§ Increment Value Duty.
§ CLAUSE 1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this part of this Act, there shall be charged, levied and paid on the increment value of any land a duty, called Increment Value Duty, at the rate of one pound for every full five pounds of that value, and the duty or a proportionate part thereof shall become due—
- (a) on the occasion of any transfer on sale of the land or any interest in the land, or the grant of any lease (not being a lease for a term of years less than seven years) of the land; and
- (b) 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
237 property passing on the death of the deceased within the meaning of sections one and two of the Finance Act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment; and
- (c) where the land or any interest in the land is held by any body corporate or by any body unincorporate is defined by section 12 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, on such periodical occasions as are provided in this Act;
§ Amendment proposed [28th June] to leave out sub-section (b), section (1).—[Mr. Carlile.]
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word' after,' stand part of the clause."
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDY
The discussion on this clause in connection with this Amendment is entering on rather a new phase. Hitherto a new tax has been undoubtedly levied in some accordance with ancient custom; that is to say, when a tax is levied by the State there is some income from which to pay the tax; there has been money passing, there is consideration, and, therefore, to some extent it has followed the practice that has been adopted previously, namely, that the State only takes a portion of the consideration which passes. But with the Increment Tax we enter on a question of what is purely one of estimate and conjecture. In the uncertain circumstances which arise at death this Increment Tax is always to be charged and paid. In the first place, I would point out that there can be no question in this case that you are exacting from the estate a double Increment Duty. You have already the Estate Duties, because the estate is valued at the present value, and you proceed to tax it on certain percentages, according to its size. You now propose to put a second duty upon the very same corpus and the very same estate, and it is practically a double Estate Duty which you impose, and that at a time when there is no consideration passing, and when it is extremely inconvenient for the money to be found. The other day we were discussing the question of sale and transfer, and I would be quite willing to rest my case upon the excellent argument used against this particular form of 238 tax by the Attorney-General. He put the question with extreme plainness; at all events, we so far quite agree on both sides of the House that his opinion is to be taken on this point. He said:—We may have estates, large estates, kept in the same hands from year to year and from generations to generations; and in order that such estates may contribute their fair quota of this Increment Duty, the only way of getting at them is by taking it on death, but that is certainly the least satisfactory of the necessary ways of getting at them. Where you are dealing with transfer on sale during life, you have, as I said, got the original site value fixed as in 1909, and then you have the value with which you compare it given in the transactions itself. When you are dealing with it in death, you have no selling price to guide you in what I may call the second or later valuation which is made the subject of the tax. There you have to deal with it largely by estimate. Nobody can compare an estimate in point of certainty with the actual sale price by which you proceed in case of life; and therefore to give up the tax or not to collect it when you can on a natural sale price with certainty of precision and at a moment when the owner is getting money with which to pay and select an occasion when you have to proceed by way of estimate instead of an actual sale price, and when you have to collect the tax at a time no profit is being brought to the owner, but when the money has to be raised by those who have to pay by drawing upon some other source of capital is, I say, a most foolish suggestion.The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General was arguing, of course, on another point; still his argument was very much apropos of the present discussion. It is hard, even in the opinion of the Government, to take the tax at death; it is a very inconvenient course, and they are only driven to it by the fact that they must get the increment of the estate which does not come by transfer or sale, and which remains in the same family for many years. After all, you have already received the increment through the Estate Duties, and why should you get a second Increment Duty which, where the estate remains in the same hands, only comes into being when there is an actual sale and transfer and money is actually received? Take, for instance, the case of a man living in a large house surrounded by 10 or 15 acres. There is no increment really to him as long as he keeps that 10 or 15 acres as necessary for the purpose of enabling him to live in the house. If he sells them, his house and one acre would be valueless, and therefore the land remains in the same hands, and the increment value is of no advantage whatever to the owner, because the increment does not come into being. On these grounds it seems to me to be extremely hard that the tax should be levied at a time when it is highly inconvenient to the person who has to pay. Not only does he not receive any consideration, but he has also to find a large sum of money, and he is driven to other sources of capital in 239 order to find the money for the tax which the community has put upon him. That is undoubtedly a most unsatisfactory way of encouraging the accumulation of capital in the country.
The hardest case may perhaps come to the owners of moderate sized estates, where there is no other source of capital to fall back upon. There they have to pay Succession Duty, Estate Duty, and Legacy Duty, and they have to find the money probably by annual instalments, and in other ways to pay these duties. There, again, you impose a further duty for which no provision is made by which they can pay it easily, and which at once becomes a charge upon the estate without any mitigation whatsoever. See what it means to the owner of an estate valued at £100,000. On some portions of that estate it is very possible that a charge at death might mean 40 per cent. That surely is an unfair amount to take from the corpus of any estate, especially when it is of such an unrealiseable character, as so many of the smaller estates are. It is not only to the larger or richer owner that this proposal applies. You have taken precautions in connection with the Estate Duties that estates under a certain value are not to pay those duties. But this Increment Duty may fall upon the very poorest; there is no mitigation at all in reference to the wealth or property of the individual concerned. It is quite possible that when a man has been in possession of an estate for a considerable number of years the Increment Duty may prove a very serious incubus at death, seeing that it has not been paid for forty or fifty years, or even a longer period. If you are obliged to have this duty—of course the House has now decided that this duty is to be paid—it would be far better to have some periodical payment rather than the uncertain lottery of payment at death, which is admitted to be an extremely inconvenient time. If there were periodical payments people would then know that at a certain period they would have to find the money, and therefore they would be prepared, but in the case of death it is purely a lottery and gamble. It has always been urged, and urged very strongly some years ago on the other side, that in the case of the Death Duties the owner could insure against them. But here it is impossible for a man to do so in the case of the Increment Duty. He is unable to estimate it, because it might be sudden 240 and might occur at any moment, and the amount has to be approved by persons over whom he has no control and against whom there is no appeal. In these circumstances it seems to me that it would be a difficult matter to obtain any insurance that would be satisfactory to guard himself against the consequences at death. I do hope after what was said by the Attorney-General with reference to this matter the Government may see their way to suggest some better means than to fall back upon this crude method of merely repealing the Estate Duties. There should be consideration in this matter, whether it applies to the land or to the minerals, for they are also included. Many difficulties will arise if the present scheme is to be adopted. It will be far better that you should really limit yourself on this particular Question to raising the tax when there really is consideration to be paid. It is not a question of policy. In reference to the further taxes with which we shall deal later, the Undeveloped Land Tax, undoubtedly the Government confess they are putting it forward with a view of preventing the holding back of land and in order that it should be made use of to greater advantage, in their opinion, for the sake of the community. This tax has nothing to do with that question, because it seems to me that the effect of an increment value must be a deterrent to any person. As it is not a question of holding back, it is therefore unnecessary to load the unfortunate owner with this particular tax. I think there is every reason why we should desire to place this Increment Tax on a more satisfactory basis than can be done if you apply it in case of death, and, therefore, I hope the Government will very seriously consider the question, and either leave it out altogether or, at all events, give us some certainty by applying a periodical payment, but with a longer period than they have allowed to public companies. That would enable us to know what we have to pay, to some extent, instead of reducing the matter to a pure gamble.
§ Mr. T. G. ASHTON
I also have an Amendment similar to that which has been moved by the hon. Member. I have no objection whatever to the Increment Tax in principle, but my objection is to the method of collection. It is a canon of good taxation that taxes should be levied, so far as may be, conveniently to those who have to pay the taxes. I think undoubtedly in this case it cannot be said 241 that on death is a convenient time to levy the tax. The hon. Member (Mr. L. Hardy) very truly said that is just the time when landed property has to face the Death Duties, and that Death Duties are more difficult to pay on landed property than they are on personalty. That is a very good argument, and I think that unless it is absolutely necessary a further tax at that time should not be levied upon landed property. There is undoubtedly a considerable grievance that a man may pay this tax and then the property may-fall in value afterwards, and that he may have paid on a sum of money which he has never realised at all. If the tax were only raised when property was sold, and were not raised when death occurred, that grievance, which is a very real one, and which will occur much more often than a great many people imagine, would be entirely done away with. Death will be a very difficult time at which to raise money on landed estate, and I know that in very many cases a man has to sell a piece of his property to pay the Death Duty. It is no argument at all to say that you can sell a piece of land as you can sell Consols. It is an answer that will not be agreed to by anybody who knows anything about land in this country. After all, when you are selling stocks and shares, as a rule there is probably a large demand, and it does not matter to the buyer whether his share is No. 1 or 500. They are all the same to him.
It is very different in the case of land, because every piece of land differs more or less from any other piece of land, with the result that there are a very limited number of buyers for a piece of land. It may be that a particular piece of land was wanted a few years before, or it may be that a few years hence it may be wanted, but it is quite on the cards that nobody at the particular moment will require that piece of land, with the result that it will be impossible for the owner to get the real market value of his land. That will be a distinct hardship. If it were necessary I should say it was a necessary hardship that appertained to the ownership of land, but it does not seem to me that it is necessary. It is not as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not get just as much money if he waits until the sale of the property. Take the case of land which has increased, say, from £50,000 in value to £100.000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to get on that £10,000 for increment. Whether he gets that in driblets of £2,000 at a time, or whether he gets the sum total of £10,000 242 all at once, really does not matter to the Chancellor in the long run, except from the point of view of interest. After all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in raising this principle is not going on a minor point like that, but on the bigger question of the increased value. If the Chancellor does not get the increase now, then some future Chancellor will get it. I think he might select a more convenient season for this tax than the time of death. We all know the question of valuation is going to be a very serious one, and that a valuation for increment purposes must be of an exact character. If we can reduce the number of such valuations and give the Chancellor the same amount of money in the long run, it seems to me we ought to do what we can to so reduce them. The valuation for Death Duties is a rough-and-ready calculation, and everybody is willing to accept it because we know that valuations in such cases are always taken on a very low scale indeed. Capital valuations in America are done in a rough-and-ready way, but that does not matter so much, because there you are not taking part of a man's capital but merely rating him on the capital value. Therefore if there is an error one year it can be rectified the next. When you come to the case where you are taking away part of a man's capital you must then have a very careful valuation, which must be expensive, and therefore I urge upon the Government to limit the number of those valuations if they possibly can. If you get rid of the valuation on death and only take on sale, at any rate to some extent you will limit the necessity for this expense. I most seriously ask the Chancellor to take into consideration whether he could not give way on those points. I am sure it will be politic to do so, and that he would get rid of many grievances and a great deal of friction.
§ The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George)
What is the position of our case? It is assumed for the moment, for the purposes of argument, and it is assumed in all sincerity by my hon. Friend (Mr. Ashton), that the Increment Tax is a fair one, and the question is the method by which you propose to collect it. When we were discussing the collection of the Increment Tax on sales exactly the opposite argument was used. We had then two very able speeches delivered, and speeches which made a considerable impression not merely on Members of their own side of the House, but on the House as a whole. Their argument 243 was if you are going to collect an Increment Tax it is infinitely fairer that you should collect it at death, and they produced elaborate arguments to show that collecting on sale was unfair, that it interfered with the purchase and sale of land, and threw all kinds of difficulties in the way, and that the right time to collect it was at death. That is an argument not merely used by them but cheered. That was the case that was made on Wednesday, and now that we have disposed of that we are told by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. L. Hardy) that we should collect it on sales when a man is realising his cash. That was the exact sort of speech made by the Attorney-General in his reply, and exactly the same argument, and really the hon. Gentleman might have studied the speech of my hon. Friend and used the argument used on that occasion. His argument was that is the time you have got in the cash, and that is the time to collect, and not at death, when you do no realise. Other Members say you ought really to collect it periodically. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. W. W. Rutherford) has always taken that view, and I feel that if the Government say, "We will collect it on a certain definite purchase," we will be told "Why do you not collect it when a man realises it?" It really does not matter what period we put down; it is always the "other" period that is said to be the fair one. Will the Committee realise what would happen unless we had this provision? All a man would have to do would be to hold up his land, and he would never pay Increment Duty. In fact, if you have not an alternative of this kind, merely to charge increment on sales will be a detriment to the sale and purchase of land; it will be an inducement to an owner not to sell. My hon. Friend (Mr. Ashton) says, "All you have to do is to wait. It is true you are losing revenue; you may have to wait 50 or 100 years; but it is certain to come, if you only wait long enough." That is really the argument also of the hon. and gallant Member for Essex (Mr. Pretyman), who asks, "Why do you not wait until 1930 for your tax? You may not get it when you want it; you want it now, and you may not want it in 1930; but still you will get it." Unless there is this alternative there is a considerable amount of increment which may never be taxed at all for the purpose of revenue. An hon. Member opposite said that there is no consideration 244 paid at death. That depends on the interpretation of the word "consideration." I agree that when you are buying and selling something passes between the parties. But what happens in the case of death? A man gets a property and gives nothing in return. According to the hon. Member there is no consideration: if a man pays for a property there is something which ought to be taxed; but if he gets it for nothing it ought not to be taxed. There was no consideration paid for the Morrison millions. There came to a number of legatees property which did not belong to them, to which, according to British law, they had absolutely no more legal right than anybody else. The property comes as a gift, and I say that it is a very fair thing upon which to tax a man, and certainly it is just as fair an occasion as when he gives something in return for which he gets the property. But then my hon. Friend (Mr. Ashton) says that it will involve a valuation. Surely the Death Duties involve a valuation. But, says my hon. Friend, that is merely a slipshod, rough-and-ready valuation. I do not know what cases he has in mind, but in the cases with which I am familiar most careful valuations are made. Let the Committee follow the argument of my hon. Friend. Take the case of a man who has to pay now a total of 20 per cent., not for Increment Duty on a small parcel of the property, but on the whole of the property. My hon. Friend says that when he pays 20 per cent, on the whole of his property a slipshod valuation will do; but if he has to pay 20 per cent, on only a small corner of the property, then the valuation must be very minute and careful, and the slightest precaution must not be neglected. I should have thought that if you wanted a careful valuation at all it would be when you were paying 20 per cent. on the whole of the property, and not on a certain portion only. But, as a matter of fact, my hon. Friend is misinformed. Every careful executor values his property very closely. It is true he does his best to put a low valuation. That is his business, and is only natural. The same thing will happen with regard to increment. I have not the slightest doubt that low valuations will be made. A man will try to prove that there is no increment at all or, if any, a very small one. The same tactics will be pursued, and really the same identical valuations will do for both purposes. It is purely a question between charging at certain definite periods and charging at death. The reason we 245 make our proposal is that then you will be charging when a man is getting something to which he is not legally entitled, which is an absolute gift to him, whether by a relative or a stranger. At that time the executor goes through the process of valuing the estate, and it does not involve a separate valuation. Instead of having a separate valuation at stated periods you have a valuation already. The first thing an executor does is to make a valuation of the property.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
Of course it includes the site. The site has already been valued before this is arrived at. All you want in the case of death is the total valuation, and then you arrive at the increase in the site value. It is the same process that takes place in any other transaction. I trust the Committee will stand by this proposal, otherwise a considerable amount of increment will escape taxation altogether.
§ Mr. E. G. PRETYMAN
There are certain arguments which seem to come naturally to the right hon. Gentleman. Those arguments are considered good enough for the Committee, and are trotted out every time. There is one argument in particular which I think we have heard sufficiently often, and which I do not think impresses the Committee. In defence of a tax which is levied on all the land in the country and will fall equally in amount on rich and poor together, the right hon. Gentleman invariably trots out the case of the Morrison millions. In the case of a millionaire who has to pay 15 per cent, or 20 per cent, the right hon. Gentleman holds that it is no hardship, and that because the successor of a millionaire can afford to pay this particular tax he contends that it is therefore a fair tax to levy on all the owners of land in the country, including thousands of small owners, upon whom the tax will fall as an excessive burden. The right hon. Gentleman ought to try and defend his tax in the average case, and not merely the extreme cases with which really we are not concerned. It is invariably assumed, both on the platform and in this House, by the defenders of this tax that our object in attacking it is purely to defend the rich. Take one point which the right hon. Gentleman was arguing. He said that where the tax was so high as 20 per cent., as in the case to which he referred, the mere addition of another 20 per cent, upon a small portion of the property was hardly worth considering.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
I was addressing myself to the point made by my hon. Friend that the valuations now made were of a slipshod or rough-and-ready character—that there was no great need for careful valuation at present, but that there would be such need for the Increment Duty. I said that if a careful valuation was required when the 20 per cent, was charged only on the increment, a careful valuation was certainly necessary when 20 per cent, was charged on the whole of the property.
§ Mr. PRETYMAN
At any rate, there was a comparison between the heavy duty of 20 per cent, leviable in Death Duties on the whole of the property and the 20 per cent, which is levied only on part of the property. That may apply in the case of a large estate, but it does not apply in the case of a small estate where the duty is-20 per cent, on the increment, but possibly-only 5 or 6 per cent, on the total value of the estate. Where a man is a small owner of land, the Increment Value Duty may be quite as heavy a burden upon him as the Death Duty, and the two duties will fall upon him together. I will come to the question of valuation presently. At present I wish to confine myself to the incidence of this tax at death. The greater part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech was taken up not in defending the justice or fairness of his proposals for taxation, but in trying to point out inconsistencies in the arguments used on this side of the House in attacking different portions of the tax. It is our duty in considering each Amendment to point out the particular hardships and objections germane to the part of the Bill under discussion, and in doing that we naturally contrast those with other conditions which-will occur. When the Amendment under discussion dealt with sales, we pointed out that there would be more interference with business if you levied the duty on sales and transfers than there would be if you levied the duty at death.
We are perfectly justified in drawing that conclusion, which is a true conclusion. We are perfectly justified in our attitude with regard to the hardship upon the individual having to pay two duties at one and the same time, when it will be most hard and inconvenient to the 247 property. It is an extreme hardship, because, taking the ordinary case of an average agricultural property of the capital value of, say, £100,000, this is the value of a fair-sized agricultural property. At what will be the duties valued? There will be 9 per cent. Estate Duty. In case of a settled estate, as land usually is, there will be 2 per cent. Settlement Estate Duty as well. There will be Succession Duty, and, at the lowest, that will be about 2 per cent. Then there will be 20 per cent. Increment Duty on that part of the estate on which the Increment Duty is payable. Where the estate comes in direct succession, the duty will be something over 30 per cent. Where it does not come to a lineal descendant, it will be 40 per cent. [Cries of "No, no."]
§ Mr. PRETYMAN
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not quite catch what J said. I said on that part of the estate which was due for Increment Duty value. I said that distinctly. Of course, it would not amount to 40 per cent, on the whole.
§ Mr. PRETYMAN
Yes, on the capital value. [Cries of "No, no."] Yes, certainly, clearly. Of course, the increment is capital, and is assessed as capital.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
The hon. Member is always adding these figures together, and saying: "Now, here is 20 and 20, and that makes 40 per cent, on the whole." I do not think he wants to be unfair. I am sure he is in effect, because it is not 40 per cent., not even on that value which is increment. It is 20 per cent, on the whole of that part. It is not 40 per cent, on the whole of the estate.
§ Mr. PRETYMAN
I really think that the light hon. Gentleman has not gained much by this interruption. When an estate is valued for Death Duties it is valued as a whole, and at certain capital value. You do not divide the estate into parts. You aggregate it, and in this particular instance I put it at £100,000. To that £100,000 a certain amount will be accrued increment. On that accrued increment value 40 per cent, will be levied in the case I have specified. I went no further. I said particularly it would not be on the whole estate, but on that part of the estate 248 which has accrued as increment value. Whether it would be on the whole of the estate, of course, would depend entirely upon what proportion the increment bore to the total value. But is this great injustice, this gross hardship, this confiscation—are those words too strong?—to take place by your descending upon a few individuals who happen to be so circumstanced? A man may have happened to have got a little bit of building land near a town which is the only property he possesses, and where the increment value is a very large proportion of the value of the property. Is the injustice less because you only fall upon a few individuals? Has not one man as much right to justice as another so long as he is obeying the laws of the country? It is not necessary for me to show that everyone, or a majority, or a large number of people even, are going to have to pay 40 per cent. If I can show that under these taxes a few people in special circumstances may be practically squeezed out of existence by having to pay anything from 30 to 40 per cent, of the value of their property, then I think I will show a case for reconsideration. Even if 3, 4 or 5 per cent, had to be paid it would still be a very heavy burden. Is a burden of 20 or 25 per cent, all told one which this House desires to impose upon the owners of small pieces of land?
After all it is supposed to be the object of this legislation, and the whole of the proposals affecting land in this Finance Bill to break up large estates, and force people into the market. I am of the opinion that it will not so much have that effect, because the owners of large estates have usually other resources from which they can meet the duties for the time being. But you are making the ownership of land so burdensome that the poor man will no longer be able to hold any. Perhaps hon. Members below the Gangway will answer this question: There is a heavy burden on land now on the poor man in the form of a rent. They are invariably saying that the poor man is over-burdened with the heavy rent which he has to pay to the landowner. What difference will it make to the poor man who wishes to occupy a piece of land whether that heavy burden upon it is in the shape of a rent or taxes?
§ Mr. PRETYMAN
How will it be easier for that man to enjoy his piece of land or house built upon it if there is a heavy burden upon it in the form of tax or rent?
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY
May I answer the question of the hon. Gentleman? Simply because that he will be relieved pro tanto of his other taxation.
§ Mr. PRETYMAN
I think the relief he would prefer would be the money which comes into his own pocket. I do not think it would be much encouragement for him to know that the taxes that he has paid are going into the general pocket of the community instead of going into his own pocket.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY
If these taxes are necessary, and a tax on bread or the other necessaries of life would otherwise be levied, I think his wife would be very thankful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. PRETYMAN
If we are going to argue the incidence of the different taxes I am afraid the Chairman will consider we are straying beyond the subject. The burden upon the ownership or occupation of land by the poor man is a thing we ought to avoid, and by these taxes you are placing this crushing burden upon the poor man.
In regard to valuation, the right hon. Gentleman declared that valuation for the Death Duties was comparable in every way to the valuation for the site value for the Increment Value Duty. It is very difficult to contradict, and I do not wish to be so discourteous as to contradict the right hon. Gentleman about his own Finance Bill, but we are bound to study the Bill so far as we can, and discover from the Bill, and so far as we know from the practice in the Death Duties, how the matter stands. It does not seem to be as the Chancellor has said. Where an estate comes in for Death Duties a single valuation is made. First of all, the agricultural value is calculated on a certain number of years purchase, and then on the gross extra value due to that part of the property which has building value outside or beyond the agricultural value. These two sums are added together, and that is the total value for the Death Duties. Is that same process here? I take it that as I understand it, and as the Finance Bill says, what is to be done to calculate the increment value due is this: there is to be first of all a separate valuation on every occupation or on every part for occupation which the Commissioners may desire to have separately valued. That valuation is the total capital value which is not taxable. In order to arrive at the tax- 250 able increment value you have to take from that certain items which I need not enumerate, but which have been discussed here over and over again, and which include what is called the value of land, good-will, anything personal to the owner, and which items I believe are likely to be added to a good deal before we get through these discussions. After all these deductions have been made you then arrive at something taxable in the form of increment value. Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot suggest that these two operations are identical, that one is as easy as the other.
§ Mr. PRETYMAN
Well, if the argument was not that, what was it, and what is it worth? A statement was made that these two valuations would be different, difficult, and add largely to the expense. That was the argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman sitting behind the right hon. Gentleman. His speech, I may say, was-very interesting, for it amounted to a very severe and valuable criticism of the proposals of the Government, but—and in this he was similar to other hon. Gentleman who had spoken on that side of the House—he threw in a casual blessing at intervals on the general principles. But on every detail which he discussed his criticisms were absolutely fatal to the Bill.
I will only raise one more point. I think we are entitled on this particular question of the incidence of this duty—the taking of this duty on death—to point out how it will act in combination with previous settlements where it is taken on sale. Take the case of an ordinary building lease. Thousands of these leases are running throughout the country. The owner of the estate upon which the building is situated has let that property for 99 years. During the currency of that lease there will be transfers from one tenant to another. On each transfer of that lease during the currency there will be an Increment Duty payable by the transferor calculated upon his interest in the property. There will also be running against the owner at the same time pari passu the increment value. How are these two cases going to be worked? But in the meantime each of these tenants under the lease will have been paying increment value. How many increment values does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take? I am not going to weary the House with figures, but I desire to tell the right hon. Gentleman I have worked 251 this problem out on paper, I have tried and tried to see whether it will be possible to work these two things side by side and to deal fairly on the one hand with the State and on the other hand with the owner and lessor. I cannot make the things agree, and I cannot devise any scale by which those two different sets of people with the varying circumstances of the case, where there are many transactions from one lessor to another, or in the case where there has been no transfer, which would render justice between them. Suppose there was no transfer in the last 50 years, and that there was an increment of £1,000 In value, the whole of that would have to be paid by the owner. Supposing, on the other hand, there were three or four transfers, the owner would have the whole calculated against him. The right hon. Gentleman thinks not, but I have gone most carefully into these points, and I cannot see any scheme by which an equal burden can be placed upon the different properties of the same value on the one hand where they change hands frequently, and on the other hand where no change has taken place at all. These are questions which will affect the whole business community, and if this Bill is to be brought out in the shape of an Act they have got to be dealt with and put in a form which will do credit to the House and the Committee, and in a manner which will not inflict undoubted hardships and that will not constantly raise for settlement questions of law and of fact and of valuation. I am bound to say that there is great difficulty before us in working out this matter for the benefit of the country and for the benefit of the Exchequer. The problem before us on this land clause is, in my Judgment, sufficient to keep the House going for two whole Sessions, yet we are asked to enter upon this and further problems now at the beginning of July. I wish the right hon. Gentleman joy of his job.
§ Mr. LEIF JONES
The hon. and gallant Gentleman is always listened to with great interest and attention when speaking on this Question, because of his intimate knowledge of agriculture and the obvious sincerity of his views, but he arrives at terrifying results by adding together figures in various parts of the Bill which are independent of each other. The hon. and gallant Gentleman would do well to hearken to the advice given by teachers of arithmetic to their scholars to be wary of adding together percentages unless 252 they are percentages of the same article and of the same quantity. In arriving at his 40 per cent, to be paid by some imaginary part of the estate of the landed proprietor I really think the hon. and gallant Member has been guilty of that elementary fallacy. He took the extreme case of an estate of £100,000, which I gather was an agricultural estate, and he said that 20 per cent. might have to be paid on it under other parts of the Finance Bill beside that which we are now discussing, and then he said there might be another part of that estate on which there would be an increment, and he declared that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to take one-fifth of the value of that part of the estate.
§ Mr. LEIF JONES
I want to take an actual case in figures, which I think will dispose of some of the figures given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Now let us suppose that of this estate of £100,000 which he took £20,000 of it is land subject to an Increment Duty. The hon. and gallant Gentleman surely agrees that under the Finance Bill we are not taking 20 per cent, of that £20,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to take 20 per cent, of the increment. If the whole of the £20,000 is increment the land is really worth nothing at all at the present time. In no circumstances could he take 20 per cent, of the whole £20,000, and in no circumstances whatever could the hon. and gallant Member get the 40 per cent. which he mentioned. The more common case would be that the increment would be £5,000, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take 20 per cent., or £1,000, or 5 per cent. of the value of that part of the estate.
§ Mr. LEIF JONES
Then again there is not any one acre on that estate that would pay more than 25 per cent., and in no circumstances could it pay 40 per cent.
§ Mr. PRETYMAN
I never said so. The hon. Gentleman has given a very fair case, and I do not think on such a property that the increment value would be more than £5,000. What I said was that on that £5,000 the duty under the Finance Bill would be 40 per cent. I said I could not 253 say what the burden would be upon the whole estate, but in this particular it would be 20 per cent.
§ Mr. LEIF JONES
What I maintain is that there could be no individual acre of the estate that would pay more than 25 per cent. When the hon. Gentleman fixes £5,000 as being subject to 40 per cent., I do not know what he means. The money value may be said to equal the tax, but you cannot allocate that 40 per cent, to any particular part. I think the 40 per cent. is a figure which is supplied by the imagination of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
I am, however, disposed to think, if you accept the justice of the Increment Tax, it is better in the interests of rural estates that you should take this Increment Duty at death than at any other time. I am not saying whether it is too heavy or not, but if you are going to take it it seems to me that the moment of death, when the general settlement is going on, when the position should be fully realised and the value settled of all that is left, and when it is being distributed among a number of people, that it is then the claim of the Exchequer should be discharged. Personally I think a great many owners of estates would agree that when you are having a general settlement at the time of death you should take this Increment Duty, which is a small proportion of the total burden now placed upon estates. I am inclined to agree that the burden placed upon estates of £100,000 are exceedingly heavy, but the Increment Duty is not a very serious part of the burden. [An HON-. MEMBER: "It is the last straw."] It is the last straw, but it is better not to have a separate waggon for its conveyance; it is better that the one already there should convey away the whole of the large crop which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is getting. It is to be remembered also that the object of the occasion of the tax is to get at land which is not sold. Again, I think the owners of such land would very much prefer that it should occur at the time of a general settlement, than that there should be stated intervals, which is really the alternative that confronts the Committee. It has this advantage: one valuation has already got to be made, and that is a very strong argument. If the present valuation is not accurate for the purposes of Increment, and I suggest it would probably be accurate enough as a rule, it might be made more accurate so as to avoid the necessity for two valuations. 254 It seems to me that death would be a convenient time from that point of view also. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Ashton) stated that the owners of such estates would be in great difficulty because they cannot sell any land or realise the money that they would have to pay. I do not think the selling of land is so very difficult a process as hon. Members are inclined to represent it to be. I am of opinion that the owners of estates if they set themselves to do it will find it easier to sell a portion of their estates than they do at present; at any rate, dealing with the Increment Tax, it is not with that part of the estate which carries increment they will have any difficulty in selling. There are always people willing to buy something rising in value. The owner would not have any difficulty in selling that portion of his estate which had an increment value. My hon. Friend said—and this is germane to the whole of the discussion—it was impossible for the owner to get the market value of his land on these occasions. I submit that is an absolute contradiction in terms. The market value of the land is the value which the land-owner will get by sale in the open market. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not at a forced sale."] Yes, even in a forced sale. That is the value that the land will bring in the market; if that is not that value, then what is "market value?" Surely it is the value which the owner of any property can get, and if he cannot get what he wants then what he wants is not the "market value." Is there any difference of opinion upon that point? I submit it is a contradiction in terms to say that a man cannot get the "market value."
§ Mr. LEIF JONES
But surely that is not "market value" at all. It is some metaphysical idea which has no existence. "Market value" is a question of fact. If an estate will not command what some people call "market value," then some other value is in reality "market value," and what I want to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this—I take it what he is going to tax is not some imaginary value which may be represented by the fears of some people, but what he is going to tax is market value, and that, therefore, his tax will be based upon reality. I think one of the difficulties in dealing with land in this country is that owners, when it comes to a sale, may not be able to find a purchaser at the price they think they 255 ought to command; but that is not the market value, and that is not what is going to be taxed. The owner is going to be taxed upon the value which the land really has. I think it is better to have this settlement at the time of death, and so long as the tax is fairly put upon the market value, it will be fair, and will not add to the burdens of agricultural land.
§ Mr. A. J. BALFOUR
The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has not only been guilty of a certain confusion of thought, which ranges over a great many of our Debates upon this subject of capital value, but he must admit this if he compares the conclusion of his speech with some of the statements contained in it. His first proposition was that market value meant what you could get at any given moment, and that was what he called the market value of any property. That is to say, at 12 o'clock upon any given day of the year the market value of any property is what you could get for it at that moment. Then he went on to say that the landlords in this country put an artificial value upon their land more than it was worth for various reasons. According to the argument used by the hon. Member, nobody can give more than the land is worth.
§ Mr. LEIF JONES
What I had in mind was Adam Smith's phrase of "value in use." The market value of land is now a good deal more than Adam Smith's value in use.
§ Mr. BALFOUR
But the hon. Gentleman's "value in use" is something quite different to market value. The hon. Gentleman all through his speech has used value as meaning value at a given moment, but at the end of his speech he tells us that the market value is not the real value. I think the hon. Gentleman will see that he has muddled up these two ideas in his own speech. But, apart from all this, let me proceed to that part where there is no contradiction, for that is really the substantial part of the hon. Member's remarks. He lays down the proposition that there is always a market value for everything, and that that market value can be ascertained at any given moment by putting up the thing for sale. Now that is an entirely erroneous view, which has no real economic backing on the part of any sound economists. They begin by defining the market. Now there can only be a market value where you have a market, 256 and economists go into very fine distinctions as to what constitutes a market. There is constantly not a market in the true sense of the word. If it was not so the whole of these proposals to tax capital values would be an incomparably greater injustice.
Just think what it would mean if the view of the hon. Gentleman opposite were accepted. Suppose you put up for sale a most costly article which is very valuable, and which has fetched last year an immense price and perhaps next year may fetch an immense price, but because it has to be sold this year in a big unit which involves the coming forward of wealthy buyers will not sell at all. If you are going to tax market value on that sort of basis is it possible to conceive anything more unjust? A man may have a property worth £100,000 last year and worth the same figure next year, but it may be worth nothing this year, and why? Because his £100,000 is invested in property very costly and rare, not easy of acquirement, which very few people want, but when they do want it they are willing to give large sums for it. Such people might have been willing to come forward to buy last year, but they are not willing to come forward this year, and, therefore, the man has no property at all this year, although he was wealthy last year, and may be wealthy again next year, but he has not got a bidder to-day. Common-sense revolts against the kind of philosophy of value which the hon. Gentleman has put forward. Market value can only be defined when one of two things occur, namely, when the subject-matter is-capable of great sub-division, and when there is a large number of people wanting it in large or small quantities. Then there-is a market value. There is a perfect market value for Consols to-day, because you can sell them in small or large quantities, and the market value has a true significance because it is a divisable matter; but when you come to indivisable things and appeal to a very small and fluctuating number of bidders, then you can only get anything like a fair value if you allow a long time to elapse during which bidders may come forward. Then-you may get some estimate of the true value. This idea that on a given day in a given year you can always find out what the true value of a thing is by putting it up for sale is not only contrary to common-sense, but clearly creates the grossest and: most manifest injustice.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson)
These are somewhat academic and rather complicated discussions as to market value. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has addressed an interesting argument to the House with a view of showing that you cannot apply market value in any legitimate way to the valuation that would be required on a given day.
§ Mr. BALFOUR
What I said was that you ought to take sufficient time to form your views as to what bidders may come forward, and then you may arrive at something which is not grossly unjust.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
The right hon. Gentleman said:—"When you are dealing with things easily divisible and saleable in small quantities as well you can then ascertain market value without difficulty." The right hon. Gentleman further stated that "when you come to divisible things appealing to a small and fluctuating number of bidders you can only get the market value if you allow a long time for a number of bidders to come forward." I think that is a perfectly sound observation, but surely it is a little remote from the difficulties we have to deal with here. How is market value to be ascertained under this Bill? Section 5 of the Finance Act of 1894 applies for this purpose with regard to the ascertainment of values. Now what are the provisions with regard to the ascertainment of values? There the value of the subject matter of assessment is to be obtained in this way:—"The principal value shall be estimated to be the price which in the opinion of the Commissioners such property would fetch if sold in the open market at the time of the death of the deceased." There is a practical and reasonable provision. It is one which I daresay might lay itself open to the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman, but we have an admirable answer to such criticisms; in fact, it is the best of all answers, namely, experience. It has been found ever since 1894 that whatever complaints may be made in regard to the amount of the Death Duties—and there are great complaints, which I for one very sincerely sympathise with, because I think the amount of the Death Duties is very high—there has been no complaint made of the method of assessment. For some years it has been my duty, as representing the Crown, to be concerned in the collection of the Death Duties, more especially from refractory subjects; but I do not re- 258 member any complaints in regard to the ascertained market value. It is true you might force any particular property into the market without notice. Suppose the value has to be obtained on the day when the testator dies. Suppose you throw his property into the market without giving any reasonable time to collect the bidders who constitute the market. If you were to do that it would be wrong, but we do not propose to do anything of the kind. When we use the phrase, "Market value," it is used in the sense in which reasonable men would use it, and the Commissioners are put there in order that in that sense alone the property shall be offered for sale. There really has been no difficulty about estimating market value.
Now I will pass on to some observations which were made by the hon. and gallant Member opposite. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said: "Really we are tired of hearing these extreme cases," and he said: "Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer deal with average cases?" Having laid down that sound principle, the hon. and gallant Gentleman began to quote extreme cases, a practice with which he reproached the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that it is an average case which puts 20 per cent. on the Death Duties falling upon a particular estate.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
The moment the hon. and gallant Gentleman came to his case, he did not take an average case but an extreme case. I hope hon. Members will not allow his extravagant instances to get into their heads as representing either the average or normal cases. He, for instance, took the case of an estate over £100,000; and he mentioned particulars with regard to it. That he regards as an average case. Of course, it is a conceivable case, and he argued not on an average or even an extreme case but on a barely conceivable case.
§ Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS
I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman from my own experience the case of an estate which one firm of valuers valued at £4,000, while others valued it at £40,000, £15,000, and, finally, there was a compromise by which the value was agreed to be £10,000. That is a case which shows the great difficulties which stand in the way of valuing land. Therefore we cannot accept the dictum of the hon. and learned Attorney-General 259 and say that these valuations are very easy. I wish to say a few words on this Amendment. I shall support it, but for different reasons than those which have been put forward by my hon. Friend behind me. Assuming that Increment Duty has been collected, personally I do not think that the collection of it at the period of death is a great disadvantage. You should treat this sub-section as an isolated unit in the Bill. It should not be complicated with other clauses. We must read the sub-section in connection with the previous sub-section and with the following sub-section. In my opinion I fail entirely to comprehend how these two sub-sections are going to be worked in conjunction one with the other. We have to take the previous sub-section with this sub-section, and read them together. I have listened carefully to the Debates, and it seems to me that the legal Members opposite are more mystified by the provision of the Bill than we who are only their lay brethren. There is a valuation of the original site value; but it is also provided that there shall be a valuation on the occasion of any transfer of property either by sale or lease. What are the difficulties of this dual system? Let me assume, for instance, that there are two ground landlords owning the same class of property. Both let to small tenants. Both these ground lords die. But just before the death of one of them there has been a transfer of a lease by means of a sub-lease. In the one case the estate pays no Increment Duty, but in the other it does. That is the curious inconsistency which exists in the Bill. The second landlord either pays no increment at all, or a very slight one; and yet he may have done nothing in the develoment of his property. Again let me take the case of two tenants. They own land of similar character. They both sub-let; but at the moment before one sub-lets his ground lord happens to die. The value is fixed upon the ground landlord's death. So that no Increment Duty falls upon the tenant, or on the transfer of the lease, but it is not so in the other case. I propose to deal with a broad argument. Let me take the case of an estate which has been left to two brothers and a sister. Let each own a street, called Ann-street, John-street, and Charles-street. Ann dies. The Increment Duty is paid on her death upon that street, but the tenants if they sub-let have no Increment Duty to pay. The tenants, however, in John-street and Charles-street if they want to sub-let their houses have Increment Duty to pay. 260 There is a premium on Ann-street, but John-street and Charles-street are in a different position. Enterprising auctioneers would advertise "desirable premises; ground landlord dead, and no Increment Duty." There are other inconsistencies in this sub-section. In one case a man would have to pay a small duty, but if at his death a lease were sold his estate would be called upon to pay the whole of the Increment Duty on the site value. This particular sub-section seems to illustrate how easily the objects of this Bill are frustrated in consequence of the inconsistencies which it contains. As I understand it, the object aimed at is to tax those who have had the benefit of the increment without any great trouble or work on their own part, but, according to the cases I have put forward, these are the very people who are going to be relieved from the increment, whereas the tenant who takes the trouble to sublet the premises, and to look out for a new tenant, will have to bear the burden of the heavy increment. It is more in consequence of inconsistencies such as these in this very startling Bill rather than because of the difficulties of obtaining the valuation and the hardships accruing therefrom, that I shall support this Amendment.
§ Mr. T. HART-DAVIES
I am glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to stick to this particular sub-section. If the Amendment were carried the effect would be that the whole of the Increment Duty would be thrown on transfers only, and that would be an extremely bad thing, because it would have a tendency to interfere with the free passing, the free transfer, and the free dealing in land. We desire land to be dealt with as easily and cheaply as possible. Indeed, that is one of the drawbacks to the Increment Tax. It may have a tendency to interfere with the free dealing in land. It certainly would have that tendency if the duty were only imposed on transfers. The hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Leverton Harris) has set us a good many problems. I do not think they are unsolvable. I think he should remember that the Increment Duty is leviable only on the man who gets the benefit, say, on the lessee, who has a long lease of 50 years or more to run, or, in the case of a short lease, the ground landlord. If only the problems which have been set could be worked out, I am confident it would be found that it is the man who actually gets the benefit from the devolution of property who has to pay the increment. That I submit is only fair. Many of the 261 problems which have been pointed out are really owing to the extraordinarily complicated provisions of the Bill. We think that if there were a universal tax on the actual value of all land we should not really have any trouble at all. That is what he wanted, and if that had been the proposal of the Government we should have had but one instead of the many discussions with which we are threatened. But there the Bill is. I accept it so far as it goes because I am willing to take anything I can get in the way of land reform.
§ Sir EDWARD CARSON
I would not have risen but for the speech of the Attorney-General, who, when he was laying down broad principles without the qualifications contained in this Bill, was very impatient at my interruption. The hon. and learned Gentleman is extremely satisfied with his own working of the Finance Act of 1894. He says, in point of fact, he has been so fortunate that he has never really heard any complaint against the fixing of the market value in the case of the passing of estates. He has had a happier experience in the law than I have, because my experience has been that everybody who can possibly raise any point in trying to kick against the assessment of the tax put upon them by the Revenue Department has taken every opportunity to do so. One of the cases given by the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Leverton Harris) is, I think, a very ordinary case. I refer to the one in which the Commissioners fixed £50,000 as the value of an estate; an arbitration resulted in the reduction of the sum to £15,000, and it was eventually compromised at £10,000. Does the Attorney-General think that that is a satisfactory kind of operation for the subject to have to go through in relation to assessment for Death Duties? If so, what, I ask, will it be as regards estimating for the so-called Increment Duty? The hon. and learned Gentleman omitted to mention that there were two matters which kept the Commissioners in check even in these circumstances. In the first place, as regards agricultural land, the Finance Act laid down a limit of 25 years' purchase under Schedule A, and that enabled the prompt settlement of thousands of cases. The Attorney-General is, however, going to repeal that provision, which alone enabled a market value to be come to. The hon. Member for Westmorland, who addressed the House just now, talked of market values as if they were a kind of thing which could be fixed from minute to minute. But the Bill of 1894 ob- 262 viated all that trouble because it put in as a fair market value 25 years' purchase of the assessment under Schedule A. That enabled land, particularly agricultural land, to be more easily assessed than it could otherwise have been under the Act of 1894. The Government, however, propose to repeal that provision, and to leave the question of the market value of agricultural land absolutely at the will of the Revenue authorities, and subject to revaluation on every occasion.
The next matter that kept the Commissioners in check was that if they did not come to terms with the person whom they were taxing, the latter had the ordinary right of every citizen in relation to other grievances to go to the courts, and that certainly had a very steadying influence upon an official like the tax-gatherer. He was not allowed to assess at his own free will, and the fact that the parties could go to the court resulted in his coming to terms rather than that they should resort to the courts. Here, again, this Bill does away with that provision. It ousts the authority of the Court, and it leaves the subject entirely at the mercy of the tax gatherer, who can come down and say: "The increment value is so much. There is no question of reducing it from £50,000 to £10,000. I am supreme, I say £50,000 is the value, and I stick to that amount." Who, then, is the tax-maker in this case? Is it Parliament? I say it is the tax collector, and the tax collector only. Having regard to the fact that you are now repealing, by this Bill, these two safeguards in the Act of 1894, which enabled that Act to be worked, I submit that to suggest that the fixing of the market value under your Bill is an easy process is absurd. It is only easy because you are putting the taxpayer at the mercy of the tax collector. I say that the self-congratulation in which the Attorney-General has indulged is entirely out of place. It has no relevance to this Bill, which makes a complete and absolute change—a change in the direction of tyranny, and it will make the subject resent more than ever he has done before the taxes which you are putting upon him, apart altogether from their justice or injustice. Let me point out that in the provisions of the sub-section which was passed last night, you were dealing with cases where the parties could come together, and where there was a consideration which justified to some extent the claim that a portion of the benefit should go to the State. You are not dealing with 263 that kind of case now. You are dealing with cases where no money passes So far as I understand it, you are even dealing with cases where the property does not pass. The hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect that under the Finance Act of 1894 property is deemed to pass when it does not pass at all. Take the case of the assessment of an interest in the property which passes. Because the Act of Parliament says it is to be deemed as passing it is treated accordingly. Take an assessment of an annuity charged upon the land. The increment arises because the annuity falls in, are you to have to value the whole fee simple of the land, having regard to the value you put upon the annuity, and to collect the tax upon it. I say that to call upon men to have increment assessed on all these occasions is to render the management of any real estate almost an impossibility. There is a further question which I find it very difficult to answer. Do you mean, under this section, that all property that passes, or that is deemed to pass, under the Act of 1894, is to create an occasion for the collection of this tax? If you do it reversions and remainders come in, and I find it very difficult to understand this sub-section. We are dealing with the words, "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, as amended by any subsequent enactment." Within the meaning of those sections, reversions, and remainders would come in, but I find in another section a specific enactment, which shows they do not. What I want to find out from the right hon. Gentleman is this: supposing I succeeded to-morrow to a reversion, I should not touch the property until the life came in. I am not having the property, and am not receiving a particle of it, and yet I should be called upon under this Bill, to go and see what has been the increment upon the fee simple of that property, and having ascertained that, should I have to pay the duty, or would the owner of the life estate have to pay it, or who would have to pay it? The whole application of the Death Duties is absolutely inapplicable, in many instances, to the cases that will arise, for the purpose of finding the occasion on which you are to fix this Increment Duty, and I say the right hon. Gentleman will really have to go through the various cases that arise 264 under the Finance Act of 1894, for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are suitable for the imposition of this increment value. If I wanted to obstruct this measure I could take 15 or 20 cases under the Act of 1894, and put them down to argue about them, but I do not want to do that. All I say is, that it is an important consideration and a practical matter, because I think you will find when you go through all these various cases—you will find many, if not most of them, are absolutely inapplicable to the collection on this occasion of the Increment Duty.
I want to say one word upon the hardship of this duty, arising upon a death, for this reason: You are going to collect it twice upon the death, and I want to make that perfectly clear and see why you are doing that. In the first place, you put Death Duties upon the market value of the property as it stands, and therefore people pay Death Duty upon the income, because the market value must include the income of the parson. First, you put duty upon the income and include it in the whole, and these duties aggregated with other duties on estates make the figure extremely high. Then a man, having paid the Death Duties at increased rates—in some cases they have increased 75 per cent. since this Government came into power upon the higher grades—having charged your duty upon the increment— the increment aggregated so as as to increase the percentage of duty, then you say on this occasion you must pay a separate tax upon the increment value upon the same estate, the same property, if I may so call it. Is that reasonable, at a time when no money is being realised out of the land? I can understand if you postpone it and say that before the increment is paid the land is to be paying a profit, but at the time when a man is not going to receive sixpence, that you should first charge a duty upon the market value, aggravated by the Increment Duty, and then single it out for separate taxation by itself, is a hardship which the Government, I was going to say, can hardly have contemplated, but that I have no idea of what they have contemplated, or whether they have any definite idea in their mind at all or not. I want to point out something more than that. Not only do you charge the income with duty twice, but in the case of land, other than agricultural, which we are told this deals with chiefly, you are also to charge duty on prospective value, under the 7th section of the 265 Finance Act, "Due to the expectation of an increase of the income of such pro perty." Just see how that works out. You charge a duty upon the prospective value, and when next the property comes round again, by the letting of the land on lease, or becoming subject to the Death Duty, you again charge an increment value, although you have previously charged it upon the prospective value. What you really want the people to understand, if you are going to pass this Bill is, how you are accumulating these taxes one after another, and all upon the same property. I am expressing my own belief, that this section and the way in which it will operate, in regard to the Increment Duty, is far and away the worst sub-section of the lot, not that that is giving it any much worse character than the others, but it is worse because there is no money. It is worse because you have already charged it on Death Duties and prospective value, and I do submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be well for him to pause before he proceeds to put on taxes in this cumulative way at a time when it is extremely difficult to raise the money even for the payment of the Death Duties. Of course we are told that these Death Duties have not any effect upon any person, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have you believe that one of the kindest things he had ever done in his life was the great increase of the Death Duties, but I think if he will inquire he will find very great hardship in regard to those duties, and I do submit to the Committee that they would be well advised to know what is going to be done with regard to other sub-sections before they pass this sub-section, which in my opinion will create great hardship.
§ Mr. J. D. REES
I rise not to complain of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, but to explain what I said in the very brief interruption to which the right hon. Gentleman took no serious exception, because he is always patient and courteous, even to his friends. I understand him to argue that if the Increment Duty might fairly be paid when a man paid for an estate, still more might be properly paid, and I might almost add willingly paid, when a man succeeded to an estate. He said that succession in such a case is a great boon, and I interjected, that in the case of kin, such as of a son, it could hardly be regarded in this light, and the right hon. Gentleman said I must have been thinking of the laws of Persia and India. I submit 266 to my right hon. Friend that the laws of Persia are very good laws for the Persians.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
That is not what I said. The statement I made was that he had no legal claim. I never used the word "boon" at all. I said he had no legal claim. I agree that he has every right to expect, but I was dealing purely with legal right. I was stating a legal right.
§ Mr. REES
The hon. Member says he has in Scotland, but I submit that nobody but a Scotchman can be expected to understand Scotch law. But I contend that a son, in point of fact, has a right, in this sense, that unless a person deflects his property away from the son, if he dies intestate, the son and other kin naturally succeed in their degrees, and in that regard the law of intestacy crystallises the testamentary morality of the country in which it is in force, and I was not so far wrong in saying that a son had a right to his father's property, as my right hon. Friend suggested. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to cast any reflection upon the laws of India, which he says I was thinking of when I made that remark, and I would submit that the laws of India, which it has been my duty in my time to draft, to make, and administer, are just as good whether on that account, or in spite of it, as the laws of this country, and it may fairly be argued that in very many respects they are a great deal better. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's argument was that an estate coming to a man by in-heritance was in the nature of a gratuitous gift, and that he should not only be bound to pay this duty, but should be glad to pay it. I cannot, however, take that view myself. When a man succeeds to an estate and two or more heavy taxes come on it at the same time, besides other charges, in that case his succession, instead of being a boon, may be a damnosa hœreditas. Can it be said that he is not properly the subject of some sympathetic consideration upon this occasion when he has to face one tax after another? The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite the Member for Chelmsford, said that a great landlord always has other resources, but I was not quite sure whether he was not putting that 267 too high, although no doubt it is probable that all great landlords who have not other resources very soon cease to be great landlords. That is a case which may fairly be put, but I was thinking rather of the very small landowners. Take the cases around London, where a great many people have small property, which they buy for the purpose of building and speculation. I do submit in regard to land like that, there may be a question whether this succession of taxes, coming at one and the same time, may not hit them very hardly. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmoreland (Mr. Leif Jones) spoke of a bit of land, as of a bit of bread, or a bit of cheese, or anything which might be sold to a passer-by, but it is not of that character. I notice that the hon. Member for Newcastle was actually prepared to take Count Tolstoi, on whose advice no one in Russia would invest three halfpenc——
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member forgets that he cannot take isolated remarks made by former speakers but must apply himself to the Amendment before the Committee.
§ Mr. REES
I cannot see that an estate coming from a near relation can be regarded as a gratuitous boon which drops like the rain from heaven. It is a thing he has a right to, and he is not in the same position qua taxation as other people, and, for that reason, I thought this Amendment was entitled to some sympathetic consideration. But what brought me up was that I thought I had some reason to rehabilitate my own character and convince my right hon. Friend that my head is not so full of the laws of Persia and India, that I cannot remember something like equity at home.
§ Mr. JAMES MASON (Windsor)
The occasions on which this Increment Tax can be collected appear to be, firstly, at certain fixed periods; secondly, on the transfer, or sale, of the land; and thirdly, 268 on the occasion of the death of the individual owning or having an interest in the land. The Chancellor of the Exchequer objected to the periodical collection of the tax not from any specific reason which he gave, but principally because he would not get the benefit of the tax now. That is quite true, but I am afraid that is a remark which might equally apply to the present Land Taxes presented in this Bill. They are not designed to be collected immediately, and they are very much designed to collect revenue in the future. Hon. Gentlemen who are most in favour of this form of taxation seem to prefer collection at the death, principally because they acknowledge that collection at the time of sale or transfer will act as a cheek on the distribution of the land and its development. I think it has also been said that it will have the advantage of being more easy for the Exchequer to gather in the revenue at the time of death than on the other occasions. I quite agree with that, and I also agree that probably the occasion of death is preferable, because it will happen less frequently on the average than the occasion of sale, and the less frequently you have to make these valuations and disturb the owner of the property the better; but there seem to me to be certain considerable difficulties in collection at death which are worthy of careful consideration before we adopt it. Of course, the death and the sale may follow very suddenly one upon the other, and involve a double valuation, but the reply to that would be that two sales might equally follow one on the other and necessitate two valuations.
But there is another difficulty which seems to be raised by the sub-section. A man owning an estate may die leaving a jointure on the estate to his widow with remainder, we will say, to his eldest daughter, and with remainder again if she has no children, to a second daughter. In the case of any one of these three ladies dying, the interest in the land will pass at death, and the whole estate will have to be revalued in order to get at the increment value of that small part which forms the jointure. The widow might die within a year, and the estate would have to be valued, and the thing may happen again on the death of the daughters consecutively, so it is quite possible that the provision for collecting at death may still lead to valuations far more frequently than apparently is the design of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that difficulty arises 269 really through including the words "or Any interest in the land." Of course, if it was confined only to the occasion of the death of the owner, and you left out the words "or any interest in the land," the difficulty would be very considerably obviated. There are other objections which ought to be fully realised to collecting at death. Take two cases, one an ordinary case of a large estate, and the other a more ordinary case of a smaller estate. In the case of a large landed estate, where the owner has no other property—by no means a rare case—on the death of the owner, there being nothing but the land, the money to pay the duty must be raised either by a mortgage or out of the capital of the individual who leaves the property, and to that extent, of course, it has the undesirable effect of taking away the capital, which, above all things, is necessary for the development of the rest of the estate. Then, of course, there is the very hard case of the much more numerous class of small land-holders. We know that the land-owners in this country are far more numerous than is commonly thought apparently by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and among these land-owners are very many who own only the small site on which they live. There are great numbers of working men who have invested their savings in buying the houses in which they live, which in many cases are freehold. I suppose in such a case in which the owner apart from his savings has nothing but his wages to live upon, you could not find a more inconvenient time to come down upon his widow to pay the duty than at the moment the breadwinner of the family is dead, and she has no other source of revenue whatever. These are all instances of the inconvenience and hardship which must arise in the collection of the tax at this particular moment. At the same time I do not say that even now these inconveniences are greater than in the case of the transfer or the sale of the land, but they are arguments in favour of considering more seriously the possibility of raising a revenue at fixed periods, which would usually not coincide with the death of the owner, and which would therefore not be open to the objection that two deaths may happen very closely one upon the other.
§ Mr. BECK
The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that as regards hon. Members opposite it was never the right time for levying the Increment Duty, and there is no doubt that is so, but I can assure him that we on this side of the House are in 270 favour of Increment Duty on certain occasions, though we do not think that death, as a rule, is a suitable or a just occasion for levying it. The case that has been bandied across the floor of the House is the case of the man who dies worth a little over £100,000, and though there are very great hardships in this case, I really should be prepared to throw that man to my hon. Friends below the Gangway for the moment, and should prefer to deal with somewhat smaller cases. I should like to point out one little matter which has been left untouched, and that is, that it is always supposed, in this particular case of an estate worth £100,000 with an increment of £5,000, that the increment is unduly little taxed, but under the schedule of the Death Duties the mere fact that the property has increased from £95,000 to just over £100,000 involves the payment of nine per cent, instead of eight per cent. Death Duty, so that the increment costs, under the proposals of the Bill, instead of £7,600 Death Duties £10,000, a very considerable amount indeed.
I should like to come to the very common case in my Constituency of small landowners—fruit growers, farmers, nurserymen, and people of that kind—who have land worth say £5,000. Suppose £1,000 of that £5,000 is owing to the proximity of the land to a town. Suppose £1,000 is increment, then ipso facto the Death Duty mounts up from £200 to £400 under this Bill. If you did not charge the Increment Duty at death it would pay £200, and if you do it amounts to £400. This particular case causes great hardship to little men of this kind, the very class of men whom hon. Members below the Gangway are so particularly anxious to encourage upon the land. If their sons want to continue to work the land, a very considerable burden is immediately placed upon them. I know very many such eases, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will feel that they do deserve a great deal of consideration at any rate from the Government now in power.
I would put strongly in another category the case of nurserymen. I think nurserymen, who have spent large sums in developing land to the highest possible degree, and who have got a great reputation in the towns in which they reside, could not sell what they have without great loss. That may be covered by sub-section (2) of Clause 2, and I hope it will be made clear if it is so. There is no doubt that they would pay the halfpenny tax, but I maintain it 271 would be a great hardship if they had to pay in addition what might be a very heavy Increment Tax on the occasion of death. I know there is great difficulty in dealing with all these things, and that it you do not levy the increment at death, you may never levy it at all. As has been pointed out many times a man sustains large loss of income by holding his land, and merely receiving agricultural rents instead of selling his land, and investing what he receives in gilt-edged securities. If the fact that he could increase his income by selling his land and so investing his money does not induce him to sell, I do not think anything else will. You have in the Housing and Town Planning Bill actual power to acquire land compulsorily for building purposes, and I do maintain that there is no need to penalise large numbers of deserving people by compelling them to sell their land to pay this duty. I consider that my Constituents are not only intelligent, but that they are people of the class who form the very backbone of the country. They are practically of the small yeomen class. Some of them represent families who have held land for generations in that part of the world, and I think it would be extremely hard on them and their descendants if they were forced not only to pay Death Duties but this Increment Duty when they do not handle actually the profit which accrues to their property. I support the Increment Tax when a man sells land for building purposes, but I do beg the Government to seriously consider the case of those small men to whom I have referred. I ask them earnestly to consider the great hardship these proposals will cause to a most deserving class of the community.
§ Earl WINTERTON
We have had an interesting Debate this afternoon in which a great many legal technicalities have been discussed, but the question which concerns the vast majority of the people of the country is: How is the average owner of landed property on succeeding on the death of his father to find the money demanded under this clause without seriously crippling his property, himself, or his heirs'! That is the real question which arises, and neither the Attorney-General nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given any answer whatever. We have had a great deal of discursive argument about the meaning of market value, but I think the case put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford has never 272 really been answered. The Attorney-General said that was an extreme case, but I am unable to understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman meant by that. I would venture to put a case which I do not think either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Attorney-General can describe as in the least degree extreme. It is a case where the amount of the value is smaller. It is the case of an agricultural estate of £50,000 passing on the death of the owner to a man whose sole property practically is invested in this estate. The increment on that estate since the last valuation is £10,000, and, therefore, the increment duty would be £2,000. Assuming that the proposed Death Duties are adopted, the duty payable on that estate would amount to £3,500.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
I think the Noble Lord is assuming a purely agricultural property. In that case there is no Increment Duty at all. In the case of a purely agricultural property the question of increment does not arise.
§ Earl WINTERTON
That point has not been fully thrashed out in these Debates. I do not admit the right hon. Gentleman's premise. I have some not very pleasant reminiscences of Death Duties. It is one of those subjects of which I have very painful knowledge. I cannot see that a case of that kind would not arise, but let us assume that the question does not arise. The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget, for instance, that it is predicted by many that we shall have wheat going up to 60s. a quarter. There might, therefore, be a sudden rise in the value of agricultural land. There might be circumstances outside of this country which would cause a rise in the value of agricultural land. I do not think that is at all an extreme case. At any rate, my supposititious owner would have to pay no less a sum than £5,500, assuming that the whole property is £50,000. It is no exaggeration to say that he will have to pay at once on the death of the former owner a sum which, roughly speaking, is equal, under ordinary circumstances, to two years' income of the property. We have not had a single word from the Government or any hon. Member behind them to show how the unfortunate owner is going to find the money. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that in more than half of the cases he will be unable to find the money. He will not get an insurance company to advance it. It will be said that he can dispose of the land by 273 sale. Assuming that he could do so, it is a dangerous argument to put forward. After all, why should he sell the property? Hon. Members below the Gangway think that it is wrong for a man to hold this kind of property, and that is really the whole argument put forward by the Government and their supporters. They say, "If he cannot pay, let him sell the land." Is that the way to deal with property which the Prime Minister said is a perfectly legitimate form of investment? I think it is a most extraordinary attitude to take up in any Debate in this House. This Amendment, more than any other we have discussed, raises the whole point whether the Government and their supporters believe that the holding of land is justifiable or not. The result of the Debate this afternoon has been to show that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although he is not prepared to go so far in this House as in some distant part of Wales, and say that the holding of land is a criminal thing, is prepared to say quite lightly, "If an owner finds that the holding of land is too expensive a thing, and if he objects to the Budget proposals, let him sell the land and let someone else bear the burden." If that is the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman takes up, then the Debate this afternoon will have served a good purpose in eliciting the fact. I listened to the views put forward by the hon. Member for the Appleby Division (Mr. Leif Jones). I always thought the hon. Member was extreme in his views on temperance, but I find now that he is an out-and-out Socialist. If the views put forward by the Government and their supporters are acted upon, then I say that no Member of the party opposite will be able to go to the country and say honestly that he does not wish to cripple agriculture and property in land.
§ Mr. LANE-FOX
The Chancellor of the Exchequer twitted the Opposition with what he called their inconsistency. I do not think that the accusation can be made against this side of the House. It is the duty of the Opposition to criticise the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to point out the objections to them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says it will be perfectly impossible in some cases to get the Increment Duty at all unless, having secured it in the case of sales and leases, he provides for getting it also in the case of death. It has been pointed out that in cases where public harm or 274 damage would result from the holding up of land the power proposed to be taken under the Housing and Town Planning Bill will enable the community to deal with obstructive owners of land who stand in the way of public development. I see no reason whatever why a man, in order to pay the Increment Duty, should be forced to part with his property when he has no desire to do so. This question of holding up land has been to a large extent exaggerated. The charge that landlords stand in the way of the public interest has been based on a few individual cases. The real hardship we want to avoid is the carrying out of the constant valuations which will be inflicted unnecessarily upon the owners of property. That is one of the reasons why it seems to me that death is an unfair moment to choose. No one can say how often Succession Duty may come round. In some cases it may be a long period; in other cases it may come two or three times in quick succession which may absolutely cripple some property that cannot stand the strain. It is absolutely impossibls from the Death Duty valuation to get the site value. I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the Death Duty valuation made before this Bill to endeavour to extract from it the site valuation. The hon. Member for Appleby (Mr. Leif Jones) gave us a most illuminating speech on the subject of Death Duties. He argued from averages like the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister told us that the average Income Tax was nothing like Is., that it worked out at something like between 10d. and 11d. I do not see how that is going to give any consolation to the man whose case at the moment is being argued who is paying an infinitely higher Income Tax than that. In the same way the hon. Member for Appleby tried to argue that the argument of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), when he said 40 per cent. would have to be paid in some instances on certain portions of the property was untrue, because it did not cover the whole average of the estate. It is perfectly obvious that the argument of my hon. Friend was perfectly accurate, and has not been shaken by anything that has been said. The hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones) in dealing with this question of Death Duties, belittled the whole thing, and said they were not really harsh, that they were mainly paid out of income, and that it was very easy to raise them by selling the land and by gambling in stocks.
§ Mr. LANE-FOX
The hon. Member suggested selling the land, and that if the money could be put to better use in another direction it would result in larger sums being made.
§ Mr. LANE-FOX
Many owners of property have tried to recoup themselves, and the results have been most disastrous to unfortunate people who are trying to make money, but have never done so. That was the legal advice this hon. Gentleman gave on the Question of Death Duties. That is the advice he applied also to the increment value on death. When I asked him subsequently in private conversation whether he could give me one single instance of agricultural property which had paid its Death Duties out of income the answer, of course, was obvious—he could not give me an instance, and his argument is completely countered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who almost immediately afterwards during the same Debate stated that the payment of Death Duties accrued so easily that owners of estates had paid them at once rather than avail themselves of the system of paying by instalments and spreading the duty over the number of years that is allowed. That in itself proves that these duties are not paid out of income, but out of capital, which is the assertion that we have made, and which represents the fact. All these taxes are taxes on capital, and in the end are bound to impoverish land on the estates in this country. When we come to this question of taxes at death I do think that the attitude of a great many hon. Members of this House is an extremely mean one. What right have we to sit here and impose taxation on those who are to come after us which we are not prepared to pay ourselves? It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to say, "This is an eminently satisfactory tax to put on as long a I am not going to pay it. What does it matter about my successor?" The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General (Sir William Robson), on previous discussions as regards the Death Duties, sneered somewhat at the idea of insuring against Death Duties. He said it was very unfair to reckon as a form of taxation the provisions that we may make for our successors. He says:—It is most unfair to say that it is a tax upon a man himself. If he chooses to make provision for his successor that is very noble of him, but there is no need to do it.276 During the whole of the Debate in 1894 the argument was constantly used on the Question as a means of saving estates from the serious effects of Death Duties that it would be also the duty of those who had estates to safeguard them as far as possible for their successors by insuring. But here is a thing you cannot insure. You cannot tell what the Increment Duty is; you cannot tell what an estate, burdened as it is by the payment of the Death Duties at a most inconvenient time, will be worth; you cannot tell what the additional burden will be which this increment burden will throw on it. You cannot have any provision to protect yourself against this imposition. That seems to me to add greatly to the hardship of the Bill. I hope that the House will consider the position of executors and the trustees, who have not, so far, been mentioned in this Debate. The position of the average executor or trustee will be made difficult in many cases if this Bill passes. It is obvious that not only are those Death Duties going to be very largely increased, but they would also have this purely speculative amount to provide for. I myself have the strongest objection to the increase of the Death Duties. I believe that they are the hardest part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals. They will press most severely on agricultural estates, that is, on those who can least afford to pay them; and they will cause greater hardship to those who depend on estates in this country than to any other class. I strongly deprecate this provision, which makes the position more serious even than it is already.
§ Mr. WYNDHAM
Hon. Gentlemen opposite used to say that they intended to convert the land of this country from being the pleasure ground of the rich into being the treasure ground of the poor. I understood that they had in their minds some plan by which the landed property of England would be sold to persons who would turn it to better agricultural account than its present possessors. It is evident that they have no such plans, and that cannot have been their intention. From what I understand from them now, they do contemplate that on the death of what will be a large proportion, perhaps a majority, of those who now own land and use it for agricultural purposes in England, their successors will be forced to sell portions, at any rate, of those estates. That is the view of many speakers.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
The right hon. Gentleman is assuming that this increment 277 is going to be charged on land for purely agricultural purposes. Not merely is it not the intention to do so, but I have taken measures in the Bill to introduce safeguards to prevent that being done.
§ Mr. WYNDHAM
I know that it is the contention of the right hon. Gentleman that this duty, in addition to ail the graduation of Death Duties, will not affect agricultural lands. Does the right hon. Genteman then, believe that portions of such landed property will have to be sold on the deaths of the present owners? When the right hon. Gentleman says that he has taken measures which will prevent this duty which he is now imposing from being a burden on those who inherit agricultural land, I think he has not allowed sufficient weight to what fell from his own lips the other day. The other day he said most frankly to the House that in the ease where there is a large additional area used for market gardening then there would be an Increment Duty. That leaves the matter in great ambiguity. We, at any rate, on this side of the House believe that market gardens only flourish where they are either in proximity to a town or have some other adventitious aid which makes it proper, right and possible to turn purely agricultural land into a tract of land devoted to market gardening. That is the very converse of what I understood the hon. Gentlemen opposite to mean when they spoke of turning the land from being the pleasure ground of the rich into being the treasure ground of the poor. The contention is that portions of estate would be sold. I would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to whom would the;.' sell it? Clearly, not to the market gardeners; clearly, not to the small holders; and clearly, not to any municipality—though I believe that hon. Mem-
§ bers have in their minds that by throwing land on the market it would be possible for county councils and other bodies to buy land cheaply. Those are not the persons to whom land will be sold in order to realise the money necessary to pay these Death Duties. It will be sold to those who can afford to give a fancy price. It is now being sold to those who can give a fancy price throughout England. Throughout England portions of agricultural estates are sold to men who have retired from business or have made large sums of money, and who cut bits out of the agricultural land of England, plant them, and make them a kind of small park or suburban residence. That is going on all over England. If you want to sell land you get a better profit if you sell it for a pleasure ground than for any other purpose, or if you sell it as a training ground for racehorses, or if you sell it to some millionaire or foreigner who comes and lays it out as a small ornamental estate. It is to those persons that land will be sold; and by selling it to those persons so far from turning the land from being the pleasure ground of the rich into the treasure ground of the poor it will make it more and more the expensive luxury of men who can afford such luxuries, and withdraw it more and more from the reach of men who are prepared to work in order to make the land produce a rich return.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE 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, 277; Noes, 118.281
|Division No. 208]||AYES.||[6.45 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Beauchamp, E.||Bryce, J. Annan|
|Agnew, George William||Beaumont, Hon. Hubert||Buckmaster, Stanley O.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Beck, A. Cecil||Burns, Rt. Hon. John|
|Alden, Percy||Bell, Richard||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)||Buxton, Rt. Hon Sydney Charles|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Byles, William Pollard|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Bennett, E. N.||Cameron, Robert|
|Astbury, John Meir||Berridge, T. H. D.||Carr-Gomm, H. W.|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Bertram, Julius||Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)||Cawley, Sir Frederick|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Chance, Frederick William|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Black, Arthur W.||Channing, Sir Francis Allston|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Bowerman, C. W.||Cheetham, John Frederick|
|Barker, Sir John||Bramsdon, Sir T. A.||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Branch, James||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Brigg, John||Cleland, J. W.|
|Barnard, E. B.||Brocklehurst, W. B.||Clough, William|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Brooke, Stopford||Clynes, J. R.|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Jackson, R. S.||Richardson, A.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Jardine, Sir J.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Cotton, Sir H. J S.||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)|
|Cox, Harold||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Robinson, S.|
|Crossley, William J.||Jowett, F. W.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Kekewich, Sir George||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Laidlaw, Robert||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire)||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Rose, Sir Charles Day|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)||Lambert, George||Rowlands, J.|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Lamont, Norman||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||Lehmann, R. C.||Schwann, c. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Duckworth, Sir James||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)||Levy, Sir Maurice||Sears, J. E.|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)|
|Elibank, Master of||Lupton, Arnold||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Erskine, David C.||Lyell, Charles Henry||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Essex, R. W.||Lynch, H. B.||Snowden, P.|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Evans, Sir S. T.||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Maclean, Donald||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Faber, C. H. (Boston)||M'Callum, John M.||Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)|
|Falconer, James||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Steadman, W. C.|
|Ferens, T. R.||M'Micking, Major G.||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Maddison, Frederick||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Mallet, Charles E.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Summerbell, T.|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Markham, Arthur Basil||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Marnham, F. J.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Gill, A. H.||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Tennant, H. J (Berwickshire)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John||Massie, J.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)||Masterman, C. F. G.||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Glover Thomas||Menzies, Sir Walter||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Micklem, Nathaniel||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Mond, A.||Tomkinson, James|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Toulmin, George|
|Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Gulland, John W.||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Vivian, Henry|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Morrell, Philip||Walsh, Stephen|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Morse, L. L.||Walters, John Tudor|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Walton, Joseph|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)||Wardle, George J.|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)||Myer, Horatio||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Napier, T. B.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Hart-Davies, T.||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Wedgewood, Josiah C.|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)||Nicholls, George||Weir, James Galloway|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.||Norman, Sir Henry||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Norton, Captain Cecil William||White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)||Nuttall, Harry||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Henry, Charles S.||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)||Parker, James (Halifax)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Partington, Oswald||Wiles, Thomas|
|Higham, John Sharp||Paulton, James Mellor||Williamson, Sir A.|
|Hobart, Sir Robert||Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Holt, Richard Durning||Pointer, J.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Hooper, A. G.||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Winfrey, R.|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Horniman, Emslie John||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Hudson, Walter||Radford, G. H.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.|
|Hyde, Clarendon G.||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Idris, T. H. W.||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Baldwin, Stanley||Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.)||Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Beckett, Hon. Gervase|
|Ashley, W. W.||Banner, John S. Harmood-||Bignold, Sir Arthur|
|Balcarres, Lord||Baring, Capt. Hon. C. (Winchester)||Bowles, G. Stewart|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Percy, Earl|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Pretyman, E. G.|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Heaton, John Henniker||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Helmsley, Viscount||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Hill, Sir Clement||Renton, Leslie|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Renwick, George|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Houston, Robert Paterson||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Hunt, Rowland||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Cave, George||Joynson-Hicks, William||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Kerry, Earl of||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Kimber, Sir Henry||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Clyde, J. Avon||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Stanier, Beville|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Long, Rt. Hon. Waiter (Dublin, S.)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||M'Arthur, Charles||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Du Cros, Arthur||Magnus, Sir Philip||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Faber, G. Denison (York)||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Warde, Col. C E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Faber, Cant. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Fell, Arthur||Moore, William||Winterton, Earl|
|Fletcher, J. S.||Morpeth, Viscount||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Forster, Henry William||Morrison-Bell, Captain||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Foster, P. S.||Newdegate, F. A.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||Younger, George|
|Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)||Oddy, John James|
|Hamilton, Marquess of||Parkes, Ebenezer||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A.|
|Hardy, Lawrence (Kent, Ashford)||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.|
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'after,' stand part of the clause."282
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 298; Noes, 136.285
|Division No. 209.]||AYES.||[6.55 p.m.|
|Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Evans, Sir S. T.|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Falconer, J.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles||Ferens, T. R.|
|Agnew, George William||Byles, William Pollard||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Cameron, Robert||Flynn, James Christopher|
|Alden, Percy||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Fuller, John Michael F.|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight||Fullerton, Hugh|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Cawley, Sir Frederick||Furness, Sir Christopher|
|Astbury, John Meir||Cheetham, John Frederick||Gibb, James (Harrow)|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Gill, A. H.|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Ginnell, L.|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Cleland, J. W.||Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Clough, William||Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Clynes, J. R.||Glover, Thomas|
|Barker, Sir John||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)|
|Barnard, E. B.||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Gulland, John W.|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Crossley, William J.||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)|
|Beaumont, Hon. Hubert||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)|
|Bell, Richard||Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)|
|Bennett, E. N.||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Hart-Davies, T.|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)||Dobson, Thomas W.||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Denelan, Captain A.||Haworth, Arthur A.|
|Black, Arthur W.||Duckworth, Sir James||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.|
|Bramsdon, Sir T. A.||Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Branch, James||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)||Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)|
|Brigg, John||Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)||Henry, Charles S.|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)|
|Brooke, Stopford||Elibank, Master of||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)|
|Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)||Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||Higham, John Sharp|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Erskine, David C.||Hobart, Sir Robert|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Essex, R. W.||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Esslemont, George Birnie||Hogan, Michael|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Holt, Richard Durning||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Hooper, A. G.||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Sears, J. E.|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Morrell, Philip||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Horniman, Emslie John||Morse, L. L.||Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)|
|Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Sheehy, David|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Hudson, Walter||Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Hyde, Clarendon G.||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Idris, T. H. W.||Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Myer, Horatio||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Jackson, R. S.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Snowden, P.|
|Jardine, Sir J.||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Nicholls, George||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Nolan, Joseph||Steadman, W. C|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Norman, Sir Henry||Stewart, Hailey (Greenock)|
|Jowett, F. W.||Norton, Captain Cecil William||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Joyce, Michael||Nuttall, Harry||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Kavanagh, Walter M.||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)||Summerbell, T.|
|Kekewich, Sir George||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Kennedy, Vincent Paul||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Laidlaw, Robert||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||O'Doherty, Philip||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Lambert, George||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Lamont, Norman||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis||Parker, James (Halifax)||Tomkinson, James|
|Lehmann, R. C.||Partington, Oswald||Toulmin, George|
|Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Vivian, Henry|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Philips, John (Longford, S.)||Walsh, Stephen|
|Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Walters, John Tudor|
|Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Pointer, J.||Walton, Joseph|
|Lundon, T.||Power, Patrick Joseph||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Lupton, Arnold||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Wardle, George J.|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Lynch, H. B.||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Radford, G. H.||Wedgewood, Josiah C.|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Rainy, A. Rolland||Weir J. Galloway|
|Maclean, Donald||Raphael, Herbert H.||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)|
|M'Callum, John M.||Redmond, William (Clare)||Whitehead, Rowland|
|M'Kean, John||Rendall, Athelstan||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Richardson, A.||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|M'Micking, Major G.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Maddison, Frederick||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Williamson, Sir A.|
|Mallet, Charles E.||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Robinson, S.||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Markham, Arthur Basil||Robson, Sir Walter Snowdon||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Marnham, F. J.||Roche, John (Galway, East)||Winfrey, R.|
|Massie, J.||Roe, Sir Thomas||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Masterman, C. F. G.||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Meagher, Michael||Rose, Sir Charles Day|
|Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Rowlands, J.|
|Menzies, Sir Walter||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.|
|Micklem, Nathaniel||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Mond, A.||Schwann, c. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.||Bignold, Sir Arthur||Clyde, J. Avon|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Bowles, G. Stewart||Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Bridgeman, W. Clive||Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Bull, Sir William James||Cory, Sir Clifford John|
|Ashley, W. W.||Burdett-Coutts, W.||Cox, Harold|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Butcher, Samuel Henry||Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Carlile, E. Hildred||Craik, Sir Henry|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Dalrymple, Viscount|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Castlereagh, Viscount||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Cave, George||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon|
|Baring, Capt Hon. G. (Winchester)||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Du Cros, Arthur|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)|
|Beauchamp, E.||Chance, Frederick William||Faber, George Denison (York)|
|Beck, A Cecil||Channing, Sir Francis Aliston||Faber, Capt W. V. (Hants, W.)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Fardell, Sir T. George|
|Bertram, Julius||Clive, Percy Archer||Fell, Arthur|
|Fletcher, J. S.||Lyttelton Rt Hon. Alfred||Ronaldshay Earl of|
|Foster, Philip S.||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||M'Arthur, Charles||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Magnus, Sir Philip||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Hamilton, Marquess of||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Smith, Hon. F. W. D. (Strand)|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Stanier, Beville|
|Harrison-Broadley H. B.||Moore, William||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Hay Hon. Claude George||Morpeth, Viscount||Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Morrison-Bell, Captain||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)|
|Helmsley, Viscount||Napier, T. B.||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert||Newdegate, F. A.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Hill, Sir Clement||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Pretrsfield)||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)|
|Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Oddy, John James||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Hunt, Rowland||Parkes, Ebenezer||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||Paulton, James Mellor||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Joynson-Hicks, William||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Kerry, Earl of||Percy, Earl||Williams, Col R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Kimber, Sir Henry||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Lambton, Hon. Frederick William||Pretyman E. G.||Winterton, Earl|
|Lane-Fox, G. R.||Randles, Sir John Scurrah||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Remnant, James Farquharson||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Renton, Leslie||Younger, George|
|Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Renwick, George|
|Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)||Ridsdale, E. A.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount|
|Lowe, Sir Francis William||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.|
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the words of the clause to the word 'two,' ['Sections 1 and 2 of the Finance Act'] in subsection (b), stand part of the clause."
§ Question put, "That the Question that the words of the clause to the word 'two' stand part of the Question, be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 120.289
|Division No. 210.]||AYES.||[7.7 p.m.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Cawley, Sir Frederick||Gill, A. H.|
|Agnew, George William||Chance, Frederick William||Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)|
|Alden, Percy||Cheetham, John Frederick||Glover, Thomas|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)|
|Astbury, John Meir||Cleland, J. W.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Clough, William||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Clynes, J. R.||Gulland, John W.|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)|
|Barker, Sir John||Cory, Sir Clifford John||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Cox, Harold||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)|
|Barnard, E. B.||Crooks, William||Hart-Davies, T.|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Crossley, William J.||Haworth, Arthur A.|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.|
|Beauchamp, E.||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Helme, Nerval Watson|
|Beaumont, Hon. Hubert||Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)|
|Bell, Richard||Dewar, Sir J. A. (inverness-sh.)||Higham, John Sharp|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Hobart, Sir Robert|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.|
|Bennett, E. N.||Dobson, Thomas W.||Holland, Sir William Henry|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Duckworth, Sir James||Holt, Richard Durning|
|Bethel), Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Hooper, A. G.|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)||Horniman, Emslie John|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Elibank, Master of||Horridge, Thomas Gardner|
|Bramsdon, Sir T. A.||Erskine, David C.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
|Branch, James||Essex, R. W.||Hudson, Walter|
|Brigg, John||Esslemont, George Birnie||Hyde, Clarendon G.|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Evans, Sir S. T.||Idris, T. H. W.|
|Brooke, Stopford||Everett, R. Lacey||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)||Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Falconer, J||Jackson, R. S.|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Ferens, T. R.||Jardine, Sir J.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles||Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Fuller, John Michael F.||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)|
|Cameron, Robert||Fullerton, Hugh||Jowett, F. W.|
|Cair-Gomm, H. W.||Furness, Sir Christopher||Kekewich, Sir George|
|Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)||Norman, Sir Henry||Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)|
|Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Norton, Captain Cecil William||Steadman, W. C.|
|Lambert, George||Nuttall, Harry||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Lamont, Norman||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis||Parker, James (Halifax)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Lehmann, R. C.||Partington, Oswald||Summerbell, T.|
|Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Pointer, J.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Lupton, Arnold||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Radford, G. H.||Tomkinson, James|
|Lynch, H. B.||Rainy, A. Rolland||Toulmin, George|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Rendall, Athelstan||Verney, F. W.|
|Maclean, Donald||Richardson, A.||Vivian, Henry|
|M'Callum, John M.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Walton, Joseph|
|M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Maddison, Frederick||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||Wardle, George J.|
|Mallett, Charles E.||Robinson, S.||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Markham, Arthur Basil||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Wason, John Cathcart (Okney)|
|Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Roe, Sir Thomas||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Marnham, F. J.||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Weir, James Galloway|
|Massie J.||Rose, Sir Charles Day||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Masterman, C. F. G.||Rowlands, J.||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Menzies, Sir Walter||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Micklem, Nathaniel||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Moiteno, Percy Alport||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Mond, A.||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Money, L. G. Chiozza||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Sears, J. E.||Williamson, Sir A.|
|Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Seaverns, J. H.||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Morrell, Philip||Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Morse, L. L.||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Silcock, Thomas Bail||Winfrey, R.|
|Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)||Simon, John Allsebrook||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Myer, Horatio||Snowden, P.|
|Napier, T. B.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.|
|Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Nicholls, George||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Dalrymple, Viscount||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon||MacCaw, William J. MacGeage|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||M'Arthur, Charles|
|Ashley, W. W.||Du Cros, Arthur||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)||Mason, James F. (Windsor)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Faber, George Denison (York)||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Fell, Arthur||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.)||Fletcher, J. S.||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Faster, Herry William||Moore, William|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Foster, P. S.||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Morrison-Bell, Captain|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)||Newdegate, F. A.|
|Beach, Hon Michael Hugh Hicks||Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmund)||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
|Beckett, Hon Gervase||Hamilton, Marquess of||Oddy, John James|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hardy, Lawrence (Kent, Ashford)||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Harrison-Broadley H. B.||Percy, Earl|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Heaton, John Henniker||Pretyman, E. G.|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Helmsley, Viscount||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Campbell, Rt Hon. J. H. M.||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hill, Sir Clement||Renton, Leslie|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Renwick, George|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Houston, Robert Paterson||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Cave, George||Hunt, Rowland||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Joynson-Hicks, William||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Kerry, Earl of||Ropner, Col. Sir Robert|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Keswick, William||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Kimber, Sir Henry||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Lambton, Hon. Frederick William||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Clyde, J. Avon||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Stanier, Beville|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.||Lockwood, Rt. hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Thornton, Percy M.||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)||Younger, George|
|Tuke, Sir John Batty||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)||Winterton, Earl||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.|
|Walrond, Hon. Lionel||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words of the clause down to the word 'two' stand part of the clause."290
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 121.291
|Division No. 211.]||AYES.||[7.15 p.m.|
|Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)||Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)||Lambert, George|
|Agnew, George William||Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Elibank, Maste of||Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis|
|Alden, Percy||Erskine, David C.||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Essex, R. W.||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Esslemont, George Birnie||Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)|
|Astbury, John Meir||Evans, Sir S. T.||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Everett, R. Lacey||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Falconer, J.||Lundon, T.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Ferens, T. R.||Lupton, Arnold|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes|
|Barker, Sir John||Flynn, James Christopher||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Fuller, John Michael F.||Lynch, H. B.|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Fullerton, Hugh||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Barnard, E. B.||Furness, Sir Christopher||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Maclean, Donald|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Gill, A. H.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)|
|Beaumont, Hon. Hubert||Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)|
|Bell, Richard||Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)||M'Callum, John M.|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)||Glover, Thomas||M'Kean, John|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)|
|Bennett, E. N.||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Maddison, Frederick|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Mallet, Charles E.|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Gulland, John W.||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Black, Arthur W.||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)|
|Boland, John||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Marnham, F. J.|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Massie, J.|
|Bramsdon, Sir T. A.||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Masterman, C. F. G.|
|Branch, James||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Meagher, Michael|
|Brigg, John||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)||Menzies, Sir Walter|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)||Micklem, Nathaniel|
|Brooke, Stopford||Hart-Davies, T.||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)||Haworth, Arthur A.||Mond, A.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Hayden, John Patrick||Mortagu, Hon. E. S.|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.||Mooney, J. J.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Helme, Norval Watson||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)||Morrell, Philip|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)||Morse, L. L.|
|Byles, William Pollard||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Cameron, Robert||Higham, John Sharp||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hobart, Sir Robert||Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)|
|Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Hogan, Michael||Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Holland, Sir William Henry||Myer, Horatio|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Holt, Richard Durning||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Hooper, A. G.||Napier, T. B.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)|
|Cleland, J. W.||Horniman, Emslie John||Nicholls, George|
|Clough, William||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)|
|Clynes, J. R.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Nolan, Joseph|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Hudson, Walter||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Norton, Captain Cecil William|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Hyde, Clarendon G.||Nuttall, Harry|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Idris, T. H. W.||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Crooks, William||Jackson, R. S.||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)|
|Crossley, William J.||Jardine, Sir J.||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)||Jowett, F. W.||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Joyce, Michael||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Kavanagh, Walter M.||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||Kekewich, Sir George||Partington, Oswald|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Pearce, Robert (staffs, Leek)|
|Duckworth, Sir James||Laidlaw, Robert)||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Pointer, J.||Sears, J. E.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Power, Patrick Joseph||Seaverns, J. H.||Verney, F. W.|
|Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)||Vivian Henry|
|Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||Sheehy, David||Walton, Joseph|
|Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Radford, G. H.||Silcock, Thomas Ball||Wardle, George J.|
|Rainy, A. Rolland||Simon, John Allsebrook||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)||Sloan, Thomas Henry||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Redmond, William (Clare)||Snowden, P.||Weir, James Galloway|
|Rendall, Athelstan||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Richardson, A.||Spicer, Sir Albert||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Stanger, H. Y.||White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Steadman, W. C.||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Robinson, S.||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Strachey, Sir Edward||Wiles, Thomas|
|Roche, John (Galway, East)||Summerbell, T.||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Roe, Sir Thomas||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Rogers, F. E. Newman||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Rose, Sir Charles Day||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)||Winfrey, R.|
|Rowlands, J.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Thomasson, Franklin||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)|
|Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.|
|Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)||Tomkinson, James|
|Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)||Toulmin, George|
|Actand-Hood, Rt. Hon Sir Alex. F.||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)||Morrison-Bell, Captain|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Faber, George Denison (York)||Newdegate, F. A.|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Fell, Arthur||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Fletcher, J. S.||Oddy, John James|
|Ashley, W. W.||Foster, P. S.||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Guinness, Hon. R. (Hagerston)||Percy, Earl|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)||Hamilton, Marquess of||Pretyman, E. G.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Renton, Leslie|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Renwick, George|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Heaton, John Henniker||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Helmsley, Viscount||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Hill, Sir Clement||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Bull, Sir William James||Houston, Robert Paterson||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Hunt, Rowland||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Joynson-Hicks, William||Stanier, Beville|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Kerry, Earl of||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Keswick, William||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Kimber, Sir Henry||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Cave, George||Lambton, Hon. Frederick William||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Clyde, J. Avon||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Winterton, Earl|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||M'Arthur, Charles||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Magnus, Sir Philip||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Younger, George|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Moore, William||Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.|
|Du Cros, Arthur||Morpeth, Viscount|
Question, "That this Bill be now read the third time," put and agreed to.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS moved to insert after "sections one and two" the words "sub-section one (a), (b), and (c), and subsection three."
§ I move this Amendment really as a protest against the growing practice of legis- 292 lating by reference. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a lawyer, and, still more, the Attorney-General, in active practice, will sympathise with the object of the Amendment, which is to assist those who have to take part in the administra- 293 tion of the Act. In section 2 of the Finance Act, 1894, there are two sub-sections which clearly have no possible reference to Increment Duty. One—sub-section (d) —relates to annuities, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit has nothing to do with this subject. Sub-section (2) relates to property passing on the death of the deceased when situate out of the United Kingdom. I was not at all sure that, in their lust for Increment Duty, it was not the desire of the Government to take Increment Duty on land in Germany or Fiji which happened to be owned by British subjects. But I cannot conceive that the Government seriously intended to impose Increment Duty on land out of the United Kingdom, and the object of my Amendment is to exclude these two paragraphs. The system of legislation by reference is carried to extreme lengths. In this clause we are referred to the Act of 1894; in the Act of 1894 we are referred to the Act of 1889; and the Act of 1889 refers us to the Act of 1881. That is so. If anyone wants to find out what is the meaning of the particular section of this Finance Act that we are discussing to-day he has got to refer to the Acts of 1894, 1889, and 1881, before he can find out exactly what the law is on the subject. I beg to move.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
I do not think that the insertion of this Amendment is necessary at all, because it is perfectly clear that annuities or land abroad could not come under the operation of this section. However, if the hon. Member thinks that it makes it clearer it cannot possibly do any harm, and I accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. J. F. REMNANT
I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman for accepting the Amendment of my hon. Friend, but before it is put to the House may I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the accusation which has been made on the other side that we have put on the Paper the Amendments which we have to delay and obstruct the passage of this Bill. Here is an instance which, clearly, if the sub-section had been allowed to pass un-amended, would have made it necessary for a valuation to be made out of this country. [Cries of "No, no."] Indeed it would. The provision which allows these nondescript Commissioners to affix a time might have made it absolutely impossible to take that valuation within the time given.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
Though I am not anxious to delay the business I really cannot allow that to pass. There are Amendments that I will not be able to accept in the form in which they have been put. but I hope that every time we can accept an Amendment that the occasion is not to be taken as an opportunity to treat of the iniquity of the Government. That is not the way to encourage the acceptance of Amendments.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
moved to omit in sub-section (b) the words "any subsequent enactment" ["Finance Act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment; and"], "and to insert sections 14 and 15 of the Finance Act, 1896, and section 11 of the Finance Act, 1900." I think this is really a little more important than a mere drafting alteration. This clause brings into the purview of this Act sections 1 and 2 of the Finance Act of 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment. That is to say, anybody who wants to find out whether his property is liable to pay Increment Duty under the provisions of the Bill we are now discussing has got to go back not merely to the Act of 1894; he has got to search through the whole of the Acts of Parliament passed since 1894 to find out if any of them refer to the Acts of 1894, which of them may have reference to the Act of 1890. and which sections relate and deal with the Act of 1909. I do submit to the Attorney-General that that is not a task which ought to be put upon anybody who wants to know what the law of England is. I have had considerable search made, and I can only find two amendments of the law which deal with this particular section of the Act of 1894. These are the Finance Act of 1896 (sections 14 and 15), and the Finance Act of 1900 (section 11). Perhaps the Attorney-General will believe that the effect of this Amendment is to make the Act a little clearer. If there are other amendments of the law passed since 1894 which I have not been able to find out other people will be in the same hopeless position, and it is the duty of the Government to tell us what amendments they include in these words, "or any subsequent amendment of the Act." It cannot be any future amendment. It must be amendments which have been passed into law between 1899 and 1904. If he says that there is an amendment of the law of which I know nothing—and I am not prepared to say that he is not quite 295 right—it would still appear to be necessary to either strike out the words complained of or accept the Amendment which I have suggested.
§ Question put: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ Sir W. ROBSON
The hon. Gentleman does not quite appreciate the value and significance of the words of this section. He is quite right in saying that the only material amendment up to the present date of the Finance Act of 1894 which touches this subject are the statutes of 1896 and 1900. But the object of these words is by no means satisfied by merely covering the amendments which have been passed since 1894. The Increment Value Duty is put under the general provisions of the Finance Act of 1894. It is put under the same law with regard to assessments and collection as a distinct duty brought into existence by the Finance Act of 1894. It is desired that all future Amendments of that Act shall apply also to the Increment Value Duty. Unless we had in some such words as these, it will require separate enactments, or rather, we should have to deal with the subject in subsequent enactments amending the Finance Act of 1894. That is not desirable. We want the Increment Value Duty to run under the same general conditions, and on the same line, as the collection of the Estate Duties.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
The explanation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given shows that the Amendment of my hon. Friend is one of substance and of very great importance indeed. As I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman, he said that the section of the Act will refer not merely to the enactments passed up to the present time, and not merely to this enactment itself, which is now before us, but will automatically apply to any alterations which the House may subsequently make in amending Acts in subsequent years. If that be so, these words open a very wide question indeed. I do not propose to pursue the possible results into future years, but I only desire to make a few observations upon the effect of the words if they apply to the provisions of the present Act which are not yet law. If you turn from the subsection which we are dealing with to Clause 43, you will see that that clause has a very direct bearing upon the Amendment. It says: "In the case of a person 296 dying on or after 30th day of April, 1909, the period preceding the death of the deceased, before which a disposition purporting to operate as an immediate gift, inter vivos, must have been made…shall be five years to the set of twelve months before the death, and, accordingly, paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) of section 38 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881 (as amended by section 11 of the Cus-tome and Inland Revenue Act, 1889, and applied by paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the principal Act), subsection (3) of section 2 of the principal Act, and section 11 of the Finance Act, 1900, shall be read as if five years were substituted for twelve months."
The effect of what I have read shows that by the words which are now under discussion, and which my hon. Friend has moved to omit, it is directed that when a man dies there shall be collected from his estate Increment Duty on any property of which he has not divested himself five years before he dies. Therefore, if even within the course of the last five years he has sold any property, after his death Increment Duty is to be charged upon that sale. Now, is that really intended? I ask any representative of the Government to tell me if I misunderstand the effect of the words?
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
Yes, but this is an Amendment of the Finance Act. Section 43 is an amendment of the Finance Act. This amendment by this Bill, and by the words we are now discussing, is applied to the assessment of Increment Duty on value. I hope I make myself clear. Therefore, when a man dies his executors will have to ascertain whether he parted with any land or interest in land in the last five years of his life, and if he parted with it in the last five years of his life, they will have to have it valued for the purpose of increment, and they will have to pay whatever Increment Duty the Commissioners may decide upon. I ask, am I right in my law, and if I am right in my law, is that what the Government intend?
§ Mr. ABEL SMITH
I think quite enough has been said to show that this is a very bad case, indeed, and I should like that we should repeat and emphasise the protests that have been made on this occasion. It may be possibly alarming to refer to the 297 Finance Act of 1894, but I must say I think it is very difficult to defend the reference to the Finance Act as amended by any subsequent Act. As the hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) has shown, it is not very easy even for him, who is a lawyer, to make out what these subsequent enactments are. The point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcester shows what an extraordinary position we are getting ourselves into by proceeding with this legislation by reference. I think it is absolutely necessary for the Committee to be assured that the point raised by my right hon. Friend is not a substantial one, or, if it is a substantial one, that immediate steps should be taken by Parliament to put this extraordinary state of things right. I do hope that we may have without further delay a satisfactory answer from some Member of the Government.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I really think that the Government is treating the Committee with the greatest disrespect in not answering——
§ Sir W. ROBSON
Surely we are at liberty, in order to appreciate the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester, to look into the section. Here you have an Amendment handed in. The right hon. Gentlemen reads out a particular section with an immense number of references in it, and I am endeavouring to look at these references, and because of that I am told I am treating the Committee with disrespect.
§ Mr. BALFOUR
We will endeavour to keep the Debate going while the right hon. and learned Gentleman is engaged.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I never intended to insult the right hon. Gentleman. If I understood he was now reading this section for the first time my sympathy would be entirely with him.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
The point is this. A manuscript Amendment has been put in which I have not had an opportunity of considering. I have only seen it myself a short time ago, and until I see what the effect of it is, which will take some time and necessitate a reference to the section, I cannot express an opinion.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
May I just point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Amendment actually appears on the Paper, Clause 1, line 6, leave out "as amended by any subsequent enactment."
§ Sir W ROBSON
That, as far as I can see, has no relation whatever, absolutely no relation to the Amendment which we are now discussing.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
Surely the observation of the Attorney-General is not very well founded. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcester was endeavouring to point out the effect of this Bill as it stood without any Amendment at all. It is not a question of what the effect of the Amendment will be but what the effect of the Bill really is. I do not think we are so very unreasonable generally speaking in assuming that the Government have mastered what the effect of the Bill was and the relation of its various clauses to one another. It is a perfectly simple and straightforward point and one I should have thought that must have occurred to anybody who looked at the Bill for the first time. The Amendment proposes to leave out the words "as amended by any subsequent enactment." It is perfectly plain these words include the present Bill. The words "as amended by the subsequent enactment" must include the present Bill if the present Bill becomes law. The question is, what is the effect of the present Bill upon the Act of 1894. Apart from all the extraordinary verbiage of clause 4, which may or may not be necessary from the draftsman point of view, the effect is to bring in property passing at death of anyone within the meaning of sections 1 and 2 of the Act of 1894, any property of which the deceased was possessed five years before his death. That is the effect of section 43, and that is the effect as explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech. So that the Attorney-General has not only not read the Bill, but he has not read the Chancellor's speech, because it comes upon him as a complete shock that the effect of the clause is to impose Increment Duty upon any land passing five years before death. Surely that is a simple point, and the only question that arises is, does the Government mean that? I do not think there is any doubt about the meaning of the clause, but what we want to know is, do the Government mean that property held by a person five years before his death is to be subject to Increment Duty? That is the sole point. The truth is that this clause is not only legislation by reference, but it 299 is also legislation by prophecy, and it is a most outrageous departure from all the canons of legislation ever attempted.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
With the latter part of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) I have dealt by anticipation. With regard to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the only difficulty I have is to connect it with the Amendment now under discussion. I desired to read section 43 for the purposes of that in order to make sure, especially as I have not got before me the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has handed in. It is only unusual when the Question is put that I should at once try to make sure I appreciated the point. With regard to the Question, so far as he put as to Clause 43, he is right. He stated, as it appears to me, correctly the effect of Clause 43. He asked if the Government meant that. Undoubtedly they do. The Government will defend the provisions of Clause 43 when they come to it. So far as the matters which are the subject-matter of this Amendment are concerned, I do not think this question arises at this stage. We do mean to take Increment Value Duty from property that has been in the possession of the person who died during the preceding five years before.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
That is really the most amazing proposition that we have yet had among the many amazing propositions which the Government has laid down. What is it they really intend to do? A man sells an interest in property five years, or anything less than five years, before his death. Suppose that interest is a lease, does he pay duty on this lease when the lease is transferred in these circumstances? I am not quite sure. I understand he only pays that duty if it is a sale.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
On a point of order, I submit this is really nothing to do with the Amendment at all. I had these misgivings when the right hon. Gentleman raised the question about the words, "as amended by any subsequent enactment," which he wished to omit, and to insert section 14 and 15 of the Finance Act of 1896 and section 11 of the Finance Act of 1900. These are Amendments of section 1 and 2 of the Finance Act of 1894. These sections do not refer at all to the question of gifts inter vivos.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
The sub-section inserted by the hon. Gentleman does not deal at all with that. It is a wholly different matter, and I submit that it is a question which does not arise.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I think the Question put from the Chair is that the words, "as amended by any subsequent enactment" stand part. It is to that Amendment I am speaking. The Attorney-General has explained it includes any Amendment made by this Bill, and I called attention to the Amendments made by this Bill in the obscure words of Clause 43, and the effect they would have upon the particular sub-section we are now discussing unless we omitted the particular words; and I submit that my observations are directed to the point.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
May I submit also that the object of moving that Amendment was to ask the Government whether the words included Amendments by this or any subsequent Act or not?
§ The CHAIRMAN
The whole controversy between the two sides of the House appears to be as to whether the words "any subsequent enactment" affect the question of the increment value being levied upon gifts inter vivos made within five years before the death of the person. That seems a very intricate matter, and so far I am not sufficiently seized of the arguments to say whether the words in subsequent enactments here do or do not affect this matter, and I cannot on a question of order declare it is out of order, because there appears to be a perfectly clear difference of opinion between the two sides of the House.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I do not think there is any difference of opinion between the two sides of the House as to the effect of the words. The difference is whether that effect is desirable or not. I asked whether that was the effect of the words, and the Attorney-General said it was, and now at the earliest opportunity we desire to challenge that intention. This makes the Amendment of my hon. Friend very important. The Government provide that if a man has given away property 4½ years before his death, at his death that property shall be deemed to pass at the moment of his death, and be valued then for increment to be paid out of the estate. That man is deemed to be the owner of the land. It is very necessary to discuss this matter at once, because the Government 301 have not perceived the effect of their enactment. The man who dies is deemed to be the possessor of anything which he has given away less than five years ago, and it is deemed to pass at his death. A having given away to B a property four years and six months ago, and dying today is deemed to be the possessor of that property to-day, and it is assessed for Increment Duty on his death on its value to-day, and that sum is taken out of his estate, and not out of B's estate, to whom it is given. I think that is rather strong, because B has the property and the increment and A pays. But that is not all——
§ Sir W. ROBSON
Although the property is B's, section 2 of the Finance Act gives rise to the occasion for the collection of the duty, but it does not follow that the duty is collected from the heirs of the estate of the person who made the gift. It is a duty attaching to the land—[OPPOSITION cries of "No"]—and would be paid by the persons who are possessed of the land, and it would be an occasion on which they would clear their property of the Increment Value Duty. This occasion is one on which it is proper they should clear their property at some later date.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
Yes, I will refer him to the section. It is really part of the scheme of the Act, because the duty is put upon the land. [Cries of "Section 5."] Section 5 provides, "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." [Cries of "Read on."] "But where any interest in land in respect of which Increment Value Duty is payable is property passing to the personal representative as such, the duty shall be payable out of that interest in land in exoneration of the rest of the deceased's estate."
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I will leave other hon. Members to continue the argument who have a greater knowledge of the Question. See where we have got to now. Amongst the occasions on which you are to collect the duty is the death of the owner, but by the words under discussion in this case the death of the owner does not mean the death of the owner, but 302 the death of somebody else, who within the last five years was the owner, and the man who is not dealing with his land, transferring, selling, or leasing it, but who has had it in possession four years and six months may be called upon for Increment Duty because somebody else who gave it him has died. That is a preposterous proposal. I do not profess to be able to follow out all the possible consequences of this complicated matter, but the explanation we have had and the information I have been able to derive from the Government convinces me that my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment to omit the words from the Bill is a necessary one.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
Perhaps I may be allowed to explain what our proposal is. It is that you shall collect the Increment duty on two occasions—one on the transfer and the other at death. If a man is allowed to escape the Increment Duty or so arrange his property that the Increment Duty can be evaded purely by gifts inter vivos we shall never be able to collect the duty at all. I can understand from the point of view of those who want to avoid the duty that this might be a very desirable way of doing it, but here you have provision in the Act of 1894 which has been accepted by those who amended it, that a gift inter vivos is to be treated within the 12 months' period as if it were in the possession of the man at his death. We propose to amend that by saying it shall be five years instead of 12 months, and that is the proposal we shall discuss on Clause 43. There we shall decide whether the period shall be five, four, three, or two years, or whether we shall leave it where it is. I do not see that there is any reason why we should draw a distinction between the Estates Duty special enactment and that part which relates to the whole property, otherwise you will escape the duty altogether. The number of years we shall deal with in Clause 5, and by that clause we propose that the owner of the land shall pay the increment. He only pays when the person who gave the property to him dies, and that is a perfectly legitimate exaction, otherwise the duty might be avoided by the simple expedient of a person on the point of death making a gift, inter vivos, and there would then be no Increment Duty at all.
§ Sir E. CARSON
I am very sorry to find myself in conflict with the Attorney-General with regard to his interpretation of Clause 5 under this Bill. Let us see what we are considering. A man has 303 given away property in land five years before his death, or for something less than five years before his death. Therefore, when he dies, nothing really passes at all. The case contemplated by section 5 is where leasehold property passes, and all that provides for is that instead of the Increment Duty being paid out of the personal estate of the man who has died, it is to be paid out of the leasehold property. Clause 5 has nothing to say to the question put by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), because nothing passes, and, therefore, this increment has to be paid by him. Is it to be paid by the man who gets nothing? If it is not, who has it to be paid by?
§ Sir E. CARSON
There is no provision in the Bill to that effect, and I do not think any lawyer in the House will say that there is. Let me now take the case, with which I do not agree, that it has to be paid by the owner, and look at the absurdity to which it leads. A property was given away five years before the man died. The man who got it sold it again, and he is called upon to pay the Increment Duty because somebody who was a predecessor in title dies five years afterwards. Could there be a greater absurdity? How can you carry it out in practice? Look what the predecessor will have to do ! If you purchase from a man who has had a gift you will have to say to the man, "How do I know that the man who made you this gift will not die within five years. I must therefore ask that for five years sufficient money shall be held back for the purpose of paying the Increment Duty which I should be called upon to pay if the man who made the gift died within five years."
§ Sir E. CARSON
You are accumulating them all one after the other, and it will have to be paid again at death. If the man does not die within five years there will be no Increment Duty. If he dies there will be Increment Duty, and you are making the whole position, by attempting to carry out any sale in reference to tenure in English land, an absolute farce.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
It is rather a little dangerous for anyone when stating what he thinks the law is to say that he is also of opinion that no lawyer will contradict him——
§ And, it being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and Private Business being set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.