longer lease, and my contention is that if the allowance is really meant to be an allowance there ought not to be any deduction from the amount. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider this amendment as reasonable.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This allowance is in the nature of an inducement to a

433
lessor to grant a renewal. As the hon. Member knows very well, businesses are often restricted in their extension by the difficulty experienced in obtaining a renewal of a lease. That is a common thing, especially in the case of small people, who say, "Here we have spent a lot of money on the development of the land, and we cannot get a renewal on reasonable terms." What is proposed is in the nature of an allowance. It is an encouragement to the lessor to grant a renewal before the expiry of the lease. At the same time we want to avoid the possibility of any arrangement between the lessor and the lessee which would whittle away the value of the tax. I think the revenue makes a very liberal allowance. We are prepared to drop 50 per cent, of the tax by way of inducing the parties to extend the lease, and I do not think hon. Members can expect the Government to go beyond that.
Mr. PRETYMAN: We have understood all along that this is a tax which would revolutionise our leasehold system, and at the same time would produce something for the revenue. I sympathise with the object of this proposal of the Government. It is a great advantage to a lessee to be able to know long before the determination of a lease that he will be able to continue in the property on the same conditions as before, and have security for any expenditure. What I would point out, however, is that this is reducing the revenue. It shows how Part I. of the Bill is gradually becoming more and more a question of valuation, an interference with the general leasehold system of the country, and less and less a question of revenue. It is becoming more and more a question of introducing matters into a Finance Bill which in reality has nothing to do with it.
Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I submit that what this really amounts to is a 2½ per cent, discount. If the Reversion Duty happens to be £500, and it is paid ten years before the time it would normally fall due, because the lease is renewed ten years before the time when the old lease drops in, it means 2½ per cent. each year.
Therefore, it would be 20 years before the 50 per cent, was reached, and I really do not think that, as a fact, those leases come in for renewal within a period of 20 years at all. It is during the last 10 or 12 years that they come in. 2½ per cent, is by no means a generous rate of discount to allow a man for making his payments 10 or 12 years before they are due, and I do not think it would be very tempting to hold out to him such an inducement. In addition, should it happen to be over 20 years, then he gets no discount at all. Surely the discount should run whether it is a matter of 10, 20, 30, or 40 years.
Viscount HELMSLEY: I think this only furnishes further evidence of what has been contended all along, namely, that the tax puts an absolute prohibition upon anybody renewing a lease on the same terms as before. That is the weakness of the whole tax, and the fact that the Government are making this very meagre allowance proves it. You are not taxing the actual benefits which the lessor gets by reason of the enhanced rent he is able to obtain from the lessee. The basis of the tax is the difference between the total value of the land at the time of the determination of the lease and the total value at the time of the original grant of the lease. It is absurd to say, under the circumstances contemplated by this Bill, that you are only going to give the man 2½ per cent., and you are going further to limit it by saying that in no case shall it exceed 50 per cent. As there is a direct premium on the lessor to exact a higher rent because of your tax, I really think there is very little in it. I believe that this sub-section, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to think is some sort of encouragement to the lessor to let his land on favourable terms, will not really act in that way at all. I certainly shall support the Amendment.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 174; Noes, 85.

Division No. 350.]

AYES.

[2.10 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Black, Arthur W.

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

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Bowerman, C W.

Agnew, George William

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Brace, William

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

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

Armitage, R.

Beauchamp, E.

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

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Bellairs, Carlyon

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Bennett, E. N.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Astbury, John Meir

Berridge, T. H. D.

Byles, William Pollard

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hedges, A. Paget

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)

Crawley, Sir Frederick

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

Richardson, A.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Henry, Charles S.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Clough, William

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

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Clynes, J. R.

Higham, John Sharp

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hodge, John

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

Hogan, Michael

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Cooper, G. J.

Holt, Richard Durning

Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

Hooper, A. G.

Rowlands, J.

Cowan, W. H.

Hudson, Walter

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

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Crosfield, A. H.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Crossley, William J.

Jenkins, J.

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

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Seely, Colonel

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Shackleton, David James

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lambert, George

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lamont, Norman

Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

Lehmann, R. C.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

Levy, Sir Maurice

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Strachey, Sir Edward

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lundon, Thomas

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Macpherson, J. T.

Thomasson, Franklin

Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

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

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

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

M'Micking, Major G.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Elibank, Master of

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Tomkinson, James

Evans, Sir S. T.

Marnham, F. J.

Toulmin, George

Everett, R. Lacey

Masterman, C. F. G.

Verney, F. W.

Falconer, James

Menzies, Sir Walter

Walters, John Tudor

Fenwick, Charles

Middlebrook, William

Walton, Joseph

Ferens, T. R

Mond, A.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Watt, Henry A.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Worrell, Philip

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Gladstone, R. Hon. Herbert John

Morse, L. L.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Glover, Thomas

Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid.)

Wiles, Thomas B.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilkie, Alexander

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Hall, Frederick

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

Williamson, Sir A.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Pirie, Duncan V.

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

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Pointer, J.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wood, T. M'Kinoon

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Harwood, George

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

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

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Rendall, Athelstan

NOES.

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

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Oddy, John James

Balcarres, Lord

Gretton, John

Parkes, Ebenezer

Baldwin, Stanley

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

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

Percy, Earl

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

Haddock, George B.

Pretyman, E. G.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamilton, Marquess of

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Renton, Leslie

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Renwick, George

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Bull, Sir William James

Helmsley, Viscount

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hill, Sir Clement

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hills, J. W.

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

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

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Starkey, John R.

Clive, Percy Archer

Hunt, Rowland

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Clyde, J. Avon

Joynson-Hicks, William

Valentia, Viscount

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Kerry, Earl of

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

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

Dairymple, Viscount

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott

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

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

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

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Younger, George

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

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Fell, Arthur

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Forster, Henry William

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Remnant and Mr. Harmood-Banner.

Gardner, Ernest

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Newdegate, F. A.

Mr. PRETYMAN: The next Amendment which stands in my name is practically the same as one which was passed over. My Amendment is to the effect that any part of the benefit accruing to the lessor which is due to any increase in site value of the land, no Reversion Duty shall be charged on that part of the site value which has accrued before the 30th day of April, 1909. It is clearly not the person who grants the lease who is the only person referred to in this section, but his successor in title as well. I can find no reference to the lessor in the clause. If I put in "or to his successor in title" the Government might prefer to deal with the Amendment in the definition clause. I should like to know the view of the Government. Perhaps the Attorney-General would tell us about it.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This would be a subsequent Amendment.
Mr. PRETYMAN: The word "lessor" occurs in my Amendment. I want to know from the Attorney-General whether the word "lessor," unless otherwise defined, is not confined to the grantor of the lease?
Sir W. ROBSON: I think the word would be construed in accordance with the definition in the Conveyancing and Settled Lands Act, 1881, where "lessor" is supposed to include successors in title, but we are not going to rely on it. If necessary we will introduce words in the definition clause.
Mr. PRETYMAN: But was not the word "lessor" only used in the resolution on which these clauses are founded?
Sir W. ROBSON: The resolution always receives a very generous construction because it is in the widest and most general terms. I have no doubt that the word "lessor" was used, and that it includes successors in title.
Mr. PRETYMAN: That remains to be seen. I understand we had a point of exactly similar character raised with regard to Increment Duty, and the ruling of the Speaker was that the original word in the resolution must cover the whole ground, but that it could be afterwards limited or defined, though not extended. The word "lessor" clearly refers to the grantor of a lease, and it is to be extended by the Bill to cover not only the grantor of the lease, but a totally different person, his successor in title. That is clearly an extension, and it is a very doubtful point whether the whole of these clauses that
438
we have been discussing are covered by the resolution on which they are founded. With regard to the Amendment, it is merely to bring the Reversion Duty into line with Increment Value Duty in respect to site value. When we were discussing site value the Government constantly repeated the principle that Increment Value Duty should not be retrospective, and that they do not propose in regard to any land to demand Increment Value Duty upon any part of the value which has accrued prior to this year, but only that which accrues in future. In Reversion Duty site value is included. Reversion Duty is raised, not upon site value, but upon total value, which consists of two things which this Bill proposes to separate. What we suggest here is that site value ought to be dealt with in this part of the Bill exactly as it is in the Increment Value Duty clauses.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I suggest that any such Amendment as that now suggested by the hon. and gallant Member is out of order at this stage. Substantially his proposal is that the site should be eliminated. Clearly Clause 7 was the place in which that ought to have been moved.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): It was ruled on Clause 7 that the exceptions should come under Clause 8, and the exceptions here are in similar terms to the exceptions on the Paper. So that the proposed Amendment is quite in order on Clause 8.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I think I can convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his very next section is an exemption of site value. My Amendment proposes to exempt a part of the site value which he does not already exempt. It is not proposed to charge Reversion Duty on site value after this year, because he is going to get it as increment value. Therefore, he is putting that exemption in his Bill. He will, I think, see that there is no ground for his objection to my Amendment at all. The lessee has put valuable buildings on the land, but the lessor, having spent neither money nor brains, has become the owner, and it is thought proper that he should pay something to the State. But as regards the site value it has remained from the first the property of the lessor, and the lessee has not altered the land. There the land stands. It is the fee simple property of the lessor for the whole period. What has the tenant done to the land? He may have improved

439
the value to some extent by the buildings he has put upon it, but that is not the point you can consider here, because he will get the benefit of that in the value of his buildings. The fee simple of the land has never belonged to anybody other than the lessor. I hope the time of the Committee will be saved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepting this very reasonable Amendment.
Question proposed, to insert as a new section the words "(4) When any part of the benefit accruing to the lessor is due to any increase in the site value of the land, no Reversion Duty shall be charged on that part of the site value which has accrued before the 30th of April, 1909."
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman argues this Amendment on the analogy of the tax. It is a totally different duty. It is a duty imposed on different principles, and the mere fact that it is retrospective in its character shows that it is different. This is a sort of death duty on the lease imposed upon the occasion of the death of the lease, and, whatever the boon which accrues to the land on that date we propose to annex one-tenth. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that if you are going to tax at all tax the improvements by the tenant, but don't tax the site. "What has the tenant done to the land?" says the hon. and gallant Member. But what has the landlord done to the land? This is not a question of the rights of the landlord or the rights of the tenant; but a question of the right of the State to impose a tax, and the only question is whether they should tax the improvements which come to the landlord or tax the site. The State says this is a very fair subject on which to levy a tax. The rights of the landlord and the tenant are not at all relevant to the subject under discussion. It is true the value of the site is not created by the tenant; but it is equally a boon which comes to the landlord without any effort on his own part. It really comes within the definition I have often laid down of something which comes to the landlord without any exercise of brain or muscle on his part. I think it is a fair subject for taxation, and I really cannot see there is any distinction between one case and the other.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The last argument of the right hon. Gentleman surely will carry him very much farther than the tax he is imposing. He says that
440
the increased site value in the case of land which has been leased is a boon which comes to the landlord through no effort of his own. That might also be applied to land which he occupies; but this tax has nothing to do with land he occupies, it only has to do with leases. It must have to do with some boon which comes to the landlord in virtue of the lease, otherwise there is no reason for placing a special tax on the benefit accruing when the lease expired without placing a correlative tax at correlative periods on other land receiving the same benefit. Let me examine the other attempt of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to destroy the analogy which my hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman) drew between this tax and the Increment Tax. The right hon. Gentleman disposed of that by saying it is a different duty based upon different principles. You call it by a different name it is true. The principles of the Government are elastic enough to change not only from one tax to another, but from one Amendment to another, as we have seen frequently during these discussions. Is there any fundamental difference between the exclusion my hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman) seeks to introduce here and that which was introduced into the other tax. The Government have repeated over and over again that there might be some charge of injustice brought against them if they taxed an Increment Duty which had accrued in the past. They boast they have done nothing of the kind, and therefore they are not open to any charge of injustice to any individual. The Government have laid great stress upon that. I think they were wrong in their facts. The tax then being imposed was Increment Duty on site value. There the Government believed they had excluded all past site values. All that my hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman) does is to ask that past site values shall be exempted equally from this other Increment Tax. It is quite true it is called a Reversion Tax, because it is collected on the falling in of a reversion, but it is every bit as much an Increment Tax. It is a tax on the added value which has accrued during the period of the lease. The only difference between that and the first tax is that here the occasion of collection is the reversion of the lease, and there it was the transfer on sale or lease of the land. There is really no difference in substance. It is a difference in terminology, and the accident of the occasion on which you are levying the tax.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 83; Noes, 164.

Division No. 351.]

AYES.

[2.46 a.m.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Balcarres, Lord

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Oddy, John James

Baldwin, Stanley

Gretton, John

Parkes, Ebenezer

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmds.)

Percy, Earl

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

Haddock, George B.

Pretyman, E. G.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamilton, Marquess of

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Remnant, James Ferquharson

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Renton, Leslie

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Renwick, George

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Helmsley, Viscount

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bull, Sir William James

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hill, Sir Clement

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Castlereagn, Viscount

Hills, J. W.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

Hunt, Rowland

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

Clive, Percy Archer

Joynson-Hicks, William

Starkey, John R.

Clyde, James Avon

Kerry, Earl of

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Walker, Col W. H. (Lancashire)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

Dairymple, Viscount

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

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Younger, George

Fell, Arthur

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Forster, Henry William

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

Gardner, Ernest

Morrison-Bell, Captain

A. Acland-Hood and Viscount

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Newdegate, F. A.

Valentia.

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

Levy, Sir Maurice

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

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lewis, John Herbert

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Elibank, Master of

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Armitage, R.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lundon, T.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Falconer, James

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Astbury, John Meir

Fenwick, Charles

Macpherson, J. T.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Ferens, T. R.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

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

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Micking, Major G.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Glever, Thomas

Marnham, F. J.

Bennett, E. N.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Black, Arthur W.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Bowerman, C. W.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Middlebrook, William

Brace, William

Hall, Frederick

Mond, A.

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

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Morrell, Philip

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Morse, L. L.

Byles, William Pollard

Hannsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Harwood, George

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

Clough, William

Hayden, John Patrick

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Clynes, J. R.

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hazleton, Richard

Pirie, Duncan V.

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

Hedges, A. Paget

Pointer, J.

Cooper, G. J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen W.)

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

Cowan, W. H.

Henry, Charles S.

Rendall, Athelstan

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Crosfield, A. H.

Higham, John Sharp

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

Crossley, William

Hodge, John

Richardson, A.

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Hogan, Michael

Ridsdale, E. A.

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Holt, Richard Durning

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hooper, A. G.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hudson, Walter

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

Jenkins, J.

Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rowlands, J.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lamont, Norman

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Lehmann, R. C.

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

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

Seddon, J.

Thomasson, Franklin

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

Seely, Colonel

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

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Shackleton, David James

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Wilkie, Alexander

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

Tomkinson, James

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Toulmin, George

Williamson, Sir A.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Walters, John Tudor

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Walton, Joseph

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Watt, Henry A.

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

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That the words of the Clause down to the
end of section (4) stand part of the Clause,' be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 79.

Division No. 352.]

AYES.

[2.55 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

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

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

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Hall, Frederick

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Armitage, R.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Herdie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Pointer, J.

Astbury, John Meir

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

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

Baring, Godfrey (isle of Wight)

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

Rendall, Athelstan

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Harwood, George

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

Bellairs, Carlyon

Hayden, John Patrick

Richardson, A.

Bennett, E. N.

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Hazleton, Richard

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Black, Arthur W.

Hedges, A. Paget

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Bowerman, C. W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Brace, William

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

Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

Henry, Charles S.

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

Rowlands, J.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Higham, John Sharp

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

Byles, William Pollard

Hodge, John

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Car-Gomm, H. W.

Hogan, Michael

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Holt, Richard Durning

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

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hooper, A. G.

Seddon, J.

Clough, William

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Seely, Colonel

Clynes, J. R.

Hudson, Walter

Shackleton, David James

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Cooper, G. J.

Jenkins, J.

Simon, John Allsebrook

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

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Cowan, W. H.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Strachey. Sir Edward

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lamont, Norman

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Crosfield, A. H.

Lehmann, R. C.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwick)

Crossley, William J.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Levy, Sir Maurice

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

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Tomkinson, James

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lundon, T.

Toulmin, George

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

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Walters, John Tudor

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Macpherson, J. T.

Walton, Joseph

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

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Wason, John Carthcart (Orkney)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

Watt, Henry A.

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

M'Micking, Major G.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbarton)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Marnham, F. J.

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

Elibank, Master of

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Everett, R. Lacey

Masterman, C. F. G.

Wilkie, Alexander

Falconer, J

Menzies, Sir Walter

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Fenwick, Charles

Middlebrook, William

Williamson, Sir A.

Ferens, T. R.

Mond, A.

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

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Morrell, Philip

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Morse, L. L.

Glover, Thomas

Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Balcarres, Lord

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Baldwin, Stanley

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

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Percy, Earl

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Pretyman, E. C.

Bull, Sir William James

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Helmsley, Viscount

Remnant, James Farquharson

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Renton, Leslie

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hill, Sir Clement

Ridsdale, E. A.

Clive, Percy Archer

Hills, J. W.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Clyde, J. Avon

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Hunt, Rowland

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Kerry, Earl of

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Starkey, John R.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

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

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Faber, George Denison, (York)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

Fell, Arthur

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

Gardner, Ernest

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Morpeth, Viscount

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Younger, George

Gretton, John

Newdegate, F. A.

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

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

Oddy, John James

A. Acland-Hood and Viscount

Haddock, George B.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Valentia.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Question put accordingly, "That the words of the Clause down to the end of section (4) stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 78.

Division No. 353.]

AYES.

[3.5 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Marnham, F. J.

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

Fuller, John Michael F.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Masterman, C. F. G.

Armitage, R.

Glover, Thomas

Menzies, Sir Walter

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Middlebrook, William

Astbury, John Meir

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Mond, A.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Morrell, Philip

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Hall, Frederick

Morse, L. L.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

Bennett, E. N.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

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

Black, Arthur W.

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

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Bowerman, C. W.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Brace, William

Harwood, George

Pointer, J.

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

Hayden, John Patrick

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

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

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hazleton, Richard

Rendall, Athelstan

Byles, William Pollard

Hedges, A. Paget

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

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

Richardson, A.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Henry, Charles S.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Clough, William

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

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Clynes, J. R.

Higham, John Sharp

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hodge, John

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

Hogan, Michael

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Cooper, G. J.

Holt, Richard Durning

Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

Hooper, A. G.

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Cowan, W. H.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Rowlands, J.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hudson, Walter

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

Crosfield A. H.

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Crossley, William J.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Dalziel, Sir Charles Henry

Jenkins, J.

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

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Seddon, J.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Seely, Colonel

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

Lamont, Norman

Shackleton, David James

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lehmann, R. C.

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

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

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Simon, John Allsebrook

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Lewis, John Herbert

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

Lundon, T.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Elibank, Master of

Macpherson, J. T.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Everett, R. Lacey

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Falconer, James

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

Thomasson, Franklin

Fenwick, Charles

M'Micking, Major G.

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

Ferens, T. R.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Tomkinson, James

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

Toulmin, George

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

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Walters, John Tudor

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Walton, Joseph

Wilkie, Alexander

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

Watt, Henry A.

Williamson, Sir A.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

NOES.

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gretton, John

Oddy, John James

Baldwin, Stanley

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester)

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

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

Haddock, George B.

Percy, Earl

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamilton, Marquess of

Pretyman, E. G.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harrison-Broadiey, H. B.

Renton, Leslie

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Helmsley, Viscount

Renwick, George

Bull, Sir William James

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hill, Sir Clement

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hills, J. W.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

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

Hunt, Rowland

Starkey, John R.

Clive, Percy Archer

Joynson-Hicks, William

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Clyde, J. Avon

Kerry, Earl of

Valentia, Viscount

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

Darlymple, Viscount

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

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Meson, James F. (Windsor)

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

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Younger, George

Fell, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

Gardner, Ernest

Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Newdegate, F. A.

Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.

Mr. LAMBTON Mr. LAMBTON moved a new section: "(5) The provisions of this part of this Act with respect to Reversion Duty shall not apply to minerals in any case in which such minerals are re-let by the owner before or within twelve calendar months after the determination of the lease."
By the word re-let I mean re-let to the existing tenant. I mentioned the other day that certainly in Durham and Northumberland, when these leases fall in they are invariably re-let for a short period without any consideration being claimed by the lessor for the buildings upon the land. Therefore, I maintain that, if you are going to take the total value of the land for this Reversion Duty, you would be imposing a hardship upon the lessor. Supposing the increase of rent amounts to £1,000 that will be capitalised, and a duty claimed of 10 per cent., though there is no guarantee at all that the extra rent is even received, but it is only on paper, so to say. The lease would depend on the amount of coal, and when the reversion falls in the lessor will have to pay Reversion Duty, although, in the long run, he may never get the extra amount under the lease. He will also have to pay the halfpenny tax.
If this clause is passed as it stands now he will have to pay twice over, though it
448
has always been the contention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will not require anyone to pay twice over. The case was given last night of the Wigan Coal and Iron Company, which seems to be a very curious company, for they gave up a lease which apparently the owner took back with great velocity. If he re-let it to someone else I presume the new tenant gave more, or was willing to give more, than the Wigan Coal and Iron Company would give, which proved that the company were not working it properly, or that the new tenant thought it was worth a good deal more. In such a case, if the owner of the property took the property back on reversion, and the houses, then I say that if there is any justice in this reversion tax at all that owner ought to pay the reversion tax but that if he re-lets he ought not to pay. It is quite obvious that if these buildings are let without any charge upon them they ought not to be capitalised. If he lease gets worked out altogether, the buildings upon which you are going to require payment of the Reversion Duty and the halfpenny duty would be an eyesore and a useless encumbrance on the land. That would be a decrement and not an increment to the property. Under this clause you will charge a man twice or three times over for that which he never gets.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think my hon. Friend desired to add to and insert in his Amendment the words "re-let to the same lessee" ["in any case in which such minerals are re-let to the same lessee"].
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The case which the hon. Gentleman puts in his speech is a case which may be considered, but the Amendment goes far beyond what his speech conveyed. The proposition involved in the Amendment is this—that wherever a reversioner re-lets within 12 calendar months he is not to be charged Reversion Duty at all. He may re-let at a higher rent; he may have a considerably enhanced dead rent and royalty, and still no Reversion Duty can be charged. Clearly the hon. Gentleman does not mean to carry the case quite as far as the Amendment goes. The case put by him in his speech is the case put by the right hon. Gentleman for Dublin University. If I could see my way I should be prepared to meet the case. But the case put by the hon. Gentleman is a case where premises are re-let at the end of the lease to the same tenant and the landlord takes into account the tenant's improvements, but does not take advantage of them and re-lets them on the same terms, giving the tenant full opportunity to make the most of the improvements effected upon the property. I candidly confess I have very great sympathy for the case. I still say if it were possible to meet a case of that kind, where the landlord does not make anything out of the improvements, but re-lets on exactly the same terms, giving the fullest opportunity to the tenant to work out the property. If an Amendment can be framed to meet such a case I shall simply do my best to accept it. But that is not the tenour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Durham, which goes much further.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think it would be to the convenience of the Committee if we treated my hon. Friend's Amendment as giving effect to what he put in his speech. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite right in stating that the case in regard to mineral leases is exactly comparable to the case raised by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Dublin University, at an earlier period
450
this evening. The right hon. Gentleman then expressed the sympathy with which he approached the matter, but to a feeling of impotence as to dealing with it, his fear being of laying the Treasury open to a charge of collusion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer grossly exaggerated the danger of collusion. He should remember that the lessor must be in collusion with the lessee in order to defeat the Treasury, and fraudulent returns would have to be made with the knowledge of the lessee, and the lessee could, if he so saw fit, blackmail the other party at any time. And should there be revealed to the Treasury what had happened it would involve the lessor in severe pains and penalties. If there be any danger here, there is exactly the same danger of collusion throughout the machinery embodied by the Government in this tax. There is no reason why, if there is a possibility of collusion in this case, there is not an equal possibility of collusion in every other case. I do not think anyone can suggest any form of words which would make such collusion absolutely impossible, either in the case of the Amendment or in the case of the tax. I understand, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman adheres to the decision not to give the relief asked for. My hon. Friend (Mr. Lambton) says it is the custom in his part of the country for landlords to re-let to the same mining tenant without making any charge for the added value given to the property by the improvements and work executed by those tenants. He will never be able to do so again. He will have to take from the tenant in future the amount at least which the Government takes from him by raising the rent. He will say to himself, "Obviously the Government think I shall take it for myself and tax me on that assumption whether I have it or not. If the Government say I ought to take this benefit, I will take not only what the Government takes out of my pocket in form of the tax, not merely the 10 per cent., but the other nine-tenths per cent, which the Government assumes to be in my purse." That will be the effect of the Bill as it stands.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should not like the Committee to come to a decision on the assumption that the Government have quite closed their mind on this question. I agree that there is a case to meet if it can be met without any possible

451
collusion. I shall certainly consider whether the case put to me by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Chamberlain) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) can be met, and whether any form of words can be devised to meet it.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have tried to get a form of words to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer's point, and I suggest an Amendment providing that in any case in which minerals are re-let by the owner before or within twelve calendar months of the determination of the lease to the same lessee, the Commissioners, on being satisfied that the transaction is a bonâ fide one, may forego any claim to Reversion Duty under the provisions of this Act. That will give the Commissioner's discretion, if they are satisfied that there is no collusion and the transaction is exactly as the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Lambton) has described, and one which should be encouraged, to say they will forego the duty.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I trust the hon. Member will not bring up words which will force the Committee to a decision. At the present stage I could not accept any such words without considerable reflection and consultation with the draftsman. It is a matter of very difficult and delicate drafting. The Government are perfectly willing to meet the case put by the hon. Member (Mr. Lambton) in his speech, but it is not quite covered by the Amendment.
Mr. LAMBTON: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very conciliatory reply, and SD far as I am concerned I do not wish to press the Amendment now if the right hon. Gentleman will bring up words later on to meet it.
Mr. ROBERT DUNCAN: I desire to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the real importance of this subject. Unless some such Amendment is accepted, the owner, or the feuar, as we call him in Scotland, will be compelled to exact all that can be exacted from the tenant. That will have the effect of inducing people to make investments in some other way and tend to depress wages.
Mr. LAMBTON: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved to insert at the end of the clause a new section: "(5) Where the reversion has been mortgaged before the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, and the mortgagee has foreclosed before the lease on which the reversion is expectant determines, the mortgagee shall not be liable to pay Reversion Duty, except so far as the benefit accruing to him by reason of the determination of the lease exceeds the amount payable under the mortgage."
This Amendment provides that in all cases where a property is under mortgage prior to the Act, and at some stage before the lease comes to an end, and the duty becomes payable and the mortgagee forecloses, the fact of so foreclosing is not to make the mortgagee liable to pay the duty until after he has got his principal, interest, and costs under his mortgage. This is a point which has been raised on several occasions. A mortgagee in exercising his rights, in nine cases out of ten, sells the security. It has been pointed out to me that if you read the whole Bill, there is nothing in it which makes the mortgagee, who merely sells the property, liable at all. I think that is a very doubtful point, and I should have been better pleased if it were stated in so many words that the mortgagee was not going to be liable when he sold. Another point which is not made clear is as to whether the land in the possession of the mortgagee or anybody else is itself liable. If it is, any words that we put in would not relieve the property from having to pay the duty, and so the object we have at heart would be defeated in any case. The words with regard to Undeveloped Land Duty are that it is to be charged, levied, and paid in respect to the site value.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman need not elaborate this. I am accepting the Amendment.
Mr. RUTHERFORD: We accomplish something very substantial by this new section, and I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for meeting the point. It is made quite clear that the mortgagee taking upon himself the ownership of the property by foreclosing before the lease expires does not make himself liable for the duty, which does not become payable in respect of the security until the mortgagee receives his principal, interest, and costs. I believe the Government do not accept entirely the words in which my Amendment is expressed, but reserve to

453
themselves the right to consider them further between now and the Report stage. It is on those terms that I beg to move.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: As I indicated in the course of another discussion, I am prepared to accept something of this kind. Any alteration in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman will be to meet a mere drafting point, and this can be considered on Report. Subject to that I accept the Amendment.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I wish to move at the end of the section, after the words last inserted, to add the words, "No Reversion Duty shall be payable where the determination of the lease arises through merger." In answer to a question put by one of my hon. Friends, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that where there is a merger there must be a determination of the lease, and therefore the Reversion Duty must apply. A merger, I may point out, is where a leasehold interest gets into the same hands as the freehold interest. I think it would be exceedingly hard on a tenant if, when in order to improve his property he bought his freehold, and his lease became merged into the freehold, that fact, by causing a determination of the existing lease, which would fall in to himself, should render him liable under the provisions of the Bill to pay Reversion Duty. Another case is where a freeholder wants to improve slum property on which there are some small outstanding leases. The ground landlord cannot carry out that improvement until he gets hold of the leases, and he buys them. Immediately there is a merger, and a determination of the leases. I submit that in such cases it would be a great hardship to insist on payment of the Reversion Duty, and I hope that the Government will see the reasonableness of my Amendment.
Mr. HALDANE: The point raised by the hon. Gentleman would have been very important as the law used to be, but now there is no merger unless it is intentional merger, and such cases should not be exempt. There is therefore no need for the Amendment.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Surely the greed of the Government should not operate to prevent the owner of land from
454
carrying out what is not merely a profitable transaction to himself, but is eminently a public improvement. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can show that public improvements of this kind will not be to some extent blocked, hindered, and penalised by the Bill as it stands, I think some words such as those proposed by my hon. Friend, or others, are necessary to prevent hardship to the individual and injury to the community.
Sir ARTHUR BIGNOLD: This tax will act as a deterrent to any owner of the ground rent to secure entire possession, and that is contrary to the intention of the Government throughout. I understood that in order to meet this case the Government had intended to make a 2½per cent. allowance under Clause 21. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me if that was the intention.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the second part of the question as to where the tenant buys the freehold. Take a simple case. I act for an estate where the tenants have a right to purchase their freehold on such and such terms. That right is enormously taken advantage of. But under this section every tenant, large or small, who infringes his property terminates his own lease in terms of merger and he would have to pay Reversionary Duty.
Mr. HALDANE: The case which the hon. Member has put is a case in which, if a merger takes place, it would be by a simple surrender. It is intended that payment should be made in certain cases just as much as it would be in the case of a surrender of a lease. But the case is that a surrender merger could not operate in the hard way in which the hon. Member suggests.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the unfortunate tenant who buys his own freehold, which means the termination of his lease, affected? That surely cannot be the intention of the Government.
Mr. HALDANE: The tenant in that case becomes the landlord.
Question put, "That the words, 'No Reversion Duty shall be payable in respect of the determination of a lease where it arises out of a merger' be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 72; Noes, 145.

Division No. 354.]

AYES.

[4.0 a.m.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Forster, Henry William

Newdegate, F. A.

Balcarres, Lord

Gardner, Ernest

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Baldwin, Stanley

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Percy, Earl

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Gretton, John

Pretyman, E. G.

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

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

Remnant, James Farquharson

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Haddock, George B.

Renton, Leslie

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hamilton, Marquess of

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Bull, Sir William James

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Starkey, John R.

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

Hill, Sir Clement

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Clive, Percy Archer

Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)

Valentia, Viscount

Clyde, J. Avon

Hunt, Rowland

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Kerry, Earl of

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

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Craik, Sir Henry

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

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

Dalrymple, Viscount

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joynson-Hicks and Viscount Castle-reagh.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Morpeth, Viscount

Fell, Arthur

Morrison-Bell, Captain

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Pirie, Duncan V.

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

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Pointer, J.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Armitage, R.

Hall, Frederick

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

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Rendall, Athalstan

Astbury, John Meir

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

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

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Richardson, A.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

Ridsdale, E. A.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Bennett, E. N.

Harwood, George

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Hayden, John Patrick

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Black, Arthur W.

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Bowerman, C. W.

Hazleton, Richard

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Brace, William

Hedges, A. Paget

Rose Sir Charles Day

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

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

Rowlands, J.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Henry, Charles S.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Byles, William Pollard

Higham, John Sharp

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

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hodge, John

Seddon, J.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Holt, Richard Durning

Shackleton, David James

Clough, William

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

Clynes, J. R.

Hudson, Walter

Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Simon, John Allsebrook

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

Jenkins, J.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Cowan, W. H.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Crosfield, A. H.

Lamont, Norman

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Crossley, William J.

Lehmann, R. C.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

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

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lewis, John Herbert

Tomkinson, George

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol S.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leiecester)

Toulmin, George

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Macpherson, J. T.

Walton, Joseph

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

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

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

M'Micking, Major G.

Watt, Henry A.

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Marnham, F. J.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Menzies, Sir Waiter

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

Elibank, Master of

Middlebrook, William

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Everett, R. Lacey

Mond, A.

Wilkie, Alexander

Falconer, J.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Fenwick, Charles

Morrell, Philip

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

Ferens, T. R.

Morse, L. L.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Fuller, John Michael F.

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

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

Glover, Thomas

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Mr. HALDANE Mr. HALDANE rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question,
456
'That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
Question put, "That the Question, 'That the Cause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 71.

Division No. 355.]

AYES.

[4.5 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

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

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Greenwood, G (Peterborough)

Rendall, Athelstan

Armitage, R.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hall, Frederick

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

Astbury, John Meir

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Richardson, A.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

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

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Bennett, E. N.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Berridge, T. H. D.

Harwood, George

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Black, Arthur W.

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Rowlands, J.

Bowerman, C. W.

Hedges, A. Paget

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Brace, William

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

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

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

Henry, Charles S.

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

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

Seddon, J.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Higham, John Sharp

Shackleton, David James

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hodge, John

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Holt, Richard Durning

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Clough, William

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Simon, John Allsebrook

Clynes, J. R.

Hudson, Walter

Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

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

Jenkins, J.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Cowan, W. H.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Crosfield, A. H.

Lamont, Norman

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

Crossley, William J.

Lehmann, R. C.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Tomkinson, James

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Toulmin, George

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lewis, John Herbert

Walton, Joseph

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

Macpherson, J. T.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Watt, Henry A.

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

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

Wedgwood, Josiah C

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

M'Micking, Major G.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

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

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Marnham, F. J.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Wilkie, Alexander

Elibank, Master of

Middlebrook, William

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Everett, R. Lacey

Mond, A.

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

Falconer, James

Montague, Hon. E. S.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Fenwick, Charles

Morrell, Philip

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Ferens, T. R.

Morse, L. L.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Pirie, Duncan V.

Glover, Thomas

Pointer, J.

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gardner, Ernest

Newdegate, F. A.

Balcarres, Lord

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Baldwin, Stanley

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gretton, John

Percy, Earl

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Pretyman, E. G.

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

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

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Haddock, George B.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hamilton, Marquess of

Renton, Leslie

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Bull, Sir William James

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hill, Sir Clement

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

Hunt, Rowland

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Clive, Percy Archer

Joynson-Hicks, William

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

Clyde, James Avon

Kerry, Earl of

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Long, Col Charles W. (Evesham)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dalrymple, Viscount

Mason, J. F. (Windsor)

Younger, George

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Viscount

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Morpeth, Viscount Valentia.

Fell, Arthur

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 69.

Division No. 356.]

AYES.

[4.13 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

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

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Rendall, Athelstan

Armitage, R.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hall, Frederick

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

Astbury, John Meir

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Richardson, A.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

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

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Bennett, E. N.

Harwood, George

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Hayden, John Patrick

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Black, Arthur W.

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Bowerman, C. W.

Hazleton, Richard

Rowlands, J.

Brace, William

Hedges, A. Paget

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

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

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Henry, Charles S.

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

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

Seddon, J.

Byles, William Pollard

Higham, John Sharp

Shackleton, David James

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hodge, John

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Holt, Richard Durning

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Clough, William

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Simon, John Allsebrook

Clynes, J. R.

Hudson, Walter

Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

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

Jenkins, J.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cowan, W. H.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Crosfield, A. H.

Lament, Norman

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Crossley, William J.

Lehmann, R. C.

Thomasson, Franklin

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

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

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lewis, John Herbert

Tomkinson, James

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Toulmin, George

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

Macpherson, J. T.

Walton, Joseph

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

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

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

M'Micking, Major G.

Watt, Henry A.

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Marnham, F. J.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Menzies, Sir Walter

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

Elibank, Master of

Middlebrook, William

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Evans, Sir S. T.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Wilkie, Alexander

Everett, R. Lacey

Morrell, Philip

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Falconer, James

Morse, L. L.

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

Fenwick, Charles

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Ferens, T. R.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Philips, John (Longford, S)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Pirie, Duncan V.

Glover, Thomas

Pointer, J.

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gardner, Ernest

Newdegate, F. A.

Baldwin, Stanley

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Percy, Earl

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Gretton, John

Pretyman, E. G.

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

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

Remnant, James Farquharson

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Haddock, George B.

Renton, Leslie

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hamilton, Marquess of

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Bull, Sir William James

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hill, Sir Clement

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

Hunt, Rowland

Valentia, Viscount

Clive, Percy Archer

Joynson-Hicks, William

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Clyde, J. Avon

Kerry, Earl of

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

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lard

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

Dalrymple, Viscount

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott-

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Younger, George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Fell, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Forster, Henry William

Morrison-Bell, Captain

CLAUSE 9.—(Recovery of Reversion Duty.)
(1) Reversion Duty shall be recoverable from any lessor to whom any benefit accrues from the determination of a lease as a debt due to His Majesty.
(2) Every lessor shall, on the determination of a lease on the determination of which Reversion Duty is payable under this section, deliver an account to the Commissioners setting forth the particulars of the land and the value of the benefit accruing to the lessor by the determination of the lease.
(3) If any person who is under an obligation to deliver an account under this section fails to deliver such an account, he shall be liable to pay to His Majesty a sum equal to 10 per cent, upon the amount of any duty payable under this section, and a like penalty for every month after the first month during which the failure continues.
(4) Section 17 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885 (which relates to the power to assess duty according to accounts rendered, and to obtain other accounts), shall apply with respect to any account delivered under this section (with the exception of any provisions relating to appeals).
Mr. JAMES MASON Mr. JAMES MASON moved in section (1) after the word "recoverable" ["(1) Reversion Duty shall be recoverable"] to insert the words "within twelve calendar months after the determination of any lease or upon the release, transfer or occupation of the land."
The object of the Amendment is twofold. Firstly, to avoid making the owner of a reversion pay the duty before he actually gets some benefit from it. The clause will read, "Reversion Duty shall be recoverable within twelve calendar months after the determination of any lease or upon the release, transfer or occupation of the land." This means that in a case in which there is a release or a sale the owner should have the advantage of paying the duty only when he gets some benefit from that release or sale. I have inserted the words, "twelve calendar months," to provide for the possibility of the property remaining in his hands and his being unable to sell or release it.
Sir W. ROBSON: Is this Amendment in order on this clause? The hon. Member is moving that the Reversion Duty shall be recovered within twelve calendar months after the determination of the
462
lease. It has been decided in Clause 7 that "On the determination of any lease of land there shall be charged, levied and paid" a Reversion Duty. Does not the Amendment raise a point already adjudicated upon?
Mr. PRETYMAN: This very Amendment was moved in Clause 7, and my hon. Friend was referred to Clause 9 by the Chairman.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): The Amendment is in order.
Mr. JAMES MASON: The Amendment would also allow you to decide on the amount of duty chargeable in an actual fact, namely, on the actual sale or release, instead of basing the duty purely upon an estimate. If you compare the first part of the clause with the second you will find that the lessor is bound on the determination of a lease to deliver an account to the Commissioners of the value of the benefit accruing to him. Unless you allow him to wait till he has re-let or sold the property it will be extremely difficult for him to estimate the value of the reversion when he has derived no benefit from it. If he is going to occupy the property himself or holds it unoccupied the time limit is necessary because the duty will have to be estimated in such a case. My object is to secure that where there is a re-let or sale he should pay duty on the actual fact and not on the estimate.
Sir W. ROBSON: Surely the convenient time to make collection of the duty is on the determination of the lease. There seems to be no reason at all why twelve months should be allowed during which the duty is to be in suspense, or until it is seen whether the lessor succeeds in re-letting. Of course, if he does succeed in re-letting that is a factor which will be taken into consideration, and it will help the Commissioners in estimating the value, but it is clearly not right that the Commissioners should wait for any event of that kind. I imagine that in the case of most leases where any industry is being carried on on the property leased, the landlord will have foreseen the determination of the lease and provided himself with a fresh lessee, so there is not likely to be any delay. Unless the lessor is ready to enter and carry on business himself he will have a lessee ready.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The learned Attorney-General has pointed out with great force that when this unfortunate man has to pay the duty is when he

463
can get something out of which he can pay it. But the time of the determination of the lease is the moment when his property is empty and he is getting no return. He says: "There is somebody who can pay a tax. His house is empty; he is not coming in; now is the time to make him pay."
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The learned Attorney-General can hardly have considered the case put forward. He says the question will be in suspense for a year. It will not be in suspense at all. It will be known as perfectly as the duty will be. My hon. Friend (Mr. James Mason) desires that the payment shall be left over for a year until the lessor has some money to make it. The duty is payable on capital value. It may be a very heavy sum. The Amendment can very well be accepted without injuring the Bill at all.
Mr. PRETYMAN: The Amendment has real substance in it, although it is a small point, and I do not think it should be passed over in the light and airy way in which the learned Attorney-General has dealt with it. We must go back to the point that the Reversion Duty may turn out to be an enormous tax. You are not levying the duty upon the annual accrued value which the person, subject to the tax, has always known he will be liable to; you are coining down upon existing property which may fall in next year, or the year after, in the case of a lease which has existed for 99 years, and which was created in the last century when property had a very different value. You are going to impose upon the small owner a crushing burden at a time when he may have no assets whatever. You may have a property falling in which on paper shows that he receives a valuable reversion. But, in fact, until he has realised that benefit he has no money with which to pay the tax, and he cannot realise the benefit unless he occupies the property himself, if he can afford to do it, or unless he has renewed the lease or transfer. The Amendment does not alter the incidence of the tax. We agree that it must be assessed at the time the lease is determined.
That has already been settled by the Committee. This Amendment does not propose to go back on that at all. It merely says that the duty having been assessed, as it must be at the time the lease determines, where the owner has no realised assets with which to pay the tax, and the
464
tax being enormously heavy, he should have twelve months as a maximum time, or a lesser period if he succeeds in re-leasing the property, either by re-letting or selling, in which to pay. I cannot see on what possible grounds the Government can see their way to refuse the Amendment.
Sir W. ROBSON: I think the hon. and gallant Member overlooks the consideration to which I drew the attention of the Committee. After all, the reversioner knows when the lease is going to determine, and he has ample time to make arrangements for the releasing of his property, or, if necessary, to put himself in funds for the payment of the tax. We are bound to assume that he will adopt ordinary business precautions. Either he will or will not have money available to pay the tax, and if he finds that he has not then he must make arrangements.
Mr. PRETYMAN: The learned Attorney-General's objection is not one of substance. It is only in cases where the owner does not succeed in effecting a transfer immediately, and has no funds to pay the duty, that it is suggested this time to pay should be allowed.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Attorney-General's argument seemed to me to be based on the fallacy or supposition that lessees are like blackberries, and that the owner can pick them off the first bush. He assumes that every landlord knowing a lease is going to determine will find it possible to make arrangements to have a lessee ready to take up the lease immediately, but that is contrary to all the experience of business men. Take the case of a man owning an ordinary class of house property in London. He may have the leases of a whole block of houses falling in at the same time, and it may be necessary to make considerable improvements in the property, or even to rebuild it. In that case the man will get no income out of the property for six months or a year. In those circumstances really the Government might gave the unfortunate landlord a few months in which to make his arrangements, and to rebuild should it be necessary to do so. It is not asking much that the honest trader should be given an opportunity to get his money together and to put new tenants into his property.
Mr. WYNDHAM: I cannot understand why the Government do not accept this perfectly reasonable Amendment. They are proposing taxation of a novel

465
character, and I should like to know why, when that is the case, are they so wedded to an ancient proceeding. The first argument used in connection with an ordinary Finance Bill is that there is great danger of evasion. That is the first stock argument. The second argument constantly used in the case of an ordinary Finance Bill is that there is great urgency to get in as many shillings as possible in the course of the coming financial year. Neither of those stock arguments apply in the present case, because the Prime Minister has said that these taxes are not expected to bring in much money during the next two years, and there is no danger of evasion. The learned Attorney-General has not given us a single reason for saying that the Government are entitled to refuse this Amendment. Failure to agree to it will not add to the convenience, of the Treasury, and is not necessary in the interests of the finance of the country. On the other hand, the payment he has to make under the Government's proposal will throw a most onerous burden upon the individual, and when a Government is instituting a perfectly novel experiment they are unwise to make the execution of that experiment more precipitate than is necessary.
Mr. HALDANE: The tax is one which is imposed only on an increase in value coming to the lessor. The lessor knows that the lease is going to drop in. He becomes a lessor in possession—that is to say, he has a much more valuable property of which he is in possession. In those circumstances there are banks and half a dozen other agencies by means of which he can secure money for a comparatively small payment. Therefore I do not think there is any ground for suggesting that his is a hard case.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The property may already be mortgaged up to the hilt.
Mr. HALDANE: Then the lessor will not be much better off twelve months hence.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: But he could not get money from the bank as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
Mr. HALDANE: I am assuming that the lessor has some capacity to pay the tax. The lessor is by hypothesis in possession of a more valuable property, otherwise he will not be taxed at all.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May he pay by hypothesis?
Mr. WYNDHAM: The right hon. Gentleman has not made his point. Why the right hon. Gentleman should wish that the lessor, who has not a single tenant, should go and borrow money from the bank I cannot imagine. If the Government would allow the ordinary members of the community to transact their own business in their own way, I think we should get on faster. As they have not offered a single reason for not accepting this Amendment, I think we must divide.
Sir W. BULL: I want to know the exact procedure that will be followed in reference to this tax. Is it the case that on the very day the tax falls in the Government will seize the land? That seems to me to be what will happen. An hon. Friend on my right recalls my attention to what happened in Chelsea some years ago. The owner of some fifty leasehold houses died, but instead of being assets these were liabilities to the estate. The result was that they were sold at £1 a piece. They were very old houses. Does the Attorney-General suggest that in a case like that no time should be given in which to pay the tax?
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If there is no increase to follow of course there is no duty. But the right hon. Gentleman, in his speech, argued from a number of hypotheses. In the case put forward by, my hon. Friend there is no value. What ground is there for charging duty on that? The right hon. Gentleman is clearly in the wrong. What I really rose to say was that I understand the reason the Government will not accept the Amendment is that they can find no precedent for this in taxation. I will give an analogy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has frequently likened this tax to the Death Duties.
Mr. HALDANE: No, no.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: He did so again and again, and said it was a kind of Death Duty on the death of the lease. Of course, the Secretary for War does not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But he was not here to hear the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has no hesitation in throwing over the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he is not present. That is a domestic matter, and I have no doubt the Chancellor, of the Exchequer will get even with him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has likened this to a Death Duty on the death of the lease. The tax really goes

467
much further than my hon. Friend asks. I hope the Secretary for War will see his way to accept it.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 142.

Division No. 357.]

AYES.

[4.50 a.m.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Forster, Henry William

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Balcarres, Lord

Gardner, Ernest

Percy, Earl

Baldwin, Stanley

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Pretyman, E. G.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gretton, John

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester)

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Haddock, George B.

Renton, Leslie

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamilton, Marquess of

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hill, Sir Clement

Starkey, John R.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hunt, Rowland

Valentia, Viscount

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

Joynson-Hicks, William

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Clive, Percy Archer

Kerry, Earl of

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

Clyde, J. Avon

Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

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

Winterton, Earl

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dalrymple, Viscount

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Younger, George

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Morpeth, Viscount

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morrison-Bell, Captain

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. James Mason and Sir W. Bull.

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Newdegate, F. A.

Fell, Arthur

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Pointer, J.

Armitage, R.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hall, Frederick

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

Astbury, John Meir

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Rendall, Athelstan

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

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

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

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

Richardson, A

Bennett, E. N.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Harwood, George

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Black, Arthur W.

Hayden, John Patrick

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Bowerman, C. W.

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Brace, William

Hazleton, Richard

Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

Hedges, A. Paget

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

Rowlands, J.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Henry, Charles S.

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

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

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Higham, John Sharp

Seddon, J.

Clough, William

Hodge, John

Shackleton, David James

Clynes, J. R.

Holt, Richard Durning

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

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

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Cooper, G. J.

Hudson, Walter

Simon, John Allsebrook

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Cowan, W. H.

Jenkins, J.

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Crosfield, A. H.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Crossley, William J.

Lamont, Norman

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Lehmann, R. C.

Thomasson, Franklin

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

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

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lewis, John Herbert

Tomkinson, James

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

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Toulmin, George

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Walton, Joseph

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

Macpherson, J. T.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

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

Watt, Henry A.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

M'Micking, Major G.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

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

Elibank, Master of

Marnham, F. J.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Evans, Sir S. T.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Wilkie, Alexander

Everett, R. Lacey

Menzies, Sir Walter

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Falconer, James

Middlebrook, William

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Fenwick, Charles

Mond, A.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Ferens, T. R.

Montagu, Hon E. S.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Morse, L. L.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Norton and Sir Edward Strachey.

Glover, Thomas

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Captain CRAIG Captain CRAIG moved in section (1), after the word "any" ["Reversion Duty shall be recoverable from any lessor to whom any benefit accrues"] to insert the word "pecuniary." Under the Clause as it stands, no matter what the benefit may be, Reversion Duty of some sort will be recoverable from the lessor. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires to get some revenue from this peculiar land taxation, but I do not see how he can get it unless he translates in every instance the benefit which accrues into some terms of money.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not quite sure what object the hon. and gallant Member has in view in moving his Amendment. The benefit which accrues is already defined by sub-section 2 of Clause 7, in amongst innumerable subsections which the hon. and gallant Member wanted to omit.
Captain CRAIG: May I point out with all respect, that it says "For the purposes of this section." That is Clause 7.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am sure the hon. and gallant Member, after he has given very close scrutiny to the clause which establishes the Reversion Duty will see that there the benefit is defined, and all these benefits are included. Although the hon. and gallant Member said he wants me to strengthen the drafting of the Bill, I am sure he will find that what he proposes is quite unnecessary.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: This Amendment in itself is exceedingly appropriate, and I venture to think it is an exceedingly useful one. The right hon. gentleman has probably forgotten the position of some lessors owing to their having empty houses thrown on their hands. Our attention is called to it in a dramatic manner by the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member, who has pointed out that it is advisable to insert the word "pecuniary." Let us take an instance—an ordinary case in which 90 years have expired since the lease was granted. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] I strongly advise hon. Members on the other side to give me a patient hearing. We have just got to the beginning of this clause, and I advise them to behave themselves. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!" and cries of "Go on."] The case I was putting was that in which 90 years have expired since the lease was granted. When the lease was granted the land was probably worth £100. Now I can take hon. Members to see an instance of
470
this kind to a spot within 200 or 300 yards, of the spot where we are now sitting, and—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order. I do not think that touches this Amendment. It is proposed that the word "pecuniary" be inserted.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, for pointing out to me the nature of the Amendment. What is the "pecuniary" benefit which the lessor gains by a lease expired? A property may be worth probably £5,000, but it does not become entitled to that immediately the lease expires. The owner may have been enjoying a rental of £250 a year; but at the end of the lease the tenant goes out. In the meantime the property is depreciating. Where is the "pecuniary" benefit? He has lost his rents. I think this is a very useful Amendment indeed, enabling us to-point out what an astonishing thing this Reversion Duty is.
Mr. G. YOUNGER: We are not particularly interested in this Reversion Duty in Scotland; but there are cases in Scotland in which land is let on building leases with the obligation that the lessor at the end of the period shall buy the buildings. I do not think this Bill provides for a case of that sort. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary for War (Mr. Haldane), who is familiar with the law both in Scotland and in this country, whether such a case is covered by the Bill? It is not a common case; but it is a very peculiar one?
Mr. HALDANE: Will the hon. Member put a case in the concrete?
Mr. YOUNGER: Yes. Land is let on a building lease for a period of years, during which buildings are erected. On the expiry of that lease these buildings do not revert to the lessor at all, but he has to pay for them.
Mr. HALDANE: The benefit that would accrue would be so much less.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I cannot think the empty houses for which the individual in question will receive no benefit whatever can be called a benefit, because it is in addition to his actual property, but by reason of the addition to the property of this individual he is called upon to pay 10 per cent, on the value of that property which has increased in the last 99 years. Well, that property

471
has got a certain value which may not be a realisable value. But the owner is called upon to pay 10 per cent, of the total unrealisable value. I venture to say that the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend is an Amendment of substance, and one which the right hon. Gentleman would do well to accept, because I cannot see that there is any justification whatever for the State calling upon these people to pay ready money on unrealisable property. There are houses it is absolutely impossible to let to anyone, even for a nominal rent. If only the word "pecuniary" could be inserted before the word "benefit" that would obviate a great deal of difficulty and remove all anxieties.
Earl WINTERTON: I think I can strengthen the case of my hon. Friend (Captain Craig) from cases where, not only empty houses are an unrealisable security, but where the mere fact of having them upon one's hands involves a great expense. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should make it clear that the man in the position stated by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. Younger) will not suffer loss.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the buildings are not valuable then this is 10 per cent, not of nothing, but of something less than nothing. The point put to me is solely with regard to buildings. I can quite understand there are many cases where the site would be much more valuable if cleared of buildings. In that case the buildings, so far from adding to the value, would really be a deduction from the sum on which the 10 per cent, would be charged.
Mr. REMNANT: I know of a case of land under lease in which the lessor was approached by the lessee, who wanted to extend the buildings and was quite willing to spend a considerable sum in doing so provided that the owner would reduce the rent he had been receiving and give him a considerable extension of the lease. This the ground landlord agreed to do, and a considerable sum was expended on the building. Am I right in concluding from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that when the man died—as he did—and the lease fell in and it was impossible to find an immediate lessee because of the unsuitability of the building, the landlord would be entitled to deduct from the value
472
of the land the so-called unmarketable value of the building? Surely in that case you could not say the building was worth anything?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member has misapprehended what I said. It is entirely a question whether the building on a site adds to or detracts from the value. In many cases the site would get a better price if cleared of buildings than if buildings were on it. In those cases there would be a deduction before you arrived at the 10 per cent.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman's explanation is perfectly clear and correct. I hope my gallant Friend (Captain Craig) will not think it necessary to go to a division on this Amendment. I am bound to say that the speech we have just had from the right hon. Gentleman, has served a really useful purpose. It will have educated the Secretary for War in a tax which he has been defending. On the last occasion, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not here, the Secretary for War said that in the case described there would be no tax due at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out that the Secretary for War did not know the nature of the tax imposed.
Captain CRAIG: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved, in section (1), after the word "Majesty" ["as a debt due to His Majesty"] to insert the words, "but shall not be a charge on the land."
The Bill is so loosely drawn that it is nowhere stated who is to pay the tax. In reading the opening words of Clause 7 you find that the Reversion Duty is to be charged, levied and paid, but it does not tell you what it is to be charged on, how it is to be levied, or who is to pay it, but when you come to Clause 9 it says the duty is to be recoverable from the lessor. There is no lessor when a lease comes to an end. When a lease comes to an end the lessor may be a person who has received no benefit at all. The clause says that the duty is to be recoverable as a debt due to His Majesty, and I want to make it clear that whoever is to pay it, that it is not to be a charge on the land. We have been told, in the course of these discussions that it is not a charge upon

473
the land, but only upon the benefit value that arises. I want to know what it is charged on.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: May I point out to the hon. Member that there is an Amendment we can accept in the name of the hon. Member for North-West Manchester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) which comes after the word "Majesty," and it would not be inserted if the Committee accepts the words of the hon. Member for the West Derby Division (Mr. Watson Rutherford). I would suggest that the hon. Member for North-West Manchester should move his Amendment first and get it into the clause, and then the hon. Member for the West Derby Division can move his Amendment. The Amendment I refer to is one providing that the duty shall be recoverable as a debt due to His Majesty, but shall rank pari passu with all other debts due from such lessor.
Mr. RUTHERFORD: As a matter of fact I have exactly the same words down in another place, but that has nothing to do with the point I am now raising.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not endeavouring to get the Amendment of the hon. Member ruled out of order, but I am pointing out that the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-West Manchester should come in now.
Mr. RUTHERFORD: Then I will defer my Amendment for the time being.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move quite formally to insert at the end of the first sub-section the words "but shall rank pari passu with all other debts due from such lessor."
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and agreed to.
Mr. RUTHERFORD: I will now move to add after the words just inserted, "but shall not be a charge on the land." It is only fair and right that the Government should say at once whether they intend the tax to be a charge on the land or not. My Amendment would accomplish a useful object if we could get a straight statement from the Government on the point.
Mr. HALDANE: There is nothing in the clause, of course, making the Reversion Duty a charge on the land, which is a Crown rent.
Mr. RUTHERFORD: What I want to know is whether somewhere or other in
474
this Bill Reversion Duty is made a charge on the land.
Mr. HALDANE: No.
Mr. RUTHERFORD: As I understand it is clear that this Reversion Duty is not to be a charge on the land, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, after the words last inserted ["but shall rank pari passu with all other debts due from such lessor"], to insert the following sections:—
"(2) Where any lessor from whom Reversionary Duty shall be recoverable under the provisions of this Act is a trustee he shall be entitled to be recouped any such payment out of the trust estate, and shall have full power to raise the necessary money by sale or mortgage of the subject matter of this settlement.
"(3) Where any lessor from whom Reversionary Duty shall be recoverable under the provisions of this Act shall be a mortgagee, he shall be entitled to add any sum so paid in respect of such duty to his security, and where he is the first of two or more mortgagees, he may add such sum to his security in advance of the second or subsequent incumbrances."
These Amendments are framed to meet the case of the lessor who is a trustee. They are taken from the report of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society on this Bill. The point is that nowhere in the Bill is there a provision that where the lessor is a trustee and has to pay the Reversionary Duty he should be enabled to recoup himself out of the trust estate. It is absolutely necessary that these Amendments should be inserted because the landed estate may be the only property settled, and the trustees should have power to raise the duty by sale or mortgage.
Mr. HALDANE: There is a good deal in what the hon. Gentleman says, I think, if a mortgagee is in possession, but the only case we have to consider is that of a trustee, and he has the power already. We desire, however, to make the point quite clear, and the only difficulty about the Amendment is that it is confined to Reversion Duty, whereas we think it should apply to all the duties. The Government will, accordingly, undertake to bring up a clause in the proper place applying the principle of the Amendment not only to the Reversion Duty, but to all the duties.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am quite satisfied with that promise, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir HENRY CRAIK: I should like to move an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Lambton). It is to leave out the words "every lessor shall" ["every lessor shall, on the determination of a lease"]. The Amendment is to be understood in connection with consequential Amendments, which would make the clause run: "On the determination of a lease on the determination of which Reversion Duty is payable under this section, the Commissioners shall deliver an account to the lessor setting forth the particulars of the land, and the value of the benefit accruing to the lessor by the determination of the lease." The object of the Amendment, or rather the series of Amendments, is to lay the burden of assessing the tax on the Commissioners, and not on the individual, who is to be subject to it. It is, I think, a new and very dangerous principle that a man should not only have to pay, but to assess his own tax. We know that great difficulties will arise, and that a serious burden of cost will be thrown upon the lessor if he is compelled 1o furnish these particulars himself. Surely the responsible duty involved in making this valuation ought not to rest on the unfortunate lessor, who is himself to be the subject of the tax. For the first time the Government are laying upon the subject a duty which has never been laid upon him before. I think we ought to follow the analogy of the Income Tax and not follow this dangerous principle of forcing the subject to undertake not only the payment of the tax but the duty of His Majesty's officers—namely, that of collecting the duty.
Sir W. ROBSON: As the sub-section stands now it provides that every lessor shall, on the determination of the lease, deliver an account to the Commissioners setting forth the particulars of the land and the value of the benefit which accrues to him on the determination of the lease. Now it is proposed by this Amendment exactly to reverse that process and to make the Commissioners deliver to the lessor an account setting forth the particulars of the land and the value of the benefit accruing to the lessor. I think one needs only to state the meaning of the Amendment in order to see that it is one the Government could accede to.
The Earl of KERRY: This case seems to me to be on a par with the valuation in connection with the Increment Value Duty for two reasons—(1) Because the valuation is retrospective, and (2) because it includes the value of buildings. It seems to me that it would be very much more difficult for the owner to make the valuation in this case than in the former. Therefore I think we are justified in asking that the Commissioners should make the valuation instead of the owner. After all, it must to a large extent be an arbitrary valuation. Somebody has to make a shot at it, and I think it is only fair to let the Commissioners make the first shot. I do not think the most sanguine supporters of the tax would assert that the valuation could be easily made. That being the case, I think it would tend to simplification if the Commissioners set the ball a-rolling at the first instance.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I do think we are entitled to an answer from the Attorney-General.
Sir W. ROBSON: This is a case of the lessor giving information to the Commissioners and not the Commissioners giving advice to the lessor in the first instance.
Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: Does the Attorney-General mean to say that the lessor will have to make a valuation and assess his tax? My hon. Friends have been trying to draw attention to the fact that it is the lessor who has to present the account. I understand the Attorney-General to say the account is simply an account of the particulars of the land and of the value of the benefit. I thought that would have been involved in valuation. When the Commissioners get the information from the lessor will it be the duty of the Commissioners to inform the lessor what is due?
Sir W. ROBSON: The subject sends in particulars, and thereupon the Commissioners decide whether or not they will accept that account just as in the case of the Death Duties.
Mr. PRETYMAN: In the case of the Death Duties all the taxpayer has to do is to tell the actual value of the property. In this case a new kind of valuation is required. The effect of the case would be met if my hon. Friend would consent to alter his Amendment so as to make the lessor submit particulars and the Commissioners make the valuation.
Sir W. ROBSON: I think it would work much better for the lessors to make the account on which the duty is assessed. The number of cases in which the Commissioners would come down and insist on valuation would, I should hope, be very small indeed, but the amendment would bring the Commissioners down in every case.
Mr. J. F. HOPE: The clause says every lessor shall, on the determination of a lease, deliver an account to the Commissioners setting forth the particulars of the land and the value of the benefit accruing to the lessor. How can he always tell what benefit he is going to derive? He cannot tell until he has tested the market. This is not the case of a re-grant of lease, but a determination of lease. That must be hypothetical. It may take him a long time before he can realise the benefit, and in the meantime he can only make a shot, and what sort of a shot can he make? The lessor would have to go through all this calculation in order to supply the particulars which this sub-section imposes upon him. It would be exceedingly burdensome and he could hardly do it correctly. I would suggest that all the words after "land" should be omitted. It is quite right that particulars of the land should be delivered, but not particulars of the value of the benefit accruing to the lessor.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: In Liverpool our leases are all for 75 years or over. The position is simply this: 75 years ago nine-tenths of the place consisted of green fields, and the immensity of the task of finding out what their original value was would be an exceedingly serious matter for the lessor. But I quite agree that the Amendment is impracticable because if the owner himself cannot furnish particulars it is quite clear that the Commissioners cannot because they have not got the material with which to do it.
Sir HENRY CRAIK: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS moved to insert after "lessor" the words "to whom a benefit shall have accrued." [Every lessor "to whom a benefit shall have accrued" shall.]
This raises the whole question more or less debated in regard to increment value that on the determination of every single lease throughout the whole
478
country, whether there is any increment or not, the lessor shall furnish an account to Somerset House. I think as this clause is drawn everybody will have to deliver an account on the determination of a lease. Surely that cannot be the object of the Government.
Mr. EMMOTT: This Amendment has already been settled by a previous decision.
Amendment ruled out of order accordingly.
Captain CRAIG: It seems to me that this section, too, is very loosely worded so far as the stipulation as to rendering of the account to the Commissioners is concerned. It would make the section more perfect if, after the word "section" the words "deliver an account" were left out ["Every lessor shall on the determination of a lease on the determination of which Reversion Duty is payable under this section deliver an account"] and the words "render a return on the form prescribed by the Commissioners" were inserted. It strikes me that it will be very difficult indeed to render a return unless there is some prescribed form issued by the Commissioners for the purpose. A great many of these leases which run out are the property of poor people, and they will not care to incur great expense in securing legal help in the matter. If it is left entirely to themselves this account will be of a very odd kind in some cases. It will help them if they have got forms prescribed by the Commissioners.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out—'deliver an account'—stand part of the Clause."
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think it necessary to put in the section words of this kind, because there will be regulations under this Act, and there will be forms. If these words were inserted here they would have to be inserted in various other parts of the Bill, in regard to Increment Duty, Development Duty, and other matters. It would be a great mistake to insert the words, for the Commissioners will provide all necessary forms. I trust, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member will not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I should like to move three Amendments

479
together—to insert the words "short," "estimated," and "reversioner," so that the end of the section will read—"deliver an account to the Commissioners setting forth the—'short'—particulars of the land and the—'estimated'—value of the benefit accruing to the 'revisioner'—[instead of 'lessor']—by the determination of the lease." The proposed changes will make the section more clear and it will relieve the taxpayer of the thought of having to furnish what appears at first glance to be a return of serious magnitude. I now simply move to insert the word "short." This will show the taxpayer that he is not to furnish elaborate plans and particulars of properties. He has to give short particulars as in the case of making a return in respect of Death Duties and in returns for the Inland Revenue Department.
Sir WILLIAM ROBSON: "Short" is not a very nice expression, and I think it would be a term very difficult to construe. I think we may accept the hon. Member's Amendment to insert the word "estimated." As regards the substitution of "reversioner" for "lessor," I think it is better to keep—
The CHAIRMAN: I think that is consequential.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir HENRY CRAIK Sir HENRY CRAIK moved, in section 2, to leave out the words "the particulars of the land and" ["deliver to the Commissioners an account setting forth the particulars of the land and"].
I wish to point out that under this section the particulars have to be furnished whenever the duty is payable—namely, on the termination of any lease. I am advised it is doubtful whether the words "duty is payable" mean that a substantial payment is to be made or whether it is merely a question as to what duty is payable. I desire to confine the giving of these particulars only to cases where valuable benefit arises. Under Clause 4 a register of land was established. Under Clause 9 there would be added to that a register of all leases. With the Amendment I propose the lessor will only be compelled to furnish an account to the Commissioners "setting forth the value of the benefit accruing to the lessor by the determination of the lease." It would not be fair if, when the question of paying the duty arises, although there is no real benefit accruing,
480
lessors should be compelled to give particulars of all their leases.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The effect of omitting these words would be that in cases where there was an undoubted right on the part of the Exchequer to Reversion Duty particulars need not be supplied. I know that is not the object of the hon. Member. It is for the Exchequer to adjudicate in such cases, and they can only do so upon an account being rendered. The hon. Member would go even further. He would not make the supplying of particulars imperative even in cases where it is undoubted that the Commissioners have a right to the duty.
Sir H. CRAIK: I know there is a difficulty in the wording of the Amendment. It is not my object to stop the Commissioners from calling for particulars, but I do not wish those particulars to be furnished for every lease all over the country. I do not want to establish a register of leases whether they are such as should bring a contribution to the Treasury or not.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Amendment moved does not contemplate the case the hon. Member wishes to put. Even where the duty is payable the hon. Member, if he succeeded in passing this Amendment, would prevent the Commissioners obtaining particulars. Particulars are only to be supplied in cases where the Reversion Duty is payable under this section. In cases where the lease is under 21 years no particulars can be supplied, but in all other cases, even though the Commissioners find as a result of the accounts that there is no claim, still the lessors must submit accounts. The taxpayer cannot be allowed to be the judge in his own case. The case is analogous to the Death Duty. Even where the estate is so small that no duties are payable accounts have to be submitted in order that the executor may establish his claim to exemption, and that is the case here. The particulars must be supplied.
Sir H. CRAIK: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose that the local registry established under Clause 4 should extend to this clause?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is really not the point.
Sir H. CRAIK: It is my object to prevent that extension.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not know what the object may be. I only know what the Amendment is.
Sir W. ANSON: We want to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer means that in the case of any lease for 21 years when the lease falls in, and whether or not Reversion Duty is payable, particulars are to be returned and recorded. If the Reversion Duty is put on the same basis as the Increment Duty, you will get a register of all the leasehold property throughout the country. That is the feature of the Amendment.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not know what the feature of the Amendment is. I only know what the Amendment is. It is not at all a question of the register; it is purely a question whether the Commissioners are to have the opportunity of checking in each case. The case of a lease under 21 years is not a case for adjudication, but there must be a case for adjudication so long as the lease is over 22 years. The reversioner may say there is no value, and he sends in an account to show it. The Commissioners have the right to say, "You have not supplied full accounts; you have omitted something or you have underestimated the value." Surely the Commissioners should have that right. We have already discussed that point on Clause 4, section (l), and it is impossible to discuss one point over and over again. Section (4) of Clause 9 gives the Commissioners power to assess upon the accounts supplied under section (2). How are they to adjudicate under section (4) unless particulars are supplied to them? The lessor may say the buildings are of no value at all, but he ought not to be allowed to come to that conclusion without submitting all particulars. In the case of dog licences particulars have to be supplied. Every man who keeps a dog cannot say, "In my judgment I am entitled to exemption, and I am not going to pay." You have to supply particulars, even if you are a bonâ fide shepherd and keep dogs to look after sheep. I do not like to call a lessor a dog; but the only question is whether he is liable to the tax. The reversion is there, and it is for him to show that he is entitled to exemption. Let me put it in this way: The taxable subject-matter is the reversion of a lease of over 21 years.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is the benefit accruing from the lease.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Then comes the question whether there is an increase of value, and in order to adjudicate upon that I think the Commissioners are entitled to the full particulars. It is really analogous
482
to an exemption from the Death Duty. A man may say, "I have not £100 after you deduct the Estate Duty and I am not liable." But he is not entitled to adjudicate on his own case. He is bound to submit, the particulars to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. That is the case here.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: With great respect, I think that is a false analogy. Unless there is a will to be proved the subject is the person who is entitled to say there are no accounts to be delivered in regard to the estate. If a man dies and the administrator of his estate says, "I have no assets," he is not bound to deliver any account of the estate whatever. That I submit is exactly the case here.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, no. Of course, if there were no assets, there would be no account to deliver, but the question here is whether there are assets which come up to the amount at which a tax accrues.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Who is to decide whether there are no assets? For Estate Duty purposes it is the representative of the deceased. In this case the man himself is the one who has to say there is no taxable benefit. His position is this: My lease is dead; there is no taxable benefit arising to me. But under the Bill on the determination of every lease over 21 years, whether there is any benefit accruing or not, the unfortunate lessor has to fill up these forms and send them to Somerset House.
Earl WINTERTON: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have told the House that he would put down an Amendment similar to one of mine which he accepted on another clause, inserting the word "reasonable" before "particulars." As to the argument about the dog—every man who keeps a dog has to take out a licence.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, no.
Earl WINTERTON: At any rate, compared with the people who have to take out a licence, an infinitesimal number are exempt because they keep a dog for trade purposes. Every dog owner has to take out a licence except this properly privileged class, and surely that has nothing to do with this particular point. I believe if the right hon. Gentleman knew the amount of trouble and inconvenience which will be caused to owners of property throughout the country, he

483
would be inclined to consider the point very seriously. The right hon. Gentleman should also realise the enormous expense that will be thrown on the Government in dealing with these matters, and I should like to know in this connection if he can give the Committee any idea of the number of leases in an average year which will come under the operation of the clause.
Sir W. ANSON: It ought to be understood, I think, that whether there is any
benefit accruing or not, the lessor is bound to make a return. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind, pursuing his own analogy, that it is not the lease, but the benefit, which is the dog. What he is proposing here is that every man in the Kingdom should make a return, whether he does or does not keep a dog.
Question put, "That the words 'particulars of the land' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 64.

Division No. 358.]

AYES.

[6.20 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Pointer, J.

Armitage, R.

Hall, Frederick

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Astbury, John Meir

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Rendall, Athelstan

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Bennett, E. N.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

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

Berridge, T. H. D.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Richardson, A.

Black, Arthur W.

Harwood, George

Ridsdale, E. A.

Bowerman, C. W.

Hayden, John Patrick

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Brace, William

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

Hazleton, Richard

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Hedges, A. Paget

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Henry, Charles S.

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

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

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

Clough, William

Higham, John Sharp

Seddon, J.

Clynes, J. R.

Hodge, John

Shackleton, David James

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Holt, Richard Durning

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

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

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

Hudson, Walter

Simon, John Allsebrook

Cowan, W. H.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jenkins, J.

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Crosfield, A. H.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Crossley, William J.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Lamont, Norman

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Lehmann, R. C.

Thomasson, Franklin

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

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

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Tomkinson, James

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

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Toulmin, George

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Walton, Joseph

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Macpherson, J. T.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

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

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

M'Micking, Major G.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Elibank, Master of

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Evans, Sir S. T.

Marnham, F. J.

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

Everett, R. Lacey

Masterman, C. F. G.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Falconer, James

Menzies, Sir Walter

Wilkie, Alexander

Fenwick, Charles

Middlebrook, William

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Ferens, T. R.

Mond, A.

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

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Morrell, Philip

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Morse, L. L.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Cap-

Glover, Thomas

Nannetti, Joseph P.

tain Norton and Sir E. Strachey.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Dalrymple, Viscount

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bull, Sir William James

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Balcarres, Lord

Carlile, E. Hildred

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Baldwin, Stanley

Castlereagh, Viscount

Fell, Arthur

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Forster, Henry William

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

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

Gardner, Ernest

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

Clive, Percy Archer

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Clyde, James Avon

Gretton, John

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Haddock, George B.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Newdegate, F. A.

Valentia, Viscount

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

Hill, Sir Clement

Pretyman, E G.

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

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Winterton, Earl

Hunt, Rowland

Remnant, James Farquharson

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Kerry, Earl of

Renton, Leslie

Younger, George

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

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

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joynson-Hicks and Sir H. Craik.

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Starkey, John R.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr. JAMES HOPE: I gave notice of an Amendment to this section. Surely the Government would be satisfied with having particulars sent in to Somerset House, without obliging the lessor to give calculations. The extreme complexity of these calculations would be really worse than ascertaining the site value.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I hope my hon. Friend will not persist with his proposed Amendment. We did discuss practically the same point some time ago, and we agreed that it was not to the advantage of the subject that the compiling of this valuation should, in the first place, be left to the Commissioners. The Attorney-General himself has pointed out that if the subject supplied the information he would be likely to get off much more lightly than if it were left to the Commissioners to come down upon him in each case.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I defer to my right hon. friend, but I entirely dissent from him.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved, in section (2), before the word "value" ["the particulars of the land and the value of the benefit accruing"] to insert the word "estimated."
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved, in section (3) after the word "section" ["If any person who is under an obligation to deliver an account under this section fails to deliver such an account"] to insert the word "knowingly."
Mr. LANE-FOX Mr. LANE-FOX moved in section (3) after the word "account" ["If any person who is under an obligation to deliver an account under this section fails to deliver such an account"] to insert the words "within the period of six months after the
486
determination of the lease." I desire to secure that a reasonable limit of time should be given for the delivery of an account.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I offered the hon. Gentleman three months, and he will have to take that reduced sentence.
Mr. LANE-FOX: I am prepared to take the verdict of the right hon. Gentleman.
Amendment proposed, "After the word 'account' to insert 'within the period of three months after the determination of the lease.'"
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved, in section (3), to leave out the words "equal to" ["liable to pay to His Majesty a sum equal to (not exceeding) 10 per cent,"] and to insert the words "not exceeding."
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved, in section (3), after the word "ten" ["a sum equal to 10 per cent."] to insert the word "shillings." The penalty under the Bill is to be 10 per cent, a month. It almost reminds one of the kind of sum one would be charged if one were to be injudicious enough to answer letters offering to lend on note of hand. I think the Government must have seen some of those letters when drawing up this clause.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I trust that after the insertion of the words "not exceeding" the hon. Member will not think it necessary to press this Amendment. There are cases where 10 per cent, would be a very small penalty, and in other cases, I agree, it might be a very heavy penalty. The words "not exceeding" would be applicable to all cases.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think we must press the right hon. Gentleman a little further on this point. He is in a yielding mood at this hour of the morning, and I hope he will yield a little more. In

487
Clause 4 we had to provide for an exactly similar state of things, but the penalty put in by the Government there is not the savage penalty which is proposed in this section. It is, instead, a penalty of £10, with 5 per cent, per annum interest.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is really taken out of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1885.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As I do not know, I cannot argue on the facts of the Act of 1885. Here are two cases in which you impose penalties for the first time in the same Bill, and yet you are imposing wholly different penalties. I think we ought to keep these two taxes on the same lines in regard to this matter.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I have an Amendment lower down to provide a penalty after the sixth month instead of the first month. As the clause stands, simply delaying the delivery of an account is made a very serious matter.
Mr. PRETYMAN: May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to assimilate his penalty in this case to that given in another part of the Bill? He can charge his interest and let it be interest at so much per annum. It appears to me that there should be a penalty and that there should be a maximum fixed sum, and there should be five per cent, interest charged from the time of the failure to deliver the account.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I would point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the offence must be a serious offence for the full penalty to be inflicted. In 1885 our predecessors in office, in the case of corporations, included the words to be found in this Bill. We have adopted them, and I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow us to get on with this section.
Earl WINTERTON: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of a serious offence; but I do not think his remarks seriously affect the clause or the Amendment proposed. I would venture to point this out. You are proposing under this clause to put upon the subject the effect of a most onerous penalty and you are thereby, in addition to the rights which the Government have of recovery in a court of law, putting the Crown in a much more favourable position than it should be put, and in a much more favour-
488
able position than the ordinary private individual to whom another private individual owes a debt. Not a word has been used by the right hon. Gentleman in favour of the proposal before the Committee. It is a monstrous proposal to make a man who fails in the manner described pay 110 per cent, on the duty originally imposed. The only object of the proposal in the Bill is to make things as difficult and as harassing as possible to the owner of land. I think it is very hard on the part of the Government to make this proposal.
Mr. E. A. RIDSDALE: I think there is a general feeling that this penalty is too strong. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no," and OPPOSITION cheers.] I certainly think it is myself. Ten per cent, is undoubtedly too much. At any rate it would be better, I think, if the section stopped at the word "section," so as to leave the penalty at 10 per cent.
Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: Large companies are liable sometimes to penalties of £50 per day for not filing accounts by a certain date.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The point which the right hon. Gentleman was offering is not the same as my hon. Friend was taking. Personally I prefer the Government's proposal to that of my hon. Friend. It lessens the penalty. I would sooner have a penalty of 10 per cent, after three months, as proposed, than the penalty of 10 per cent, for every month as it stands in the Bill. It reduces the penalty to 40 per cent, per annum instead of 120 per cent, per annum. I want to draw the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention to what is the real gist of the objection which my hon. Friends and I have to his Amendment. It is partly that the penalty is too strong in any circumstances, but it is a perfectly uncertain penalty, not dependent upon the gravity of the offence but upon the amount of the tax that is due. We do not mind a sliding scale according to time, but we do not like a sliding scale according to the tax due. I do not quite understand whether the penalty is to follow the amount of the tax instead of the nature of the offence. I would press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do in this case what he has done in regard to the Increment Tax. He has put no fixed penalty in this case.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think I have really gone a very long way to meet the

489
Opposition, thereby departing from the precedent set by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I have improved upon them to the extent of 80 per cent.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Am I to understand that the suggestion is a sum not exceeding 10 per cent, upon the amount of any duty payable under this section, and a like penalty for every three months after the third month? When does failure to deliver an account begin?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Failure begins at the end of the three months.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved, in section (3), to leave out the word "month" ["and a like penalty for every month"] and to insert the words "three months."
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I agree to that.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, in section (3), to leave out the words "after the first
month" ["after the first month during which the failure continues"].
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does the Committee know what they are doing? I am not certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows. He gave us three months during which no liability occurs. It is only at the expiration of that three months that any liability occurs. Under this proposal you have practically four months. You are now taking away something from the subject.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not certain that the right hon. Gentleman is not right. I think we had better leave the words as they are until Report. We are quite agreed as to our object. I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
Question put, "That the Question 'That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 64.

Division No. 359]

AYES.

[6.55 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Falconer, J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Fenwick, Charles

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Armitage, R.

Ferens, T. R.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Macpherson, J. T.

Astbury, John Meir

Fuller, John Michael F.

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

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

M'Micking, Major G.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Glover, Thomas

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Bennett, E. N.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Marnham, F. J.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Black, Arthur W.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Bowerman, C. W.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Middlebrook, William

Brace, William

Hall, Frederick

Mond, A.

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

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Morrell, Philip

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Morse, L. L

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Clough, William

Harwood, George

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hayden, John Patrick

Pirie, Duncan V.

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

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Pointer, J.

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

Hazleton, Richard

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Cowan, W. H.

Hedges, A. Paget

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

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

Crosfield, A. H.

Henry, Charles S.

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

Crossley, William J.

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

Rendall, Athelstan

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Higham, John Sharp

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Hodge, John

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

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Holt, Richard Durning

Richardson, A.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Howard, Hon. John Geoffrey

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

Hudson, Walter

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Duncan, c (Barrow-in-Furness)

Jenkins, J.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lamont, Norman

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

Elibank, Master of

Lehmann, R. C.

Seddon, J.

Evans, Sir S. T.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Shackleton, David James

Everett, R. Lacey

Levy, Sir Maurice

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Tomkinson, James

Wilkie, Alexander

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Toulmin, George

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Walton, Joseph

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Cap-

Thomasson, Franklin

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

tain Norton and Sir Edward Strachey.

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

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

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fell, Arthur

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Balcarres, Lord

Gardner, Ernest

Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

Baldwin, Stanley

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Pretyman, E. G.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gretton, John

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

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

Renton, Leslie

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamilton, Marquess of

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hill, Sir Clement

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Bull, Sir William James

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Starkey, John R.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hunt, Rowland

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Joynson-Hicks, William

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kerry, Earl of

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

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

Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

Clive, Percy Archer

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

Winterton, Earl

Clyde, J. Avon

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon George

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Younger, George

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Morpeth, Viscount

Craik, Sir Henry

Morrison Bell, Captain

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

Dalrymple, Viscount

Newdegate, F. A.

Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 63.

Division No. 360.]

AYES.

[7.5 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Fenwick, Charles

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Allen. Charles P. (Stroud)

Ferens, T. R.

Macpherson, J. T.

Armitage, R

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

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

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Micking, Major G.

Astbury, John Melr

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Glover, Thomas

Marnham, F. J.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Masterman, C. F. G.

Bennett, E. N.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Berridge, T. H. D.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Middlebrook, William

Black, Arthur W.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Mond, A.

Bowerman, C. W.

Hall, Frederick

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Brace, William

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Morrell, Philip

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

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Morse, L. L.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Harwood, George

Pirie, Duncan V.

Clough, William

Hayden, John Patrick

Pointer, J.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hard, Dr. A. E. W.

Ponsonby, Arthur A W. H.

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

Hazleton, Richard

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

Hedges, A. Paget

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

Cowan, W. H.

Henderson, J. McD. (A'deen, W.)

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

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Henry, Charles S.

Rendall, Athelstan

Crosfield, A. H.

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

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Crossley, William J.

Higham, John Sharp

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

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Hodge, John

Richardson, A.

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Holt, Richard Durning

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hudson, Walter

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

Jenkins, J.

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Lamont, Norman

Seddon, J.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lehmann, R. C.

Shackleton, David James

Elibank, Master of

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

Evans, Sir S. T.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Everett, R. Lacey

Lewis, John Herbert

Simon, John Allsebrook

Falconer, J.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Walton, Joseph

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wedgwood, Joslah C.

Thomasson, Franklin

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Cap-

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

tain Norton and Sir Edward

Tomkinson, James

Wilkie, Alexander

Strachey.

Toulmin, George

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fell, Arthur

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gardner, Ernest

Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

Balcarres, Lord

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Pretyman, E. G.

Baldwin, Stanley

Gretton, John

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds)

Renton, Leslie

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

Hamilton, Marquess of

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hill, Sir Clement

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Bridgeman W. Clive

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Starkey, John R.

Bull, Sir William James

Hunt, Rowland

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Joynson-Hicks, William

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancs.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kerry, Earl of

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lane-Fox, G. R

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

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

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

Winterton, Earl

Cilve, Percy Archer

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Clyde, J. A.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Younger, George

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Morpeth, Viscount

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Vis-

Craik, Sir Henry

Newdegate, F. A.

count Valentia and Mr. H. W.

Dairympie, Viscount

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Forster.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Norton.]
Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen minutes after Seven o'clock a.m. (Wednesday, 21st July).