§ (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 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.
291§ 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 RONALDSHAYIf 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-GEORGEIt 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 CHAMBERLAINI 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-GEORGEI was referring to the reversionary interest over and above the value of the ground rent.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINQuite 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. MASONThe 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-GEORGEWhere?
§ Mr. J. F. MASONThese are cases sent me by a solicitor.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI 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. MASONWithout 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-GEORGEI know that there have been several cases of that kind in the City of London.
§ Mr. J. F. MASONI 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-HICKSHaving 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-HICKSI 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 BERTRAMI 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 (York)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 weaveWhen 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 COXI 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 CHAIRMANWe 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. WATSON RUTHERFORDThis 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. RADFORDI 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. BALFOURWe 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-GEORGEThe 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. LLOYD-GEORGEI 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. BALFOURThe 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.
315| 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 |
| 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 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."
316§ 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.
319| 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 |
| 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-CHAIRMANThat is not a point of order at this stage.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 101.
321| 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 TAYLORI 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-CHAIRMANThe 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. CARSONIs it in order for hon. Members to stand inside the Bar on the floor of the House?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt does not appear to me that hon. Members are standing inside the Bar on the floor of the House.
§ 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-GEORGEIt 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 CARSONI 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-HICKSIt 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. BALFOURI 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-GEORGEThe 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. BALFOURNo, 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-GEORGEOh, 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. BALFOURNo; 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-GEORGEI 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. BALFOURNo, I do not know what your reasons are.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGESince 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. BALFOURIf 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 SCOTTThe 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. CAVEOne 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-GEORGEYou would have paid very little.
§ Mr. CAVEThe 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 HOPEThe 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 BIGNOLDWill the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer kindly answer my question?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEYes, 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. PRETYMANThe 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 CHAIRMANThe hon. and gallant Gentleman appears to be discussing the whole question of exemption.
§ Mr. PRETYMANTake 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-POYNDERI 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-GEORGEIf the hon. Member who moved this Amendment will withdraw it, it will enable us to move to insert 40 years.
§ Mr. HARMOOD-BANNERI 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 CHAIRMANThat is not the point we are on, the question is whether 30 or some other number of years should be included.
§ Mr. HARMOOD-BANNERI 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.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILSo 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-GEORGEIt 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 CAVEWhat 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 EVANSPerhaps my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. Radford) will now consent to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Mr. RADFORDI am anxious to relieve the Committee from the trouble of an unnecessary Division, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Leave withheld.
333§ Question put, "That the word 'thirty' stand part of the Clause."
334§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 319.
335| 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."
336§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 96; Noes, 277.
339| 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) |
| 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 moved the insertion of the word "forty."
340§ Question put, "That the word 'forty' be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 94.
341| 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 CHAIRMANThe 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. ROBERTSIn 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 CHAIRMANThere 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 HELMSLEYI 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.
§
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 CHAMBERLAINThe 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 assented:
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI 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 CECILI 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 CARSONHaving 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-GEORGEI 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. CARSONI 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. RAWLINSONThe 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 HOPEThis 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 DUNCANIt 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 GARDNERIt 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.
357| 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 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. ROBSONOf 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. PRETYMANThe 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. ROBSONIt 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. PRETYMANIt 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. ROBSONI was merely giving an illustration.
§ Mr. PRETYMANAn 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 HELMSLEYIt 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. FELLWe 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. RAWLINSONAs 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 HOPEI 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-CHAIRMANThat is going into a side issue altogether; that has nothing whatever to do with the Amendment.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI 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 CARSONI 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 DEWARThat 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. CARSONI 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 DEWARThis 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. CARSONThe 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-CHAIRMANI do not think that question is involved in this Amendment.
§ Sir E. CARSONYes, it is.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYThe 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.
373| 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 |
| 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 RUTHERFORDThis 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-GEORGEThose 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 RUTHERFORDThe 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 CECILOf 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 CECILMy 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 RUTHERFORDOn 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 CHAIRMANI 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 CECILThen I propose to take a Division.
§ Question put, "That these words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 274.
377| 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 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. HALDANEWhen 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 CHAMBERLAINThe 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. HALDANESome pretext of relevance.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINHe 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 CECILThe 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 RUTHERFORDI 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 DUNCANThe 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 MORRELLOn a point of order. Is the hon. Member in order in making those reflections which are entirely foreign to the Amendment?
§ The CHAIRMANI did not understand the hon. Member to be making reflections.
§ Mr. R. DUNCANI 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 CHAIRMANThat is outside the Amendment.
§ Mr. R. DUNCANThank 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 BANBURYMy 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-HICKSI 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. BALFOURMy 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. HALDANEThe 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 CHAMBERLAINThe 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.
389| 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 |
| 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 (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. BALFOURI 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. BALFOURThe 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. HALDANEThe 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 WYNDHAMThe 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 CHAIRMANThe right hon. Gentleman is not in order in discussing a previous Amendment.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMMy 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. PEELThe 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 CRAIGEarlier 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 CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is getting away from the subject of the Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is repeating himself.
Captain CRAIGI 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 rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ 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 CLIVEThere is another point, and that is the way in which it affects small holdings.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not see that that quite refers to the section.
§ Captain CLIVEI 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.
401| 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 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."
402§ 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.
405| 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 |
| 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."
406§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 99.
407| 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 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. ROBSONHe has been here the whole time. [Cries of "No."]
§ Mr. BALFOURNor has the learned Attorney-General.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI did not say I had, but I have been here a great many more hours than the right hon. Gentleman-opposite.
§ Mr. BALFOURPerhaps 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. ROBSONMay 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. BALFOURI 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. HALDANEThe 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 CHAIRMANI do not think the right hon. Gentleman has said anything which requires to be withdrawn.
§ Mr. HALDANEWhat 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. BALFOURNo. 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. HALDANEThe 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 CHAMBERLAINIf 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 dissented.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI 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 LEVYI 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 CHAIRMANThat is not very relevant to the Motion before the Chair.
§ Sir MAURICE LEVYThe Prime Minister was challenged by the right hon. Gentleman—
§ The CHAIRMANThat has no bearing on the question whether we should report Progress or not.
§ Mr. EVELYN CECILWe 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 CHAIRMANI would remind the hon. Member that this is a Motion to report Progress.
§ Mr. E. CECILI 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. WYNDHAMThe 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 RUTHERFORDAs 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 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.
423| 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. |
| 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."
424§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 104; Noes, 220.
425| 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 RUTHERFORDThe 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. ROBSONWhere 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 CRAIKThe 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 HARDYHas 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. ROBSONI 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 HARDYBut it would not be wanted for a long term, because, in most cases, the minerals would have been worked out.
§ Sir W. ROBSONIn 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 RUTHERFORDThe 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 HOPEIt 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 BOWLESThe 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-HICKSI 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-CHAIRMANI do not think I ought to be asked to decide at this stage whether future Amendments will be in order.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSThen 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-GENERALI 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.
431| 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 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.
432§ 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-GEORGEThis 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. PRETYMANWe 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-BANNERI 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 HELMSLEYI 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.
435| 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. PRETYMANThe 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-GEORGEThis would be a subsequent Amendment.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThe 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. ROBSONI 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. PRETYMANBut was not the word "lessor" only used in the resolution on which these clauses are founded?
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe 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. PRETYMANThat 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-GEORGEI 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. PRETYMANI 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-GEORGEThe 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 CHAMBERLAINThe 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."
442§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 83; Noes, 164.
443| 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 rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That the words of the Clause down to the
444§ end of section (4) stand part of the Clause,' be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 79.
445| 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."
446§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 78.
447| 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 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.
449§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI 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-GEORGEThe 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 CHAMBERLAINI 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-GEORGEI 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-HICKSI 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-GEORGEI 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. LAMBTONThe 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 DUNCANI 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. LAMBTONI ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
452§ 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-GEORGEThe hon. Gentleman need not elaborate this. I am accepting the Amendment.
§ Mr. RUTHERFORDWe 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-GEORGEAs 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-HICKSI 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. HALDANEThe 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 CHAMBERLAINSurely 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 BIGNOLDThis 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-HICKSThe 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. HALDANEThe 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-HICKSIs 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. HALDANEThe 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.
455| 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 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."
457§ Question put, "That the Question, 'That the Cause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
458§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 71.
457| 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."
460§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 69.
459| 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 |