§ Postponed Proceeding resumed on consideration of Clause 1.
§ Which Amendment was to leave out the words "any subsequent enactment," and insert the words "sections fourteen and fifteen of The Finance Act, 1896, and section eleven of The Finance Act, 1900."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]
§ Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ Sir W. ROBSONWhen the adjournment interrupted our proceedings, I was dealing with a point which had been raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Sir E. Carson), who emphasised that there was no provision in the Bill to say that the owner of the beneficial enjoyment had to pay the Increment Value Duty in cases where he had it from a donor who died within five years of the passing of the Bill. I am afraid he had mistaken wholly the provisions of the Bill with which he was supposed to be dealing. Clause 1 places the Increment Duty on land, and Clause 5 says: "The provisions as to the assessment, collection, and recovery of Estate Duty under the Finance Act, 1894, shall apply as if Increment Value Duty were an addition to the Estate Duty." What are the provisions of the Finance Act, 1894? They are set out very clearly. Clause 8, sub-section 4, says: "Where property passes on the death of the deceased, and his executor is not accountable for the Estate Duty in respect of such property, every person to whom any property so passes from any beneficial interest in possession." There, every person to whom any property so passes, or who has a beneficial interest in possession, "to the extent of the property actually received or disposed of by him shall be accountable for the Estate Duty." We may here read the words "increment value" instead of Estate Duty, so that the person accountable for the increment value is the person who finds himself in beneficial possession of the estate.
§ Mr. PRETYMANHave there been cases in court and legal decisions on the interpretation of the words?
§ Sir W. ROBSONI cannot charge my memory with any such cases for the moment. I dare say the hon. and gallant Member is right.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI do not say that there were. I am not sure.
§ Sir. W. ROBSONThis clause left only one gap. It obviously did not deal with the case of leasehold owners. By Clause 5 of this Bill we extend the same principle to leasehold interests. Clause 5 may be read in two parts, the first part applying the provisions of the Finance Act of 1894, which cover fee simple estates, and the second part, which deals with leasehold interests, making in each case the person who gets the beneficial enjoyment of the land the person responsible or accountable for the payment of the Increment Value Duty. That deals, I think, completely with the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he said there was no such provision in the Bill. I do not wish to cast the slightest reproach on anybody, even the most distinguished lawyer, who should not be able to discover in any modern statute provisions which depend so much on reference. I myself desired a moment or two when the point was raised in order to look up the reference, because one cannot carry the whole of the statute in memory. I think that shows that the hardship does not arise in the Bill as now framed. Of course, it looks very hard at first to make the death of the donor an occasion on which you take Increment Value Duty from the donee. But one must not look at it in the light of the death of the donor being made the occasion of a payment which otherwise would not be made, because it only means that the donee, having got possession of the property, has to clear it of Increment Value Duty. If he did not clear it then he would have to clear it later on, either on death or transfer. It has been thought not an inconvenient proceeding in this particular case to make this an occasion for making the person in enjoyment of the property clear it of Increment Value Duty. He has got to clear it some time or other, and it does not seem to be very unreasonable.
§ Mr. PRETYMANHow does he clear it of Increment Duty, or is it possible to clear any estate of Increment Value Duty? You can only pay to a certain date, but you cannot even clear an estate of the duty. I do not know what he means by that statement.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI did not mean that you clear it so as to make the duty never payable again, but up to the date of the occasion.
§ Mr. PRETYMANOn the death of the man five years later would it not be payable again?
§ Sir W. ROBSONUp to the date of the payment. And the moment you pay Increment Value Duty it begins to accrue again.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThe point my right hon. Friend made was that if, on the occasion of a gift, the donee did what the right hon. Gentleman suggests, namely, franked the gift by having a valuation made, and four and a-half years afterwards the donor died, there would be a further claim for increment.
§ Sir W. ROBSONCertainly.
§ Mr. PRETYMANSurely that is most unreasonable?
§ Sir W. ROBSONHe would only frank it up to the date of the gift. If the donor dies within four and a-half years his death is made the occasion for collecting any Increment Value Duty which has accrued since the date of the gift. The hon. and gallant Member says that that is very unreasonable. It means that a donee has got to frank his property again up to that date. But he would have to do it at some time; and it must not be treated as though he were making a payment which but for the death of the donor he would not have to make at all.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThis is a matter upon which ordinary lay Members of the House can form their own opinion as a clear business matter. The statement of the Attorney-General makes the case far worse. Certain property is in the ordinary course handed over by its owner to a child or under a marriage settlement, and the owner franks it up to the date of the gift. He has a valuation made, and pays the Increment Duty up to the date of the gift, so that there can be no possible attempt to evade the duty in any shape or form. The contention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that this was necessary solely in order to escape avoidance of the duty. That was his sole defence. But it is perfectly clear that in this case there is no attempt to avoid the duty, let alone evade it. The property then passes into the hands of the donee; and what- 323 ever may happen to that property—it may be sold and sub-divided three or four times; on each occasion a further valuation may have to be made and a further Increment Value Duty paid—if towards the end of the five years the original donor dies, these people are to be come down upon for fresh Increment Value Duty.
§ Sir W. ROBSONNo.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThat follows, I think.
§ Sir W. ROBSONNot unless there is fresh increment.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI am not quite sure about that. I do not think that that is so. A valuation has to be obtained, whether Increment Value Duty is payable or not, in order to ascertain whether, in the opinion of the Commissioners, there is or is not any increment of value. The Attorney-General by his silence acknowledges that that is so. Will any hon. Gentleman opposite suggest that it is reasonable in the case of a property which has been passed over to another individual, which may have been franked and the duty paid up to that moment, whatever may happen to that property afterwards, whoever may hold it, however many times it may have been sold, however often it may have been subdivided, that a valuation of it should be made, and possibly Increment Value Duty charged upon it simply because the original donor of the property happens to die? It is an impossible proposition for any Government to bring before any legislative assembly. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot really reasonably profess to defend it. I know he has to defend it; but it seems to me it is an impossible proposition successfully to defend. Do the Government really consider it necessary to impose such difficulties upon the ownership of property? If so, we can only debate the point, and call the attention of the country to its extreme unreasonableness, and there the powers of a minority end. There seems to me, however, to be some responsibility upon every Member of the Committee who votes in support of such a monstrous proposal.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSDoes the Chancellor of the Exchequer realise the position in which he is putting all land which is the subject of any gift within five years of the death of the donor? I have always understood it to be the policy of the party opposite to induce people to part with their property and to make as many owners as 324 possible. Under this clause in its present form it is perfectly true—as I understood the Attorney-General to admit—that if an owner, within five years of his death, settles a piece of land on his daughter on her marriage there is this Increment Duty as a clog upon that land for five years. Surely that cannot be the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It does not add to the amount of duty the Government will obtain. They are bound to get 20 per cent. of the whole increment accruing on that piece of land. The owner cannot escape it. The duty must be paid whenever the land changes hands by transfer, on sale, or on the death of the owner. But under this extraordinary clause, on any land which once forms the subject of a gift or a marriage settlement, Increment Duty, although it would accrue and be payable when the land was sold or the donee died, is to be payable on a date over which the donee or the purchaser of the land from the donee has no possible control. Anybody who buys this land from the trustees of the marriage settlement will have to say: "I wonder if the original donor is going to die within five years." The purchaser has to buy the land not merely with the knowledge that Increment Duty has to be paid, but with the knowledge that, if the donor chooses to die within the five years, he will be put to all the trouble and worry of paying Increment Duty, or if there is no increment in value, he will have to satisfy the Commissioners on the point; and, if he wants his title to be good, he will have to get a denoting stamp fixed the moment the unfortunate donor dies. That is the legal position. Beyond the legal position there is the actual—I will not say moral position, but the reasonableness of the position. There have been other Amendments proposed of a technical character, but this Amendment seeks not to do the Government put of the slightest shilling of duty, but is intended to make it possible for a man to settle property upon his children with a clear title to that property, free of Increment Duty. The point has been made legally clear by the Attorney-General, but the point has not been made reasonably clear outside the law. I do appeal to the Chancellor to accept this Amendment in order that this very grave inconvenience, to put it no stronger, may be avoided.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI very much regret that my miscalculation of the business allowed me to miss the statement 325 which the hon. and learned Gentleman made. I have heard from my hon. Friend what that statement was, but I will not attempt to answer the arguments I did not hear. I rise to ask the Attorney-General if he will kindly give me an answer to another question which I think has not been mentioned in the course of this discussion: Suppose that A leaves property to B, and B sells it to C at once; A dies in less than five years after his gift to B. Increment Duty has to be paid by someone. Is it to be paid by B, the donee, or by C the purchaser from B?
§ Sir W. ROBSONC would pay the Estate Duty in such a case, and, therefore, would also pay the Increment Duty. There may be many cases under the Finance Act of 1894 under which questions of this kind crop up, and an answer cannot be given to these various queries off hand, but that is the general answer that I have to make.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe hon. and learned Gentleman will not think me discourteous if I ask him to turn his attention to the point at once, because I think we ought to know before we part from this Amendment, which really raises the matter. It is a matter of considerable practical importance, probably involving very great hardships.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI was quite right in the answer I gave before. I guarded my self because I had not got the section immediately under my eyes. I find now on looking at section 8 of the Finance Act of 1894, sub-section (4), "where property passes on the death of the deceased, and his executor is not accountable for the Estate Duty in respect of such property, every person to whom any property so passes for any beneficial interest in possession,…. shall within the time required by this Act, or at such later time as the Commissioners allow, deliver…… and verify an account, to the best of his knowledge and belief, of the property," and so forth, so that in that case C will be the person to pay, and C therefore would, and, I think, quite properly, be the person who would have to clear the
§ estate of the Increment Duty rising out of the death of the person who was the original donor.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPESupposing both donor and donee die within the five years of the date to be given, what is the position of the executors of the donee? How can they ever wind up the estate if they have this incubus hanging over them? It seems to me to suggest a whole series of difficulties. I speak with some feeling, because I am at this moment an executor of a- somewhat complicated estate.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI hope the hon. Member will forgive me for saying there is nothing further to add. If the hon. Member had done me the honour to follow what I already said he would have had no difficulty in understanding the position. I have dealt with the case he has raised.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEHow can the executors ever know how they are to wind up an estate?
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe hon. Gentleman would be surprised to find how well executors manage to wind up estates.
§ Mr. FELLI have wound up many estates myself, and in the case of gift, in which the testator happened to die in 12 months or five years, that estate has to pay duty as part of the property of the testator. The executors are liable for the Estate Duty upon it——
§ Sir W ROBSONThe hon. Member has not been here when all these points were made. I hope he will not now go on dealing with points which have been amply, adequately, and completely met already.
§ Mr. A. FELLI have not been here during the whole of the discussion, but, as I say, I have wound up a great many estates and the executors have to pay the whole of the duty, and they take care not to distribute the estate until they pay the whole of the duty.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 86.
329| Division No. 212.] | AYES. | [10.0 p.m. |
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) | Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Berridge, T. H. D. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Barker, Sir John | Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) |
| Alden, Percy | Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Black, Arthur W. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Boland, John |
| Armitage, R. | Beauchamp, E. | Bowerman, C. W. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Beck, A. Cecil | Bramsdon, Sir T. A. |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Bell, Richard | Branch, James |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Bellairs, Carlyon | Bright, J. A. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Pollard, Dr. G. H. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Jardine, Sir J. | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Jenkins, J. | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Jones, Sir W. Brynmor (Swansea) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Jowett, F. W. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Joyce, Michael | Reddy, M. |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Kavanagh, Walter M. | Rees, J. D. |
| Chance, Frederick William | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Charnning, Sir Francis Aliston | Laidlaw, Robert | Richardson, A. |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Lamb, Ernest H (Rochester) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon, R. R. | Lambert, George | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Cleland, J. W. | Lamont, Norman | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Clough, William | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Robinson, S. |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Lehmann, R. C. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) | Roche, John (Galway, East) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Rowlands, J. |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Lundon, T. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Lupton, Arnold | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Crooks, William | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Crossley, William J. | Lynch, H. B. | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Sears, J. E. |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford) |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Maclean, Donald | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Duckworth, Sir James | M'Callum, John M. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | M'Kean, John | Snowden, P. |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Elibank, Master of | M'Micking, Major G. | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Essex, R. W. | Maddison, Frederick | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Mallet, Charles E. | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Steadman, W. C. |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Marnham, F. J. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Ferens, T. R. | Massie, J. | Summerbell, T. |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Masterman, C. F. G. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Menzies, Sir Walter | Taylor, Theodore C. (Ratcliffe) |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Micklem, Nathaniel | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Middlebrook, William | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | Molteno, Percy Alport | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Mond, A. | Toulmin, George |
| Gill, A. H. | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Ginnell, L. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | Morrell, Philip | Vivian, Henry |
| Glover, Thomas | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Walsh, Stephen |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Murphy, John (Kerry, East) | Wardle, George J. |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Gulland, John W. | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Myer, Horatio | Weir, James Galloway |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Nannetti, Joseph P. | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Napier, T. B. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Nicholls, George | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Nolan, Joseph | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Henry, Charles S. | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Higham, John Sharp | O'Donnell, C. J. Walworth) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Hogan, Michael | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Hooper, A. G. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | Partington, Oswald | Winfrey, R. |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Paulton, James Mellor | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Hudson, Walter | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | |
| Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Philips, John (Longford, S.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis. |
| Hyde, Clarendon G. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | |
| Idris, T. H. W. | Pointer, J. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Baldwin, Stanley | Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks |
| Ashley, W. W. | Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Beckett, Hon. Gervase |
| Balcarres, Lord | Banner, John S. Harmood- | Bignold, Sir Arthur |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hamilton, Marquess of | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Renton. Leslie |
| Bull, Sir William James | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Renwick, George |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Helmsley, Viscount | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Hill, Sir Clement | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Houston, Robert Paterson | Sandys, Col. Thos Myles |
| Clive, Percy Arther | Kerry, Earl of | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Law, Arthur Bonar (Dulwich) | Stanier, Beville |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Du Cros, Arthur | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | M'Calmont, Colonel James | Valentia, Viscount |
| Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Newdegate, F. A. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Fell, Arthur | Oddy, John James | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Parkes, Ebenezer | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Forster, Henry William | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Peel, Hon. W. Robert Wellesley | Younger, George |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Percy, Earl | |
| Gretton, John | Pretyman, E. G. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joynson-Hicks and Mr. Rawlinson. |
| Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Randles, Sir John Scurrah | |
| Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds) | Ratcliffe, Major R. F. |
§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott)The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the West Derby Division (Mr. W. W. Rutherford) comes in on Clause 3.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILI shall be able to deal with my Amendment more shortly on account of the discussion which has already taken place, and which has very largely paved the way for this Amendment. I propose to leave out some words in the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper, and it will then read to insert after the word "enactment," the following words: "Provided that in the case of a disposition made by any person purporting to act as an immediate gift inter vivos, whether by way of transfer, delivery, declaration of trust, or otherwise, then it shall be deemed to be valuable consideration." Under the sub-section we are discussing it is provided: "On the occasion of the death of any person dying after the commencement of this Act, where the land or any interest in the land is comprised in the property passing on the death of the deceased within the meaning of sections 1 and 2 of the Finance Act, 1894." Therefore, you have to turn to section 1 and 2 of that Act to see what is meant by "property passing on the death of the deceased." This involves you in a considerable maze of statutes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not responsible for the drafting of that section, but it is one of the most confused it has ever been my pleasure to read. The effect of it is this: it brings under "property passing on the death of the deceased" all property of which he was possessed within 12 months of his decease, and it says all such 330 property shall be comprised in that Act. Consequently under the provision of this sub-section Increment Duty will be payable in respect of the property to within a year of his decease. In considering the whole effect of this enactment, you must take into consideration the proposals later on in the Bill to extend one year to five years. All property which the deceased was possessed of at any time within five years of his death is included in the expression "property passing at his decease." It is quite clear that that only deals with property which he has not sold for "valuable consideration." If he has sold for valuable consideration, then the property is not included as part of the property which passes at his decease. The question arises whether property settled on a daughter at her marriage, where that property is given away by a donation inter vivos, is to be deemed a valuable consideration. In the case of property which has passed by valuable consideration, it has been held to be property which was given away. The. Attorney-General will agree with me when I say that that decision was one which was not generally expected. The result is that all property settled within a year of a man's life is treated as "property passing on his death," and therefore the daughter or the son-in-law, as the case may be, becomes liable for Estate Duty if the man dies within a year. Under the proposal of the Government, such property will be liable if the donor dies within five years. I think that is a very harsh condition even with regard to the Estate Duty. It is a mistake to suppose that marriage is not a "valuable consideration," because it is really a very important matter. You are 331 going to receive property, and the question how you are going to live and the scale of your life necessarily depends upon whether you are married or single, and, therefore, to say where you marry on the strength of certain property being given to you that you do not give any "valuable consideration" for that gift is not common-sense. It is really a hardship that that should be treated as a mere voluntary gift. The matter becomes much worse if you are going to have that state of things existing for five years, because the unhappy married couple will not know what property they are to rely upon for five years after their marriage. Let us take a small case. Take that of a property worth £1,000 on its site value. It has been settled on a daughter on the occasion of her marriage. Supposing that in five years its value has risen to £1,500, so that there is an increment value of £500. Therefore in that time they would have to pay £100, which would inflict a great hardship. The Death Duties are hard enough at present, but the five years would make them still harder. The Government might well consider this point, for it does not touch the general principle of their proposals. My Amendment would really safeguard a great number of people from hardship at that particular period of their lives.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe object of the clause is to prevent the evasion of the Death Duties. No man gets married in order to pay Death Duties. I was in some doubt about the words; but the matter can be dealt with on Report. I shall therefore accept the Amendment on the clear understanding that its object is to safeguard a marriage settlement.
Mr. BALFOURThe Chancellor of the Exchequer has most reasonably dealt with the suggestion of my Noble Friend. I have had experience in the drafting of clauses, and it is necessary to be particular as to the form of words used. They must be drafted with very great care. Subject to reconsideration in regard to drafting, it is quite satisfactory that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the principle of the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEIn the absence of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sir J. Dickson-Poynder) I beg to move to leave out sub-section (c). This is one of the sub-sections, the meaning of which 332 can only be properly ascertained by reference, and the reference in this Act is to section 12 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1885. Turning to the White Paper, I find that one of the bodies referred to in this sub-section is a body unincorporated, and that, of course, includes every unincorporated company. It appears that any company or society will be liable under this sub-section to the duty on any land, or interest in any land, which they may sell. These words are extremely far reaching, and they will affect a very great number of different bodies which I am sure the Government do not wish to penalise. Take the case of the British Land Company, a perfectly bonò fide, undertaking. That is a body unincorporated. It is an association formed for the purpose of buying land in large quantities and selling it in small lots. A great many other companies and societies of a like nature will come under the operation of this clause. It is now proposed that they shall be liable for Increment Duty on any land or interest in land they dispose of, whether by sale or lease. This will introduce the utmost uncertainty into their operations. They must go on on business principles; they look forward to equalising their losses on some transactions by the gain on others. The operation of this clause will make it impossible for them to do that. If the periodical occasions are to occur, say, every 15 years, whenever they make a profit on any part of a transaction they will be liable to the duty, but any concurrent loss they may sustain on other parts of the transaction will not be made up to them. It seems to me to be a case of great hardship in regard to these bodies. I do not want to raise the question as to whether all kinds of incorporated or unincorporated bodies should or should not be taxed, but I do submit that the words of the sub-section will bear very hardly on a number of perfectly legitimate undertakings, and, in order to give the Government an opportunity to show how they propose to differentiate between these various bodies, some of which may get unearned increment in the fullest sense, the profit on which might justly become liable to duty, while others will be severely hampered in perfectly legitimate operations. I formally move the omission of this subsection.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Masterman)The meaning of this particular section must be very apparent to the Committee, and I can understand— 333 though I do not know whether I am right in the understanding—why the hon. Baronet did not move, after the decision we came to on sub-section (b). If you have already decided that you take the Increment Duty at the death of the individual, you must also decide to have some arrangement for taking the Increment Duty in the case of corporations, which never die, and under these circumstances the Government have placed in the Bill a general provision to take such increment on periodic occasions, leaving to later clauses to define what bodies and to what extent those bodies should be exempted from the duty. Under those circumstances, I do not think it is my function to-night to deal with any special case of any special corporate body. There are provisions under Clauses 24 and 25 which deal with exceptions, and which deal with exceptions in regard to other besides Increment Duties, and there will probably be exceptions in various forms of corporate and unincorporate bodies. It is on these clauses evidently that exceptions should be dealt with. Again, it might be said that the periodic occasions as provided by this Bill are of too frequent a character, or not frequent enough. Those years, according to a later clause, will be for the first occasion 1914, and for subsequent occasions every 15 years. That is rather an attempt to make a kind of parallel of the frequency with which land might come under the operation of the Increment Duty at the time of sale or at the time of death, and that also might be the legitimate subject of discussion at that time, but on the general principle, surely it must be evident that, having decided that land in the possession of individuals and passing from father to son, was to pay Increment Duty on the occasion of death, there is no other way of putting land in the hand of a corporation in a parallel position, except by deciding that at certain specified intervals the increment shall be taken by the State. That is the whole meaning of sub-section (c).
§ Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAMI understood the hon. Gentleman to say that these periodic revisions in the case of property held by bodies corporate or unincorporate represented a kind of amalgamation, equivalent to the incidence of sale in the case of property owned by a private person and the incidence in the case of property passing at the death of a private person.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI did not mean that. I was dealing with what I ought not to 334 have dealt with—with the period of time as which the action of the Increment Duty will take place. A corporation will, of course, pay on sale as ordinary people, but if the land is not sold they will pay every 15 years.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMThe hon. Member did say a periodic incidence of this duty, taking into account both these cases. He has now made it clear that it is only a substitute for death, and in the case of any sale of the land owned by a body corporate or unincorporate then the duty falls in that case, and these periodic revisions are only set off against the time of death, and not against the time of sale.
§ Mr. HARMOOD-BANNERWe have not had a sufficient explanation on the question of the right of set-off. We are referred to subsequent clauses, in which we are told we shall see justice done; but I fail to see in any of these subsequent clauses where the right exists every 15 years for a friendly society to take an estimate of their property and pay on the basis of the present value of their land. As it stands at present, the Government reserve the right to take a proportion of any increase in the value of the land, but where there is a decrease, not to allow any diminution. Ordinary insurance companies and banks have branches throughout the country. Is there any clause which gives the right of adjusting these interests inter se? I take it there is none, and we ought to have an explanation as to whether that is so, and banks, friendly societies, and insurance companies, when they pay their 15-Yearly Tax, have a right to take their property as one, and pay the increment on the nett results. It can hardly be just and proper that great friendly societies which have numerous branches should be mulcted by paying where there is increment and not being allowed any diminution when there is a decrement. If we are to pass these taxes, hard as they are, they should be just. Men pay willingly where there is justice, but not where taxes are taken on the basis of paying on profits without any reduction for losses.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONThere is one matter on which I should like the opinion of the Attorney-General. This sub-section imposes the duty of making a valuation, and provides an occasion for collecting the tax on two different classes of bodies—corporate and unincorporate. The case is perfectly clear as regards 335 bodies corporate, but as regards bodies un-incorporate it is not as fair as it should be, because for a definition of "body unincor-porate" we are referred to the Customs and Inland Revenue Act '85, which says:—
A body unincorporate includes every unincorporated company, fellowship, society, trustee or nominal trustee to whom any real or personal property shall belong or be vested upon such permanent trusts that same shall not be liable to legacy duty or succession duty.I would like to know from the learned law officers what are the permanent Trusts which are not liable to Legacy Duty or Succession Duty. Before we can decide as to the meaning of the section, it is necessary to know what is meant by a "body unincorporate."
§ Sir W. ROBSONI think you could not have a clearer definition of a body unincorporate than you have here. I do not think that I could improve on the language of the clause.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI really think that we ought to have an explanation of the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Everton Division of Liverpool (Mr. Harmood-Banner). There are three eminent representatives of the law sitting on the Treasury Bench—English, Irish and Scotch—and surely among that galaxy of talent there will be one who will be able to reply on this very important point. I myself viewed with a little misapprehension the Motion to leave out sub-section (c). I believe if you are going to put this tax on private owners you ought also to put it on public owners of every description, including municipalities. I will give a concrete instance which I know, and I am prepared to communicate to the Attorney-General the name privately if he so desires. I know a bank which has 200 branches. The head office is in London. In 15 years there will very likely, if we have not too much Radical Government, be an increment in the property of the bank in London. There is a very great probability that there will be a decrement in the 199 offices of the bank spread over England. Under this clause as it stands the Government are going to say, "There is an increment in London of, say, £20,000. There is a decrement in the provinces of £50,000, but with that we have nothing to do. We claim £4,000, or one-fifth of the increment in London." Therefore, although the property taken as a whole shows a loss, the Government are going to take £4,000 because in one case there happens to be an increase. That is a very simple instance, and it is 336 one that will occur in many cases. It does not require very much legal knowledge to say whether that is or is not the intention of the Government.
If it is the intention of the Government I shall certainly vote in favour of the Amendment. If it is not their intention, and they can give a pledge that such hard cases will not arise, then I am not at all sure—much as I detest this Bill, and much as I should like to oppose every part of it —that paragraph (c) is not the natural sequence to paragraph (b), and that I ought under those circumstances to vote against it.
Mr. BALFOURI should like to ask a question. I am not sure whether it is a question of order, but it is a question of convenience. The question is whether this is not a moment at which the Government ought to be asked to explain their general policy under this sub-section. It is quits true that there are sections later which qualify this sub-section, but this is the first sub-section in which they deal with corporations. It is a sub-section, therefore, by which, in the first instance, they show how bodies corporate and incorporate are to be dealt with. As regards the Increment Tax, I should have thought that while it might be inexpedient to deal in detail with the exemptions, the Government ought to give some notion as to what their views are with regard to the bodies which they mean to tax. There are rumours—I do not know whether they were founded or unfounded—that the Government mean to qualify the bare statement contained in Clause 1. I do not know to what extent these qualifications apply or what justification they have for the qualifications they have to make, or whether there is any general consideration underlying the exemptions which they mean to introduce. I should have thought that on Clause 1, imposing the tax, we should have some clear idea of what the policy of the Government was on these generally important matters. I put it to-you whether this would not be an appropriate occasion for asking His Majesty's Government to make some important statement on the broad question of policy.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEOn a point of order I agree that it is a very important question, but I could not possibly make a statement on this clause, and certainly not on this particular Amendment, which would be complete. There are several sections dealing with corporations on which I have made promises of concessions 337 in attempting to meet difficulties which have been presented to me. There are several, for instance, on Clause 25, but I could not possibly set out the difficulties which have been presented to me, and I could not detail the concessions which the Government are prepared to make. They would be subject to discussion, and we should be discussing on Clause 1 what really pertains to Clause 25, and one or two other clauses. For instance, there are concessions which we shall have to make with regard to railway companies who are not under Clause 25, but certainly we could not have them under Clause 1, and though I shall be very glad to respond to the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) I do not see how it is possible to do it in order under Clause 1. If I made a statement it would be open to any Gentleman in the House to discuss it and criticise it. For that reason, though I would be very glad to respond to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not see how I could possibly deal with the question of exemptions which come under Clause 25 in a discussion on Clause 1.
Mr. BALFOURMay I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he really has stated in sub-section (c) all the bodies that he means to deal with? There is a broad statement as to the bodies corporate that are to be dealt with, and all the bodies unincorporate, as applied under section (12) of the Act of 1885. There is, therefore, a clear definition in this clause of the bodies that the Government mean to tax under the first clause. But, first of all, we know of no exceptions to the broad statement which the clause contains, and which is perfectly clear in its terms. Perhaps the Government can now tell us what is the general tenour of their exceptions.
§ Mr. W. PEELOn the point of order. On looking at Clause 25 I find that the exceptions are of a particular kind of bodies, corporate, educational, and otherwise. That is quite true; but there is another class of exceptions which I think meets the point of the hon. Member for Liverpool, who raised the question as to whether any particular corporation which had property scattered about different parts of the country——
§ The CHAIRMANI do not see that the hon. Member is speaking to the point of order. In reply to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, of course, it is in order to ask a question as to what the Government 338 means generally by the words "by any body corporate or by any body unincorporate." The hon. Member was speaking of leaving in or leaving out this particular paragraph, and it is wholly in the discretion of the Government what reply they will give upon the point. It is obvious, of course, that we ought not to get into a discussion as to whether this or that particular specimen of a body corporate or body unincorporate should or should not be included, because that is a matter which should be left for the exemption clause.
§ Mr. M. HICKS BEACHIf the right hon. Gentleman is not going to answer the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition, will he give an answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool and by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury)? It is a very important point, and one which clearly concerns the general purport of the sub-section, and one on which the Committee as a whole ought to have a clear understanding. The point is whether a corporation is to be taxed on the increment value of a certain portion of its property or on the increment value of its property taken as a whole. You may have an increment value on a certain portion of the property, while there may be a serious decrement on another portion of the property. An instance has been given of a bank with 200 branches, of which a dozen may be in the county of London. On the whole of those dozen branches there may be an increment value, and therefore there would be Increment Duty payable. On the other hand, the bank may have a number of branches in Liverpool on which there may be a decrement. Will all these branches be balanced together, or will the Inland Revenue say:— "You have made a profit in the county of London, and therefore there will be an Increment Duty on that profit?" And you are not to allow against that the decrement suffered in the city of Liverpool? I think that is rather a material point, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to answer it.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) raised two separate issues, neither of which is relevant to this clause. They refer to the question of increment and decrement; and the Chairman has already ruled that questions of decrement should be discussed under Clause 2. The question of increment or decrement has got to be discussed. It is one of the important issues which will 339 have to be settled one way or the other by the Committee. There are several Amendments on the point which raise it specifically. The point put by the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Liverpool is in regard to a particular corporation. There again I see there is an Amendment, and I should submit that that is a question on Clause 25, where you come to the exemptions. Both those points have no reference at all to Clause 1. The Increment Duty arises under Clause 2, and the other on Clause 25.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMay I submit to you and the Committee the difficulty we are in is really due to the arrangement which the Government have adopted in drafting this Bill. If the Committee will look at the drafting of the Bill they will 6ee that in the part dealing with Reversion Duty there is a clause dealing with exemptions, and in the part dealing with Undeveloped Land there is a clause dealing with exemptions from that duty, but in the part dealing with Increment Value Duty there is no clause dealing with exemptions which are special to that. The Government, for reasons best known to themselves, have postponed the special exemptions in the Increment Value Duty from the part which deals with that duty to a certain clause at a part of the Bill which is general to the whole of it. That is to say, that while the special exemptions for each of the other taxes are following immediately upon the enactment of the tax, the special exemptions of Increment Value Duty are left to an entirely different place, and are put amongst the general exemptions. Clause 25 really stands out of its place, and if the Government had followed a consistent plan it would be one of the very earliest. The whole trouble arises because the Government have drafted the Bill in this muddling way.
§ Sir F. BANBURYClause 25 deals merely with bodies who hold their land for charitable purposes, and who do not desire to make any profit out of the property. It does not deal with the body un-incorporate at all. The marginal note says: "Exemption of land held for public or charitable purposes." When he comes to Clause 25, shall we not be ruled out of order if we endeavour to discuss the question relating to people who hold land in order to make a profit out of it, on the ground that Clause 25 only deals with land held by people for charitable purposes? It 340 is all very well to tell us now that we ought not to discuss a certain question because it may be discussed later on. I am afraid when we come to later on, we will be told it has already been decided by the Committee, and that, therefore, we cannot discuss it. If we do not discuss it now, it is almost probable when we come to the point indicated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd-George) that we shall be told we cannot discuss it as the Committee have already decided upon it. I think the bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and, as the Chairman has accepted the Amendment as in order, I hope he will discuss it now.
§ Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTONAt an earlier stage of the proceedings I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give me a distinct pledge that garden suburbs should be entirely exempted from the provisions of this Bill. I mentioned that the Government had introduced a Bill giving strong powers to municipalities for the direct purpose of furthering these enterprises, and when I asked how it would be consistent with that policy, at the same time to place upon such enterprises fresh and onerous burdens, I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that if I would only wait for the Bill I should find that provision was made for their exemption. I have studied the Bill very carefully, but I can find no such provision. Speaking generally, garden suburbs are undertaken by companies, who impose upon themselves a limitation of dividend, say 5 per cent., and all surplus earnings are devoted to public enterprises which are universally admitted to be for the good of the community. It seems ridiculous that such enterprises should be taxed on account of the increment which may attach to them, when they themselves have by their own scheme devoted their surplus earnings to the good of the community.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not think we ought to discuss on this Amendment the question whether or not garden cities should be exempted. It is perfectly proper to ask whether or not it is the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to include garden cities, but this is not the occasion on which the question can be discussed. The exemption of garden cities is not the Amendment before us, and I do not think it could be on Clause 1.
§ Mr. LYTTELTONThen I will simply ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his intention to exempt these 341 enterprises from the scheme of the Bill, and, if so, what measures he has taken to do so.
§ Mr. PEELThe Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that half the yield of these taxes is to go to the municipalities, and I presume that the amount is to be divided according to area. If one of these garden suburbs is put in the area of a municipality, is the municipality to lose half the tax? If so, there will be strong objection on the part of municipalities to garden suburbs.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe questions asked me by hon. Gentlemen shows how utterly impossible it is at this stage to satisfy these questionings. It has been ruled from the chair that you cannot discuss the question until you come to the exemptions. If I give an answer it must be one that will be subject to discussion, and if I do not answer the right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is purely and simply because I cannot give an answer that the Committee can take cognisance of. The right hon. Gentleman will find that as regards the utterances he refers to that I safeguarded myself. Three clauses, which will be subjected to amendment, protect garden cities. I cannot conceive anything worse in the interests of these charities, public bodies, etc., which we wish to safeguard, than this random discussion. For that reason I think it far better to confine ourselves now to the general question. Exemptions are gathered together at the end.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman when he has not quite made up his mind on any point, either refers us to a clause later in the Bill or else shelters himself behind an imaginary point of order. I entirely disagree with the, Chancellor of the Exchequer, for I do not think, Mr. Emmott, that you have ruled that it would be out of order for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer the questions which have been addressed to him. The subject of this Amendment is to leave out the clause dealing with the imposition of the tax on corporate and unincorporated bodies. Before we are asked by this clause to impose that tax, before we decide and vote, if we have the information asked for, we may be influenced by the particular kind of corporation upon which the tax is to be imposed. I have introduced a very long Amendment a little later on in connection with this clause, and have put in a large 342 number of subjects that I want excluded from the provisions of this clause. I do not know whether you are going to rule that that Amendment is in order or not, so that I might decide whether I am going to vote for the duty on corporate bodies or against it. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to make that difference in principle felt in regard to those bodies mentioned in the Amendment. I do not want to raise a Debate on this section on every single corporate body—railway companies, friendly societies, universities, charities, hospitals, and all those different institutions. At the same time I think we are entitled to know what the right hon. Gentleman means by bodies corporate and unincorporate. Unless he gives us an answer I am afraid I must divide against the clause.
§ Mr. JAMES F. MASONThe Chancellor referred specially to an Amendment I have on the Paper, and he said we should be able to raise the subject in that Amendment on Clause 25. I venture to submit that on Clause 25, which deals with bodies and persons carrying on business with no view to profit, the question of friendly societies would be out of order, and that the only way to raise it would be by a new-clause.
§ The CHAIRMANClause 25 would be the proper place to raise that question.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEOn Clause 25 would it be possible to move exemptions which are not covered by the words "public or charitable purposes"? My attitude on the present Amendment would depend somewhat upon your ruling.
§ The CHAIRMANOf course, a question of that kind is very difficult to answer on the spur of the moment. I often have to consider many points in order to give an answer that is thoroughly satisfactory to myself and that is conclusive. I notice that in Clause 25 these words occur—"for purposes which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, are public purposes or charitable purposes." Therefore, if the words "public purposes" are within the scope of the clause, I should certainly rule that anything that came within the words "public purposes" would be a proper subject of Amendment to the clause.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILMay I submit a point in connection with this matter? Will there be ground for asking for exemptions for particular kinds of corporations and societies from Increment Duty 343 which would apply to Undeveloped Land Duty or Reversionary Duty? I venture to ask whether it would be in order to discuss Amendments on this clause bearing on this kind of estate, having in view that it is a narrower point?
§ The CHAIRMANI cannot be expected to answer every question right off. I must have time for consideration, and I must see the concrete proposals. I should think that exemptions of that kind could be raised either on Clause 25 or Clause 24, or by a new clause.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEThere is considerable ambiguity as to whether we shall be able to move general exemptions under Clause 25. If they are not in order on that clause they will have to be moved on the new clause, which will come in at the end of the whole Bill after we have discussed, not only land values, but also Liquor Licences, Death Duties, and all the rest of them. Had your ruling been different, Mr. Chairman, I should not have desired to press this Amendment, but, as it is clear that this will be the only chance we shall have of discussing exemptions, I feel compelled to press my Amendment to a Division.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI quite understand that it is impossible for you, Mr. Chair- man, on the spur of the moment to give a ruling on Amendments which are not I before you, but there are on the Paper three or four definite Amendments raising questions of exemptions. It has been your practice Mr. Chairman, when you have said that an Amendment was in order at a later stage, to indicate where it would be best to move it. The Amendments I allude to are on the Paper, and it would be very convenient for hon. Members who have put them down to know if they will be more conveniently raised at a subsequent stage or at this stage.
§ The CHAIRMANAll I have to do in regard to Amendments is to say whether they are in order or not at the point at which they are raised. As a matter of courtesy I sometimes indicate where they should be raised. When we come to the Amendment about friendly societies I shall be prepared to give some indication where it comes in.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 108.
347| Division No. 213.] | AYES. | [11.14 p.m. |
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Ferguson, R. C. Munro |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Buxton. Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace |
| Agnew, George William | Byles, William Pollard | Flynn, James Christopher |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Freeman-Thomas, Freeman |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Cawley, Sir Frederick | Fullerton, Hugh |
| Armitage, R. | Chance, Frederick William | Furness, Sir Christopher |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Gibb, James (Harrow) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Cheetham, John Frederick | Gill, A. H. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Cleland, J. W. | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Clough, William | Glover, Thomas |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Clynes, J. R. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Barker, Sir John | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward |
| Barnard, E. B. | Cooper, G. J. | Griffith, Ellis J. |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Gulland, John W. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Crooks, William | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Crossley, William J | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Black, Arthur W. | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. |
| Boland, John | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Hemmerde, Edward George |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Henry, Charles S. |
| Branch, James | Elibank, Master of | Higham, John Sharp |
| Brocklehurst, W B. | Essex, R. W. | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Brodie, H. C. | Esslemont, George Birnie | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Evans, Sir S. T. | Hogan, Michael |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Everett, R. Lacey | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Falconer, James | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Fenwick, Charles | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Ferens, T. R. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Hudson, Walter | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Hyde, Clarendon G. | Myer, Horatio | Seely, Colonel |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford) |
| Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Napier, T. B. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Jardine, Sir J. | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Jenkins, J. | Nicholls, George | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Nolan, Joseph | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Norton, Captain Cecil William | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Soares, Ernest J, |
| Jowett, F. W. | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Doherty, Philip | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) |
| Kavanagh, Walter M. | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Stead man, W. C. |
| Kekewich, Sir George | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Kilbride, Denis | Parker, James (Halifax) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Partington, Oswald | Summerbell, T. |
| Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Paulton, James Mellor | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Lambert, George | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Taylor, Theodore C (Radcliffe) |
| Lamont, Norman | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Philips, John (Longford, S.) | Toulmin, George |
| Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Lundon, T. | Pointer, J. | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Lupton, Arnold | Pollard, Dr. G. H. | Vivian, Henry |
| Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Power, Patrick Joseph | Walsh, Stephen |
| Lynch, H. B. | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Walters, John Tudor |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Radford, G. H. | Watt, Henry A. |
| M'Callum, John M. | Rainy, A. Rolland | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Raphael, Herbert H. | Weir, James Galloway |
| M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Reddy, M. | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Rendall, Athelstan | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| M'Micking, Major G. | Richardson, A. | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Maddison, Frederick | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Massie, J. | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Wills, Arther Walters |
| Meagher, Michael | Robinson, S. | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Middlebrook, William | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Wilson, p. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Mond, A. | Roche, John (Galway, East) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Money, L. G. Chiozza | Roe, Sir Thomas | Winfrey, R. |
| Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Mooney, J. J. | Rose, Sir Charles Day | |
| Morrell, Philip | Rowlands, J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis. |
| Morse, L. L. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | |
| Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Craik, Sir Henry | Kerry, Earl of |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Dalrymple, Viscount | Keswick, William |
| Arkwright, Sir William Stanhope | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William |
| Ashley, W. W. | Du Cros, Arthur | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Fardell, Sir T. George | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fell, Arthur | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Fletcher, J. S. | Lowe, Sir Francis William |
| Baring, Cant. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Forster, Henry William | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Foster, P. S. | M'Calmont, Colonel James |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Gretton, John | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Moore, William |
| Bull, Sir William James | Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds) | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hamilton, Marquess of | Morrison-Bell, Captain |
| Cave, George | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Oddy, John James |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Helmsley, Viscount | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Coates. Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Hill, Sir Clement | Percy, Earl |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Hunt, Rowland | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Joynson-Hicks, William | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Rawlinson, Sir John Frederick Peel | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Remnant, James Farquharson | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Renton, Leslie | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Warde, Col. C E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Renwick, George | Stanier, Seville | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Starkey, John R. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. S. Stuart- |
| Ronaldshay, Earl of | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Younger, George |
| Salter, Arthur Clavell | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) | |
| Sandys, Col. Thos. Myles | Thornton, Percy M. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. James Hope and Mr. G. D. Faber. |
| Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Valentia, Viscount |
§ The CHAIRMANThe Amendment of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Arthur Fell), which proposes to insert in sub-section (3) words excluding from its operation "a railway" company or other corporation authorised to acquire and hold land under compulsory powers of purchase, should either come in on Clause 25 or be proposed in the form of a new clause.
§ Mr. FELLI am sure that upon this point of order I may be allowed one moment, as the subject is of such vast importance, and the delay in regard to its coming on on another clause is so great. This question refers to all gas and water works and corporations who have purchased under compulsory powers, and, unless there is some indication given as to whether these are included, there will be great anxiety felt. It was hoped that it would be allayed by discussion on the present occasion on the first clause, so that it may be known whether these corporations holding such a vast amount of land are to pay such an enormous amount of duty and are included in this Bill or not.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not think it will come in here, and the same remark applies to the next two Amendments—Mr. Mason, after "unincorporate" to insert "not being a registered friendly society"; Mr. Bridgeman, after "unincorporate" to insert "not being a registered friendly society."
§ Mr. LANE-FOXI handed in an Amendment in manuscript a moment ago which comes in after the word "corporate" and is to insert the words "other than a body corporate sole." I am sorry to raise this point at the last moment, but it has been forgotten, and it raises the whole question of the clergy of this country, and is a matter which, I think, ought to be dealt with. Apparently the position of the ordinary clergyman may be one of extreme difficulty if the periodic payment becomes due during his time.
§ Sir W. ROBSONIs the hon. Gentleman in order, Sir? The corporations referred to in sub-section (c) are corporations which are defined as any body corporate or unincorporate, as defined by section 12 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885. Corporations sole are not within section 12.
Mr. BALFOURI think the Attorney-General must read his own clause, and if he does he will see that the definition in section 12 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act does not refer to corporations, it refers to bodies unincorporate; and my hon. Friend in his Amendment is not dealing with bodies unincorporate; he is dealing with a corporation sole.
§ Lord R. CECILAnd may I add that the Customs and Inland Revenue Act has-nothing to do with bodies corporate?
§ Mr. LANE-FOXI can assure the Committee that I am moving this Amendment in a perfectly genuine spirit and with a desire to clear up this matter which, I think, the whole House would wish. It would be unfair to the clergyman to find in the middle of his term that he had to obtain a large sum of money which the glebe or his stipend would have to pay. It is perfectly clear that at any moment he may find himself in this great difficulty, and as under the Finance Act of 1894 the clergyman is exempted from paying Death Duties a similar exemption should be allowed in this case. If this case has not been contemplated, it is only right that before we pass this section we should consider what the position of the clergy is going to be under this section as it stands now. It is obvious that the House has not in the least realised what the position is going to be, and I think I am justified in asking whether the position which I apprehend may arise by which suddenly a man who can very ill afford it may be called upon to find out of a very small stipend a very large sum. I hope the Government will clear up the position and do away with a great deal of anxiety which exists all through the country among a great many people who deserve the consideration of the House.
§ The CHAIRMANThis has only just been handed to me at this moment. The sub-section deals with the taxation of land. It appears to me that this ought to come under the exemption of land in one of the sections dealing with exemptions.
§ Lord R. CECILMay I submit that this is just the case which I alluded to just now where it would be very desirable to exempt glebe land from Increment Duty, and it might not be so desirable to exempt it from Undeveloped Land Duty. It ought to be exempted from this particular section, but ought not to form part of the general exemption in Clause 25.
§ The CHAIRMANThat would not make this the proper place to move it, even if the Noble Lord is correct, because it might be moved as a separate clause. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University should be on Clause 25.
§ Sir W. ANSONI am prepared to accept your ruling, but this is a very important Amendment to a very large number of societies, and its purport is to retain the exemption which is swept away in clause 6. Might not my Amendment be brought on under section 6? I have some reluctance to place my Amendment in that lumber-room for inconvenient Amendments, Clause 25, and I should be very glad to have an opportunity for full discussion at a convenient time, and I should like to ask whether I might not bring it on under section 6.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Baronet has put to me a question in regard to a point which I must confess I have really had no time to consider in a somewhat busy afternoon. Of course, if he puts down an Amendment to clause 6, I will consider it and let him know whether it is in order. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Peel) has handed in an Amendment, which is practically to the same effect as one which has already been ruled out of order in regard to the relation of land which is held by the Crown to the proposed duties.
§ Mr. PEELI would respectfully submit that my Amendment does come in here as sub-section (d,) which I propose to insert.
§ The CHAIRMANIf the Crown is not a body corporate or unincorporate, the Amendment cannot come in here.
§ Mr. PEELIf the Crown is not a body corporate or unincorporate, surely the Amendment could come in here. This is an entirely separate sub-section, and I submit it has no relation to the question of bodies corporate or unincorporate.
§ Sir W. ROBSONQuite independently of the argument of the hon. Gentleman, I submit that the Crown has never been included in statutes unless provision is expressly made for its inclusion by the Government, so that apart from the question whether the Crown is a body corporate or unincorporate, a private Member certainly cannot move to legislate on behalf of the Crown.
§ The CHAIRMANIt was sought to bring in the Crown under sub-section (c,) and I objected to the Amendment as out of order. I think it is still out of order to bring in the Crown in the way now proposed by the hon. Member. I do not make any general ruling as to whether the Crown can come in at all or not. That is a question of considerable complexity, on which I ought not to be asked to give a ruling now.
§ Mr. FELLI beg to move to leave out the word "due" ["for proportionate part of the duty, due"], because it is entirely unnecessary. We have already decided what the duty is, and on what occasions it arises, and I do not know what is intended by the word "due" in this part of the clause.
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'due' stand part of the Clause."
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI agree with the hon. Member, and I accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. FELLI beg to move to leave out the word "collected" ["shall be collected"], and to insert the word "paid." This duty is not collected in any shape or form. We have to go to Somerset House and pay it. A duty which we pay is not collected.
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'collected' stand part of the Clause."
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI have already accepted one of the draft Amendments of the hon. Member, and I think he might be satisfied with that. I do not think that this is an improvement. I was inclined 351 to agree with him on the last Amendment. The use of the word collected is, I am advised, a proper use. It is used throughout the Bill.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. W. W. ASHLEYmoved to add at the end of the clause the words," Provided that no duty shall be payable under this section on any increment value of land or part of such increment value which has already been paid over to any taxing or rating authority."
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI accept the principle of that Amendment. I trust that the hon. Member will be satisfied with that. I can see exactly what he wants, but I am told that it would be better in the form of a new clause. I will take care to put it down, or if the hon. Member puts it down I will accept it. I am told that as a question of draftsmanship, it ought not to go in here, but I will accept it.
§ Mr. ASHLEYI will draw up a new clause, and submit it to the Attorney-General.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. LEVERTON HARRISmoved at the end of the clause to add, "Provided that for the purposes of this Act no Increment Duty shall be levied unless the site value of the land on the occasion on which the increment value becomes due exceeds the original site value by an amount exceeding fifteen per cent." It will be in the recollection of the House that this Amendment was referred to last night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that he was prepared to favourably consider it. The right hon. Gentleman said that no doubt I had framed it on the custom which has been observed with regard to land in the past. It is quite true that in Frankfort there is a similar provision which applies, but my reason for putting the Amendment down was not in any way due to what obtains in Frankfort. I had two reasons for putting it down. The first was that where you get two valuers valuing the same piece of land it is almost certain you will find that there is a variation between their valuations, sometimes slight and sometimes very large. In the case of difficult valuations, such as this with which we are dealing, that is, valuations with frequently a long time separating them, some exemption ought to be made from 352 the Increment Duty to allow for the variation in the valuations due to the personal examinations and influences of the valuers. I have put down 15 per cent., so that the Increment Tax would not apply where the increment is less than 15 per cent. Another consideration I had in putting down this Amendment was that it deals to some extent with the case where there was a very small but admitted rise in the increment value. Such cases very often follow each other with great rapidity. Where you get land which is steadily rising and where you get a small increment each time you take it, it involves, of course, that the increment is ascertained at very short intervals, and I have put down the Amendment to meet such cases as that. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be good enough to consider the point of leaving it to the Commissioners to say whether a valuation is or is not necessary. The Amendment, as it is drawn, would seem to suggest that the second valuation is necessary, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer might consider this if he is going to accept the Amendment. He might improve it in such a way that where manifestly an increment does not exceed 15 per cent. a second valuation should not be necessary, so that the owner of the fee simple, the tenant, or whoever it may be, may be saved the very often great expense of having a separate valuation made. While I do not insist upon the actual wording of the Amendment, I hope, at all events, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept it in substance.
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGELast night we had a discussion on an Amendment which dealt with the same sort of case as that which the hon. Member has put down this Amendment to meet. I felt last night that the Amendment of an hon. Member for one of the divisions of London did not quite meet the case, and I intimated on behalf of the Government that I thought that of the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Leverton Harris) was much better as far as the general principle to meet the practical difficulty which we all experience with regard to dealing with small increments. At the same time the hon. Member realises that it does not quite meet the point. One reason which I could point out is that it simply postpones the operation, and the second man, whose increment might only be 3 per cent., might have to pay the whole Increment Duty, although, perhaps, 353 14 per cent, of the increment accrued during the period of his predecessor's ownership of the land. That is obviously unfair, and that would be the operation of the words as they are put on the Paper by the hon. Member. I am not so sure his second suggestion was not a better one, that a certain discretion should be allowed to the Commissioners, and that they should be able to say if the increment does not go beyond a certain figure then the Commissioners should be entitled to say: "We do not want to trouble you further about this case, and we frank it." That is one of the points I am considering very carefully to-day with the advisers of the Government. I am very anxious to meet this point. The question I then have to decide is whether it should be in Clause 2 or Clause 4. The suggestion of the hon. Member would come in Clause 4, and power would be given there to the Commissioners to deal on the spot with a small increment. It may be that would be the better suggestion. I hope the hon. Member will not ask the Government to say definitely now the suggestion with which they are prepared to meet this difficulty. If he will withdraw his Amendment, which he realises does not altogether meet the point, I promise that either the Government will introduce a specific Amendment on Clause 2 or Clause 4, or consider any further Amendment which is moved by the hon. Member, or any one interested in this question.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe right hon. Gentleman spoke about the increment being small. That I understand is not the point of my hon. Friend, but it is the percentage of increment.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI meant a small percentage.
§ Mr. W. MOOREIf this were an isolated case I should not make a complaint, but it seems to me to be happening all through the evening. When we had the Resolutions we were told we need not ask questions, but that we would find the matters in the Bill. We have now got the Bill, and we are told first of all on a point of order raised by a Member of the Government when a question is raised that it ought to be dealt with on a later stage, and then we are told "we will tell you on the Report stage, or, at a subsequent period." We never can get to close quarters. It is true the Chancellor of the Exchequer will always promise, and of course we will accept his promise, that he 354 is going to give these matters his most careful consideration. We are entitled to have that careful consideration by this time, instead of being put off to subsequent stages of the Bill. It is not treating the House fairly, and on these Amendments we ought to know the Government's position instead of a general system of procrastination.
§ Mr. CLAVELL SALTERMay I make a suggestion as to the proposal to invest Commissioners with a dispensing power in case of small increments that the power should it be given should be a power not merely to examine that particular transfer, but to frank the land, and that it should be deemed that the duty has been paid?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI agree.
§ Mr. LEVERTON HARRISIn view of the definite assurance the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. PEELhad given notice of an Amendment to add at the end of the clause:
Provided that where Undeveloped Land Duty has been paid in respect of the increment value of any undeveloped land the amount of the Increment Value Duty shall be reduced by a sum equivalent to the Undeveloped Land Duty so paid.
§ The CHAIRMANThe point dealt with in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Peel) must be raised on the Undeveloped Land Duty clause.
§ Mr. PEELMay I point out that the deduction in respect of Increment Value Duty comes in on the Undeveloped Land clause] I submit, therefore, that my Amendment, which is in the nature of the converse of that, should come in where I have put it.
§ The CHAIRMANIf we had the Undeveloped Land Duty already in I should agree with the hon. Member, but I think he can raise it on Clause 10; at any rate, he can raise it somewhere.
§ Mr. PRETYMANSurely the deduction from Increment Value Duty must be on the Increment Value Duty clauses.
§ The CHAIRMANWe have not got to the Undeveloped Land Duty yet, and I do not think we can take this Amendment 355 here. If I can I shall certainly find an opportunity for it to come in on Clause 10. If it cannot be done in any other way it must come as a new clause.
§ Mr. PEELIt is really a substantial matter, and I would press for an opportunity of raising it before we get to the new clauses.
§ The CHAIRMANI have said that it is not in order here; but I admit it is a substantial point, and if I can I will find an opportunity for the hon. Member to raise it before we get to the new clauses.
Mr. BALFOURWe have now finished the Amendments on the Paper on Clause 1, and I hope the Government will allow us to separate without entering upon the important Debate which must necessarily take place on the general principle of the tax. It would be extremely inconvenient to commence that discussion to-night, but I am quite ready to postpone my Motion to report Progress until after the Question is put from the Chair, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill," as I feel that the Government have a right to prevent new Amendments being put down for to-morrow.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI recognise the reasonableness of the request of the right hon. Gentleman. If we are to have a discussion on Clause 1 it is hardly fair to start it now. I would also suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, seeing we have discussed every feature of this clause, that the Debate to-morrow ought not to be a very lengthy one.
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause as amended stand part of the Bill."
§ Committee report Progress. To sit again to-morrow (30th June).
§ And it being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, in pursuance of the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at Seven minutes after Twelve o'clock a.m.