§ 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 complete five pounds of that value accruing after the thirtieth day of April nineteen hundred and nine, 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, in pursuance of any contract made after the commencement of this Act, or the grant, in pursuance of any contract made after the commencement of this Act, of any lease (not
168 being a lease for a term of years not exceeding fourteen 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 property passing on the death of the deceased within the meaning of Sections one and two, Sub-section (1) (a), (b), and (c), and Sub-section three, of the Finance Act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment: Provided that in the case of a disposition made by any person purporting to act as an immediate gift inter vivos, whether by way of transfer, delivery, declaration of trust, or otherwise, marriage shall, for the purpose of this Section, be deemed to be valuable consideration; and
- (c) where the land or any interest in the land is held by any body corporate or by any body unincorporate as defined by Section twelve of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, on such periodical occasions as are provided in this Act;
§ Mr. HAROLD COX
I rise to move the omission of Clause 1, in order to make very briefly a protest against the imposition of a special duty on unearned increment. I do that because to many Members of this House, I believe, this is the most attractive of all the various land clauses in the Bill. Some of them, I believe, are not generally attractive. This is a very attractive principle, and it has been put before the country in many very attractive ways. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in more than one speech commented on his own modesty. He says, "This is an enormous profit accruing. I only propose to take 20 per cent., and I give to the owners 80 per cent." I think he has been unnecessarily modest. I can suggest a way in which he might have got the whole 100 per cent. without raising any political difficulty at all. He could have got it by the simple expedient of going into the market and buying up any land which he thought was going to rise in value. Then the whole of the 100 per cent. would have accrued to the public Exchequer. Why has he not done this? Because he has distinctly stated that he was not convinced that the land which he bought in anticipation of a rise in value necessarily would rise. He knew that he would have to run the risk of loss as well as the hope of gain, and he declined the proposition, just as most business men decline the proposition of buying land when they can put their money into concerns which yield a better return. I submit that it is an injustice to pick out this particular form of property and say, "We will subject it to this penal tax." The Prime Minister when defending the tax quoted Adam Smith. I have not the exact words here, but they were to the effect that land was a form of property which was a peculiarly fit subject for taxation, because revenue accrued without the exertion of the owner. But is land the only form of property of which that proposition is true? Is not that proposition 170 equally true of railway shares, either in this country or in foreign countries? If that is true, by what justice does the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose to separate land from those other forms of property which have the same characteristic that they yield revenue without any exertion on the part of the owner? Some hon. Members opposite will not hesitate to call themselves Socialists, and I think they will agree, at any rate, that there is no distinction from their point of view between these two kinds of property. They regard capitalists as just as much the enemies of society as landowners. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Perhaps they do not call them enemies of society; they always use the most delicate language when speaking of their opponents. They would say that capitalists are just as much a burden on the community as landowners. That is the belief which they express in the writings, and some of them have expressed it in their speeches. Is it quite fair of them, in order to get these Land Taxes through as the thin end of the wedge, to nominally assent to a proposition which they believe to be untrue? They know it is untrue from their point of view, and yet they are combined with certain Gentlemen on this side of the House who assert that there is a distinction. Hon. Members opposite say that this is the thin end of the wedge, and I contend that it is not quite a fair manner of conducting political controversy. If they came forward boldly and said: "We do not believe in your distinction," I could understand them, but they are accepting a distinction which they do not believe in simply because they think it will be a means towards an ultimate end.
I go further and say that there is in this matter no essential distinction even between unearned increment derived from land and unearned increment which men of exceptional professional ability are able to earn. I contend that no man can earn a large income except from the fact that there is a wealthy community around him. It is the existence of that wealthy community that makes possible the incomes of my hon. Friends who sit on the Treasury Bench, and but for the existence of that community—[An HON. MEMBER-. "Of which we are all part."] Yes, of which we are all part—but for the existence of that community, I will not say my hon. Friends would be penniless, but they might be earning only 20s. a week. If that is admitted, I can see no reason 171 why their unearned increment should not be taxed, as well as all other unearned increment. I have often seen it answered in the Press that the distinction is that they have to work for their income—they have to give work in return for what they earn. That is true, but what is the result of pressing that argument to its logical conclusion? It is that nobody is entitled to anything unless he gives work in return. In other words, property qua property is not entitled to any return at all. That must be the result of pressing the argument to its logical conclusion. In other words, if you accept the doctrine of specially taxing unearned increment, you are driven to the conclusion that there ought to be no income accruing to anybody except as the result of daily earnings. That is a very broad proposition. If you adopt that proposition as your working principle, it means that you will destroy the sources of national wealth, because unless people can get a return from invested property they will not trouble to accumulate property in order to invest. Everybody will live up to the full extent of his earnings, and there can be no progressive increase in the wealth of the community.
After all, what is the origin of the wealth of the nation to-day, and not only of the nation, but of the world? We are richer to-day than we were a thousand years ago solely because individuals in the past have laid aside a certain portion of their wealth instead of spending the whole every day on daily consumption. They have done that because the community in its own interest has recognised the desirability of giving a return to wealth qua wealth and to property qua property. If you cease to give that return, then property will cease to be accumulated, because there will be no motive to accumulate it. The consequence will be that we will gradually go back to the position of our primitive ancestors—a position from which they could not have escaped except by recognising private property. If you once accept the doctrine of unearned increment, you are cutting at the very roots of property, and I want to make this protest against the acceptance of that principle. I admit that it is only introduced here to a moderate extent. When we come to examine the Bill, and especially the draft Bill which the Government have prepared for our better information, we see the enormous number of exceptions which they have been obliged to introduce in order to make this new principle palatable I do not think many 172 Members of the House have any conception of the extraordinary complexity which has now been introduced into the Bill solely because the Government have started on a false principle which could not be logically applied without producing glaring injustice. Let me take one illustration. They have now introduced an exemption for glasshouses and greenhouses, but they have been careful not to say whether a gardener is to be allowed to use any of the land alongside his glasshouse. Another illustration is to be found in the Definition Clause. They have got no less than four different definitions of "land value." They do not say which applies to this Unearned Increment Tax. I will not quote the words, but they are to the effect that wherever the words "site value" are used they are to be taken to mean assessable value except in the case of the Unearned Increment Tax. Then when we come back to the Unearned Increment Tax, we find that site value is the value minus whatever deductions are provided for in the rest of the Bill. I defy the Attorney-General to say what is the site value which is to be taxed under this Clause. There is no definition in the Bill. I mention these points incidentally, because they are points which prove the difficulty in which the Government get themselves involved when they start on a false principle.
I contend that this is a false principle, because it is picking out a particular form of property for penal taxation. We have in this country, as in all other countries, for centuries recognised land as commercially interchangeable with other forms of property. We are now for the first time saying that land alone shall be subject to special taxation, and that other property is not to be subject to it. It is true that by this Clause the tax is confined nominally to future increment. That is deceptive, for this reason. If you say to a man. "If your property rises in value we will take a proportion of the increase," and if you do not say, "If it sinks in value we will bear a portion of the loss," you are by that means depriving him of a portion of the present value, because the present value depends necessarily upon the future value. You deprive him of part of his hope of gain, and therefore of part of the present value. What does that mean? It means that up to this date you have treated these two forms of property as interchangeable. I shall show how injustice is done to particular individuals. I have not possessed land myself, but it might happen that I 173 had sold land to my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I should then have the value and he should have the land, but the State steps in and says he is to pay the tax, although I have the value, and I get off scot free. That injustice must occur directly you depart from the principle of treating all legally-acquired property as equally subject to an equal scale of taxation.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
My hon. Friend (Mr. Cox) has surpassed himself in the feelings of terror which he sought to conjure with regard to this tax. He warns us that if the policy of which this tax is merely an illustration be logically pursued we shall be reduced to the condition of our primitive ancestors. Even Socialism is a paler terror by the side of that which my hon. Friend has conjured up. He intimates to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he might and ought logically in pursuance of his own principle not stop at taking 20 per cent. of increment, but ought boldly to go on and take not merely the whole increment, but practically the whole property.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
Why does not my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopt that simple method? Why does he not go into the market and buy the land and take his chance of increment or his chance of decrement? I will tell you why. It is because the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not a Socialist. If he were a Socialist that is precisely the method which he would be advised to adopt. Hon. Members who have said so much about Socialism have not taken the trouble to read Socialist writers. I recommend them before they use the word Socialism, as they now so freely use it, to make some little investigation into the meaning given to that word by those who profess that creed. My right hon. Friend does not profess, and does not believe that it would be of great advantage to the State if it were to proceed to undertake the duties of a land agent or a land speculator. He is out for taxation, and not for land nationalisation. My hon. Friend says that this is a very bad subject 174 of taxation; and that we are doing something dreadful, putting a tax upon land and upon property. I ask my hon. Friend what is the effect of that? The effect is to deprive that property of some portion of its present capital value. The House will very easily see why. The putting of additional burdens upon land is an element which will be taken into account by future purchasers. Therefore, future purchasers will give less, and, therefore, there is a diminution of the existing capital value of the land. I am not in the least quarrelling with my hon. Friend's argument to that effect, but I ask him where it leads him to? He is very fond of asking where our arguments lead us. I ask him where his argument leads him? He says that it is unjust to put a burden on the whole of the property, which will have the effect of depriving that property of part of its capital value. On his own argument he ought never to put a tax on property at all. That is the argument not merely of my hon. Friend, but it is the argument of the Front Opposition Bench, and of other Members who have not considered the consequences involved in it.
If they would consider it they would see that, if the argument means anything, it means that he must not put a tax on realised property, because the effect of even an annual tax upon realised property is to diminish its existing capital value, and they say that that is wrong and that that is confiscation. I say that an argument like that only needs to be fairly regarded in order that its absurdity may be made manifest; because it means simply that we must not tax property. Is that the argument on which hon. Gentlemen opposite proceeded when they introduced the Agricultural Rates Act in 1896? Because if it is true that the addition of a burden lessens existing capital value it must be equally true that the diminution of a burden increases existing capital value. Therefore on their own showing the Agricultural Rates Act added a present of a capital value of millions to the landowners of England. Why was this argument not forthcoming then? [An HON. MEMBER: "It was."] It was not forthcoming from the other side. Why did they not use this argument then? It is equally applicable to cases of relief as it is to cases of additional burden, yet they only appear to apply it to cases of additional burden. But no responsible statesman would get up on either side of this House and say that property ought to be relieved of taxation. Nobody dare say it. It would be 175 a monstrous proposition to say with regard to all future taxes that may be required in this great community that they may be laid on trade or anything you like but never on property.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
My hon. Friend did not put forward any such propostion, but he put forward a proposition which involved that consequence. I am asking my hon. Friend to consider how far his own argument leads him and where it leads him?
§ Sir W. ROBSON
The result of this tax was to be a diminution of existing capital value, and he went on to denounce the depreciation of capital value as an act of confiscation. Therefore, I say in that case the burden which you are putting on this property will have the same effect if he puts it on to any other forms of property or on all property. That argument equally applies, and would equally become confiscation. Therefore, when he comes to think about his argument, and see what logical consequences it involves it means no taxation of property. I want nothing but that the logical consequences of the argument put forward by my hon. Friend should be frankly and plainly raised. If property is not to be taxed and is never to have any burden laid on it which may affect its existng capital value, let that proposition be clearly laid down and let us be shown what we have got to deal with. My hon. Friend again put the question, I suppose by way of challenge, why is land different from any other form of property? We have heard the question very often in the course of the Debates, and in order to give an answer I need scarcely go beyond an illustration that can be gathered from our own proceedings concurrently with the passage of this Bill. Is land never to be treated differently from other forms of property? Then why have hon. Members opposite been supporting so many clauses of the Irish Land Bill? The Irish Land Bill is absolutely without justification unless it can be shown that land may well be treated differently from other forms of property. Why are we in the case of Ireland risking Imperial money to such 176 gigantic amounts unless there is something about this form of property which there is not about the ordinary easily transferable form of commercial property? There is a difference between land and other forms of property. I wonder whether my hon. Friend voted for the Irish Land Bill.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
Perhaps on this small Bill he did not vote at all. Perhaps he did not notice the Irish Land Bill. Perhaps this small contemporaneous legislative event did not attract his philosophic attention. I am bound to say that if he had seen fit to apply his philosophic principles to Irish land legislation as he has done to the Budget I should have expected to have heard more of him on the occasion of the passing of that Bill. But he objects to the taxation of increment which is unearned or is described as unearned. What is the alternative? We cannot put everything on Income Tax. To put everything on Income Tax would be very unjust to the classes—and, after all, they are not the whole of the community by any means—who have to pay it. I wonder, then, what my hon. Friend will tax? Nothing unearned. He draws the most dreadful consequences from the taxation of property which is unearned.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
Yes, he does. He forgets now what he said a few minutes ago, and it is desirable to extend what he said in order to make it clear. He said that if we were to tax income on property which came under the classification of unearned property the most dreadful results would ensue: people would not trouble to save money, and the more tax you put on unearned property the less would be the trouble to earn money. But I gather that my hon. Friend is in favour of a Supertax. Why is he in favour of a Super-tax? Why should he tax a man because he has got more than £5,000 a year? Why should he put an extra tax on that person? Is it not on the principle that the income which that person enjoys is unearned to a larger extent than of the person who is merely receiving £200 or £300 a year? Is not that the very principle on which he is proceeding without knowing it? Let him give a little further cogitation to the support of the Super-tax, and see whether it does not lead him along this path which my right 177 hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been compelled to tread, looking out for property specifically unearned, and making it pay some contribution to the public needs. Because, after all, we have got to get the taxes from somewhere. Do not let us waste time arguing about these taxes. The question of particular taxes is all a matter of comparison. Personally, I would lay down a proposition which, I believe, would be strenuously resisted by the Opposition, and probably by some of my old friends, that all taxes are bad. There are some taxes which hive collateral good effects. For instance, the taxes on drink are said to favour temperance. I believe they do. As an illustration of the truth of that I might observe that in the course of the present Session the taxes on drink certainly have had up to the present some effect in reducing the consumption. I do not know whether habits of long standing will not reassert themselves a little later on, so that the revenue will be recouped, but for the time being there is some reduction in the amount consumed. Whether moderate drinkers have been cutting down or whether extreme persons have become moderate drinkers I do not know, but there you get undoubtedly a collateral benefit from the imposition of a tax.
But with that exception, or a few rare exceptions of the same character, all taxes are bad. They take money from the pocket of an individual, giving in return undoubtedly that which is well worth the expenditure in regard to common security and many other benefits which he shares in general with the rest of the community; but still, as regards a particular person, you are taking out of his pocket something which inflicts a sacrifice on him, and very frequently indeed it means that the sums of money raised are withdrawn from the profitable employment which he can find for it, and are appropriated by the State to expenditure which is frequently wasteful and nearly always very uneconomically conducted, but which, none the less, is absolutely necessary in some degree. You cannot keep the nation safe unless the Government have the means. You cannot have a peaceful and well-ordered industrial society, where men may look forward to some kind of comfort and consolation in their old age, without some provision such as that which we have been trying to make in the case of old age pensions. We are dealing, therefore, with expenditure that must be met, and must be raised by some hardship upon the whole community. You 178 cannot devise a tax—nobody can—which shall fall with absolute equality of incidence so as to impose no more than absolute equality of sacrifice upon the whole community. It passes the wit of man to devise anything of the kind. The nearest approach to it is the Income Tax, which, of course, is partial. You certainly make no approach to it in the matter of indirect taxation, which falls as a crushing burden upon those least able to bear it. Where do you find a better tax than that which we have selected—a better type of tax which falls on a man's luck? Because that is the very tax which my right hon. Friend has now devised. Where will you find a tax that inflicts less hardship than this? I do not think anyone can indicate any such tax. The Motion before us now is to omit the Income Tax, under which the owner of property has to value his land on a particular date, and he can omit all prospective increase. If the owner values his property this year, on 30th April, he puts a value before the Commissioners, and he will take into account not merely the use to which he is now putting the land, but the whole prospective future value and prospective user will be considered by him, and all that is now to be exempt. I want to know where in the whole range of taxation you will find a tax which inflicts less in the sense of sacrifice than that. So far from its being a had tax, the only reason why it is feared by my hon. Friend and others is that it is too good; it is so good, it is so just, the case for it is so unanswerable, that everybody thinks that we shall go on with it until there is no property left. It is the excellence of this tax which excites the alarm and terror. If we have found out the right kind of tax at last, why should we stop? I dare say there may be some reason for thinking that when a tax once proves to be good, it is one very easily to be increased; but, on the other hand, I think hon. Members opposite will remember that it is not a very agreeable work laying on any tax, especially laying on any direct tax. I myself believe that as long as you keep to a direct tax there is not any great danger of an indiscriminate extension of it, or an unjust extension of it. Everybody knows a direct tax when they see it, and everybody whom it affects rises to oppose it. As to indirect taxation, which I suppose my hon. Friend would like to substitute—
§ Sir W. ROBSON
I know my hon. Friend is a very good Free Trader, but I am afraid his line of policy will again lead him into a kind of track which I will not mention. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] It would be out of order, nor is there any occasion to mention it; everybody sees what it is. What other kind of tax could we substitute for this tax? I quite agree that among the many distinctions between direct and indirect taxation direct taxation is difficult to impose, and still more difficult to extend, whereas indirect taxation is easy to impose, and is even more easy to extend. Therefore, I think the fear that this tax is going to grow to any great degree, as some hon. Members appear to apprehend, is a mistake. The arguments which I have addressed to the House in reply to hon. Members have not been unheard of; still, I thought it necessary to advance them in response to what has been stated.
§ Mr. E. A. RIDSDALE
As far as my memory carries me back the sum which this fluty is going to bring in is about £50,000, of which £25,000 is to be given to the municipalities, and really to talk about the extraordinarily high tax on increment when so small a sum is to be brought in to the Exchequer appears to be rather out of place in discussing finance, for, after all, this is a Finance Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that this tax might depreciate the capital value of property, but, as I understand him, that does not so much matter, because that result is common to all taxation imposed on capital value. I think, however, he omitted to tell the House what amount of depreciation might be expected from this tax. I put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking what was the value of the land which would be affected by this tax, but I could not get any answer. Surely, in a Finance Bill, one of the most important things one requires to know is not only the amount of money the tax is going to bring in, but the effect which the tax may have. If the capital value of land is going to be affected by this tax, I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston that it is perfectly impossible to take away the whole fifth of the future increment value of a thing without making anybody who contemplates buying it say to himself—"If the fifth of increment value is going to be taken away I am not going to give so much for it." Not only is the whole of the fifth of the increment value to be taken away for the purposes of the State in the 180 case of land, but you are going to take Estate Duty, Settlement Duty, and Succession Duty, so that the taxes on this form of property, land, will be that one-fifth of the increment value will be taken, and you may take 15 per cent. Estate Duty, 2 per cent. Settlement Duty, and, in the case of a stranger, 10 per cent. Succession Duty—altogether 47 per cent., or nearly half the value. My hon. Friends opposite complain that the Government have not taken enough. I wonder how much they want for the first bite? Surely 47 per cent. is fairly good for a start.
§ Mr. RIDSDALE
It only brings in £50,000 in this first year. Of course, I quite agree that in future years it is anticipated that it may bring in a great deal more; but, as I understand, we are now-engaged in discussing the Finance Bill, and ostensibly the finance of the year 1909, though what we really have to look forward to is what will be the result some five or ten years hence. I want to point out that all you get is £25,000 of the £50,000; the other £25,000 is going to the municipalities; and you are going to depreciate capital value to an unknown amount, and on that unknown amount of capital you are going to levy increased taxation, though you have not worked out what will be its effect. You do not know how it is going to result. I remember reading the speech of my hon. Friend now the Under-Secretary for the Home Office (Mr. Masterman), in which he said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was an idealist. It seems to me that this taxation is literally idealistic taxation; it is not finance, and, as far as my humble experience goes, if idealists have anything to do with money it is really unfortunate. The idealist who is placed in the position of trustee finds himself occasionally in a rather awkward position, while those for whom he is trustee go into the workhouse. The result of this taxation ought to be worked out in figures. We know we are going to get £25,000, but we have no earthly means of ascertaining what is going to be the eventual result of these taxes on land.
§ Mr. PRETYMAN
The Attorney-General began his statement by saying that he did not know whether the speech of the hon. Member for Preston was going to lead. We were wondering where it was going to lead the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, for it led him into strange regions. When I heard his speech it sug- 181 gested to me that it was one which might have been delivered on this side of the House when the hon. and learned Gentle man was in Opposition, for it rather appeared as if he desired to delay as much as he could rather than further the progress of this Bill. As far as his arguments and his statement are concerned, I do not think anything has been said on this side of the House that could possibly bear the interpretation that has been put upon it, namely, that we object to any tax upon property. I have heard nothing of the kind said. What we do object to is the picking out of one particular kind of property for penal taxation. That is the point to which we have the greatest objection. In regard to the question of this tax, it is defended by the hon. and learned Gentleman on the ground that a tax on increment value is an ideal tax. I agree that it is in principle and theory an attractive tax, and if you impose theoretical taxes upon theoretical people there would be nothing whatever to say against it. But this Bill as it now stands amended, with 139 Amendments put into it and with this extraordinary new Clause 25, is an attempt to put your ideal theory of the taxation of increment value into practical form, and I tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that he has entirely failed in his attempt, and that this is not a practical tax. The Government have attempted in this Bill to put an idealist theory into practice, and they have absolutely failed. This Bill is not a practicable Bill. The whole Bill lies in this Clause, which practically covers, as the hon. Member opposite says, any attempt to tax increment value in one form or
§ another. This Bill nominally imposes various complicated taxes on increment value, but I say it is a totally unworkable measure. It may be forced through Parliament, and it may be enacted, but no lawyer, as far as I am aware, has yet been able to interpret it or judge of its effect. As a practical attempt at taxation, it is a miserable failure now, and it will be a miserable failure in the future, discrediting the Government who introduced it. Therefore, I support the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite.
§ Mr. T. HART-DAVIES
The hon. Member for Preston has asked wherein does land differ from any other form of property? I was rather disappointed that the Attorney-General did not give us any answer to that question, and that he only referred to the Irish Land Bill. I would like to answer the hon. Member for Preston. Land differs from other property in this way: It is a thing absolutely essential to human existence, it is a thing limited in extent, and it is a thing which is in private hands. It cannot be said of any other property, as it can be said of land, that it is essential to human existence. That is the difference between land and all other forms of property, and I hope the hon. Member, when he thinks it over, will see the truth of what I have stated. I hope we shall not hear again the question asked why land is different from all other forms of property.
§ Question put, "That the words, 'Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, there shall be charged, levied, and paid on the,' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 89.183
|Division No. 807.]||AYES.||[6.2 p.m.|
|Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)||Brooke, Stopford||Crossley, William J.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Curran, Peter Francis|
|Alden, Percy||Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)||Dalziel, Sir James Henry|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Bryce, J. Annan||Dewar, Arthur (Edinurgh, S.)|
|Ambrose, Robert||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Armitage, R.||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Duckworth, Sir James.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles||Erskine, David C.|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Byles, William Pollard||Essex, R. W.|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Cameron, Robert||Esslemont, George Birnie|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Evans, Sir S. T.|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight||Everett, R. Lacey|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Cawley, Sir Frederick||Falconer, James|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Fenwick, Charles|
|Beale, W. P.||Cheetham, John Frederick||Ferens, T. R.|
|Beauchamp, E.||Cleland, J. W.||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Clough, William||Fuller, John Michael F.|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Gibb, James (Harrow)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Ginnell, L.|
|Boland, John||Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)||Glendinning, R. G.|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford|
|Brace, William||Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)|
|Branch, James||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)|
|Bright, J. A.||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Greenwood, Hamar (York)|
|Brodle, H. C.||Crosfield, A. H.||Gulland, John W.|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Mackarness, Frederic C.||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Macpherson, J. T.||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Hart-Davies, T.||M' Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Sears, J. E.|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||M' Micking, Major G.||Seely, Colonel|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Marnham, F. J.||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Massie, J.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Masterman, C. F. G.||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Menzies, Sir Walter||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.||Molteno, Percy Alport||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Hedges, A. Paget||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Steadman, W. C.|
|Henderson, J. McDd. (Aberdeen, W.)||Morse, L. L.||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Henry, Charles S.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)||Myer, Horatio||Summerbell, T.|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Nolan, Joseph||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Higham, John Sharp||Nussey, Sir Willans||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Hobart, Sir Robert||Nuttall, Harry||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Hodge, John||O' Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||O' Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Holt, Richard Durning||O' Grady, J.||Tomkinson, James|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)||Parker, James (Halifax)||Villiers, Ernest Amherst|
|Idris, T. H. W.||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Jackson, R. S.||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Pollard, Dr. G. H.||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Kearley, Rt. Hon. Sir Hudson||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Keating, Matthew||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Kekewich, Sir George||Radford, G. H.||White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)|
|King, Alfred John (Knutstord)||Raphael, Herbert H.||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)||Rees, J. D.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)||Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Richardson, A.||Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Robinson, S.||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)||Rose, Sir Charles Day|
|Lynch, H. B.||Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.||Faber, George Denison (York)||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Nield, Herbert|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Fell, Arthur||Oddy, John James|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Fletcher, J. S.||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Ashley, W. W.||Forster, Henry William||Percy, Earl|
|Balcarres, Lord||Foster, P. S.||Pretyman, E. G.|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Gardner, Ernest||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, W.)||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Gordon, J.||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Bertram, Julius||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds.)||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hamilton, Marquess of||Stanier, Beville|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Starkey, John R.|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Heaton, John Henniker||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Helmsley, Viscount||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert||Valentia, Viscount|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Hill, Sir Clement||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Hunt, Rowland||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Clark, George Smith||Keswick, William||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)||Kimber, Sir Henry||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Lambton, Hon. Frederick William||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Craik, Sir Henry||M' Arthur, Charles||Younger, George|
|Doughty, Sir George||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Moore, William||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Cox and Mr. Ridsdale.|
|Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)||Morrison-Bell, Captain|
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
moved, after the word "the" ["paid on the increment 184 value"], to insert the word "unearned."
§ The object of this Amendment is to make it quite clear at the start that the charge is to be on the unearned increment value and not upon the increment value. I venture to think if it were adopted, and it was urged on the Government in Committee, it would help to put an end to a great deal of difficulty and misapprehension with regard to the rest of the Clauses on the Paper. In making speeches on the platform those Members of the Government or representatives of the Government who have spoken have asked for public support on the ground that this was a tax on the unearned increment. When we come to the Bill itself we find that it is not. At all events, the Government declined in Committee, and I presume they will do so again now, to make it clear in unequivocal language that the charge is upon unearned increment. What do they do on the other hand? They make a charge on the increment value; that is to say, practically on the gross profit, the difference between what the property is worth on a given date and what it is worth at a later date. I am not going to analyse all the extraordinary things that have got to be assumed with regard to those values. That is not the point. The point is the insertion of the word "unearned." In all these Clauses that relate to increment, and they are the first seven or eight, and a considerable portion of Clause 35, all kinds of exemptions and qualifications are introduced with the object of getting at what is supposed to be the unearned increment, but they do not achieve that object. They leave this practically a tax upon a man's profit, that he receives, or that he ought to have received, owing to the increased value of his property from all sources, and then, by a series of whittlings away, it is supposed to be brought down to the unearned increment, but it is not. That is not effectually done; it is impossible to do it effectually.
§ If the Bill had been put round the other way altogether, and if it had been stated that when the State or some official body had been formed and could prove what the unearned part of the increment was, that 20 per cent. was to be handed over, of course the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that, instead of getting very much money under those circumstances, he would get very little. They take exactly the opposite course, and say, "We are going to take 20 per cent. of all the profit unless you can prove that you, the owner, have caused those advices in price, have laid out this sum of 186 money—in other words, if there is going to be a profit in the land we are going to take 20 per cent. of it, unless you can prove that within the four corners of the different sections of this Bill you have directly made that profit yourself, and that the State and the community had nothing whatever to do with it." That is the unfairness of the proposition, and it is to call attention to that and the unfair way in which it is carried out that this Amendment is put down. The Government have been challenged in Committee, and are challenged now, to make it quite clear at the very beginning of this Bill that they are going to take 20 per cent. of the unearned increment. The Bill does not do so, and it is in order to get more they have all the exemptions and clauses which come up later on, and therefore the way they are putting it is not honest. They are seeking to get a great deal more than 20 per cent. of the unearned increment, and they will refuse now to make it clear that they are not going to do that particular thing. It seems to me on studying the whole of these very difficult Clauses that the State will even tually, if they are carried out, get a great deal more than 20 per cent. of the unearned increment. The State will get 20 per cent. of the profit which a man makes owing to his own enterprise or expenditure in many directions which are not provided for in the Bill. In view of the claim that this is only a tax of 20 per cent. on unearned increment, we now challenge the Government at the outset of this stage of the Ball to show whether they are bonâ fide with regard to unearned increment.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
This Amendment was moved and very fully debated in Committee. The Government did not see their way then to accept it for reasons which were stated several times, not merely by myself, but also, I think, by the Attorney-General, and after listening very carefully to the speech just made I cannot see that the hon. Member has advanced any fresh arguments which should cause the Government to change their mind. I do not agree with him that the effect of the Bill is to tax increment which is in any sense of the term unearned; but, even if it were, the insertion of this word would make no difference. It does not depend at all on the classifying adjective, but on the subsequent provisions of the Bill, notably those with regard to deductions and 187 the method of valuation, whether increment can be classified as unearned. It is no use inserting words of this kind in an Act of Parliament, and therefore I regret I do not see my way to accept the Amendment.
I think there is this amount of force in the contention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He says in effect that it is no use putting in this word, because if the Bill is unjust it remains as unjust after the insertion of the word as it was before; and if the Bill is just why put in the word "unearned"? But I entirely agree with the idea of my hon. Friend in proposing the Amendment. The professions of the Government on the platform have been that the Bill does not touch anything but unearned increment, but my hon. Friend says that when you come to examine the provisions of the Clause it does touch earned increment. If that be true, and it is true, obviously my hon. Friend's Amendment is only of the smallest value if he introduces a series of consequential Amendments which will really confine the Bill strictly and truly to unearned increment. By itself the word means nothing but an empty and, I fear, a mendacious profession of the effect of the Bill. The Bill will announce on the face of it that it only means to touch unearned increment, but when people turn to the Clauses those who are clever enough to understand them—perhaps a very small minority of the population—will discover that it does touch earned increment. In that case I should say that, at all events, we need not add to the many crimes of the Bill that of bearing in the forefront of its Clauses a profession which it does not carry out in its subsequent parts. Let us leave that solitary virtue of consistency to the proposals of the Government, and not destroy the artistic unity of this wonderful performance by making a sort of display of financial virtue—if it be a financial virtue to tax unearned increment—which is not carried out by the subsequent Clauses of the Bill.
There is perhaps another objection which may be urged against my hon. Friends pressing the Amendment. If the House inserted the word "unearned" the conclusion would be even more obvious than at present that the principle of the Government ought consistently to be applied to every form of property that has unearned increment. I am not aware of any kind of property which increases in value where 188 a part of the increment is not unearned, or of any kind of property which diminishes in value which would not diminish more if some part of the return were not due to the "community," as it is called. I should be very sorry myself to be a consenting party to any suggestion that if ever property increases in value the State has a right to take a percentage of it unless the owner of the property can prove that the increase in value is the direct result of his own individual action. I always myself cherish a hope, usually an illusory hope, that any such small investments that I make may increase in value. If they do, it is clearly not due to any exertions of my own, and though somebody may have earned that increment it clearly is not the shareholder—in this instance myself. Under these circumstances I rather hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. I do not think it makes the Bill more honest; in fact, it makes it somewhat less honest; and it seems to endorse a general proposition of taxation to which I individually cannot give my assent.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
moved to leave out the word "nine" ["the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine "], and insert instead thereof the word "ten."
§ This point was debated in Committee, but it was four months ago, and if we are to start these duties it is quite clear that we ought to have a fixed date upon which they should start. In addition to the fact that four months have elapsed since we studied the question of the date, there has been a complete alteration in the Bill with regard to the method of valuation. In the original Bill every owner of property was to send in by a fixed date, which is now nearly reached, his own valuation of his property. But that was abandoned in Committee, and new Clauses were proposed by the Government under which a body of officials is to be constituted, by whom there is to be a valuation of the whole of the land of the country, and it is essential that that valuation should be carried out before these taxes can be justly or adequately laid. I submit, not from any political or controversial point of view, but entirely as a matter of business and common-sense, that if there is to be a valuation of the whole of the land of the country, it 189 cannot be made before these officials are appointed, and they cannot be appointed until the Budget is passed. Why then should we go back to 30th April, 1909? It would be unjust in a great many cases for valuers arriving about 18 months hence to attempt to value a given piece of property as it stood on 30th April, 1909. The taxes cannot have any effect until that valuation is made, or until the different lands have been classified, and it is seen whether they are liable to any of the taxes, and if so, which. All that will depend on the valuation to be made by these officials who have not yet been appointed. I submit this Amendment in order to simplify the matter, and make the valuation more just, and to enable it to be made a great deal more accurate from the point of view of getting at the real value of the land. To go back to 30th April, 1909, and impose the tax when there is no machinery in existence, or can possibly be in existence, is an absurd proposition from a business point of view. I would have liked to have proposed 1911 or 1912, which I believe will be far nearer the date when the machinery will really begin to work; but that would have been met at once by the reply that this is the Finance Bill of the present year, or some equally ridiculous proposition. Therefore, I content myself with moving to substitute the word "ten" for the word "nine."
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman)
I do not think the fact that the proceedings on the Finance Bill have been delayed a little longer than was anticipated really justifies the change which the hon. Member desires. We have been accused of budgetting for the future instead of for the present, and the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Ridsdale) just now accused me of making allusions to idealistic tendencies; but certainly the adoption of this Amendment would mean that the whole of this years finance would remain utterly unaffected by the Increment Duty. We should deliberately transfer the whole thing to next year. We do not anticipate that. Figures have been presented showing that there is an anticipation of a certain amount of Increment Duty this year, and to transfer it from 1909 to 1910 would mean the abandonment of a whole year's increment, which may in many cases be small, but which may be a very appreciable amount.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I wish the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) had been a little more explicit. He complains that the acceptance of this Amendment would mean the sacrifice of all prospect of revenue from this tax during the present year. That is quite true. But what would be the amount of sacrifice to the Exchequer? It is not merely that we have reached a much later point in the year than when we last discussed the matter, but the Government have, I will not say wholly, but half changed the objects to which the tax is to be applied. When we discussed the matter before the tax was to be for national purposes paid into the Treasury and applied by them to any of the Votes granted in Committee of Supply. But now only one-half of the tax is to go to those purposes, the Government having promised that the other half, under some system to be hereafter explained in this or some other Parliament, shall go to the local authorities. When you make allowance for that, and for the time at which we have arrived, what sum of money is really involved in the proposition of my hon. Friend? I know why the hon. Gentleman opposite did not mention the amount. The amount involved is so ridiculously small that his contention would have been seen to be absurd at once. This tax may have many virtues or it may have many faults, according to whether you view it from one point or another. But its worst enemy would not say against it, and its best friend cannot claim for it that it is going to make any material addition to meeting the deficit of the present year or paying for the "Dreadnoughts," which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so reluctant to provide, and which he is so fond of talking about. It is perfectly ridiculous to treat this tax as if it had any material connection with the finances of the present year. Under these circumstances that objection, at any rate, cannot be urged as a material one against the Motion of my hon. Friend. But I should really like to know from the Government how they are going to collect a tax on a valuation which is not made? They cannot collect any tax until the valuation is made. They would not be fortunate enough, I imagine, even then to be able to lay their hands on exactly those properties which will become liable to duties this year in order to begin with them. They cannot tell what the occasions may be in which the duty may arise, or when these occasions may arise. Under these circumstances, quite apart from the merits of the 191 tax, and merely from a practical standpoint, I cannot for the life of me see how the Government think that they can apply it within the limits of the present year.
§ Question put, "That the word 'nine' stand part of the Clause."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 87.193
|Division No. 808.]||AYES.||[6.35 p.m.|
|Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Alden, Percy||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)||Philippe, Col. Ivor (Southampton)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Hart-Davies, T.||Phillips, Owen C. (Pembroke)|
|Armitage, R.||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Pollard, Dr. G. H.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Radford, G. H.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Haworth, Arthur A.||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Hazleton, Richard||Rees, J. D.|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Hedges, A. Paget||Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)|
|Beale, W. P.||Helme, Norval Watson||Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)|
|Beauchamp, E.||Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)||Richardson, A.|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Henry, Charles S.||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Man., S.)||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Higham, John Sharp||Robinson, S.|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Hobart, Sir Robert||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Brace, William||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Branch, James||Hodge, John||Rose, Sir Charles Day|
|Bright, J. A.||Holland, Sir William Henry||Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.|
|Brodie, H. C.||Holt, Richard Durning||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Brooke, Stopford||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, d.)||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)||Hyde, Clarendon G.||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Idris, T. H. W.||Sears, J. E.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Seely, Colonel|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles||Jackson, R. S.||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Byles, William Pollard||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Cameron, Robert||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Kearley, Rt. Hon. Sir Hudson||Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Keating, M.||Steadman, W. C.|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Kekewich, Sir George||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Cleland, J. W.||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Clough, William||Laidlaw, Robert||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)||Summerbell, T.|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Lever, [...] Levy, (Essex, Harwich)||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Levy, Sir Maurice||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Lewis, John Herbert||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Tomkinson, James|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Crossley, William J.||Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)||Villiers, Ernest Amherst|
|Curran, Peter Francis||Lynch, H. B.||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Dalziel, Sir James Henry||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Davies, M. Vaughan. (Cardigan)||Mackarness, Frederic C.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Macpherson, J. T.||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Watt, Henry A.|
|Duckworth, Sir James||M' Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||M' Micking, Major G.||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Erskine, David C.||Marnham, F. J.||White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Essex, R. W.||Massie, J.||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Masterman, C. F. G.||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Evans, Sir S. T.||Menzies, Sir Walter||Wiles, Thomas|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Molteno, Percy Alport||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Falconer, J.||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Ferens, T. R.||Morgan, J. Lioyd (Carmarthen)||Williamson, Sir A.|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Morse, L. L.||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Myer, Horatio||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Ginnell, L.||Napier, T. B.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Glendinning, R. G.||Nolan, Joseph||Winfrey, R.|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Nussey, Sir Willans||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Nuttall, Harry|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||O' Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.|
|Greenwood, Hamar (York)||O' Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)|
|Gulland, John W.||O' Grady, J.|
|Acland-Hood; Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.||Fell, Arthur||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Fletcher, J. S.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Forster, Henry William||Percy, Earl|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Foster, P. S.||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Ashley, W. W.||Gardner, Ernest||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)||Gerdon, J.||Sheffield. Sir Berkeley George D.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Haddock, George B||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Bertram, Julius||Hamilton, Marquess of||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Stanier, Beville|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Heaton, John Henniker||Starkey, John R.|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Helmsley, Viscount||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Hill, Sir Clement||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hills, J. W.||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Hunt, Rowland||Valentia, Viscount|
|Clark, George Smith||Kimber, Sir Henry||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Lambton, Hon. Frederick William||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||M' Arthur, Charles||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Doughty, Sir George||Magnus, Sir Philip||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Moore, William||Younger, George|
|Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)||Morrison-Bell, Captain|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Watson Rutherford and Mr. Remnant.|
|Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Oddy, John James|
§ Sir W. ROBSON
moved to leave out the words immediately preceding paragraph (a), "the duty or a proportionate part thereof shall become due."
§ The Amendment which I propose to omit here is of a verbal character, as I am afraid are the great bulk of the Amendments which it will be my duty to propose. These words are unnecessary as the Clause stands now. It says that Increment Value Duty shall be charged, levied, and paid, and it then says that it shall become due on the occasions mentioned. It next gives the occasions on which the tax shall be collected. It is quite sufficient to say that the tax shall be charged—as at the beginning—and that on the occasions specified it shall be collected. Therefore we have shortened the Clause. There is another reason. If I explain it now it will facilitate my task on later Amendments. In the words proposed to be omitted we have used the expression "due." The word "due" is quite clear enough, but throughout every Clause where the word "due" is used it has given rise to ambiguity. "Due" has, of course, two meanings. It may mean "payable." It is sometimes used—I do not say that is its proper meaning, but it has been used once in the course of this Bill—in the sense of "accrue," though not collected. It was desirable that this sort of ambiguity in the phraseology of the Bill should be removed, so we have substituted for the word "due" the words "to be collected." When we are dealing with the amount of duty which has 194 accrued, but is not yet payable, we have in later Amendments substituted the words "unsatisfied."
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
Will the Bill read with the Amendment? Is the word "and," that precedes the words proposed to be omitted by the Attorney-General, required?
§ Sir W. ROBSON
I think it reads this way: The governing words are at the beginning of the Clause, "subject to the provisions of this Part of the Act, there shall be charged, levied, and paid" an Increment Value Duty. Then the principal sentence—the framework of the sentence—goes on "and"—which the right hon. Gentleman thinks unnecessary—"and"—(a) on the occasion of any transfer, (b) on the occasion of the death of any person, (c) where the land or any interest in the land; and in the next paragraph proportionate duty shall be collected. So it makes a complete sentence.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
I have an Amendment on the Paper which proposes to insert after the word "sale," in paragraph (a) ["on the occasion of any transfer on sale of the land or any interest in the land"], the following words, "other than a sale by a mortgagee," but I do not propose to move it in this place. I understand that on Clause 39, in reference to 195 which the Government have some Amendment of their own, an opportunity will be given for the purpose of discussing the position of the mortgagee in reference to the whole of the taxes—the Increment Taxes included—and if that is the case then I agree that it will be far better to have a discussion on the question, which is a very serious and a very important question, of the mortgagee with regard to property. Under these circumstances, I will not now move this Amendment.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
I beg to move, after the second "the" in paragraph (a) to insert the following words, "fee simple of the."
This is really a verbal Amendment. Instead of saying "on the occasion of any transfer on sale of the land," we say, "on the occasion of any transfer on the sale of the fee simple of the land." We think that makes the matter much clearer, and then I have to define fee simple in the way that includes certain interest. This occurs very frequently throughout the Bill, so that on future occasions I will simply move it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment made.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
moved after the word "land" in paragraph (a) ["any interest in the land "], to insert the words "other than land required for the purpose of being so sold or leased."
§ This Amendment raises a point which, I am quite aware, was discussed in Committee, but not under very favourable conditions. My recollection is it was raised for the first time at half-past one in the morning. There was a brief discussion, and at the end of that discussion it became impossible to raise it again in Committee at a more seasonable hour. The object of the Amendment is quite simple, and I venture to think is one which ought to receive the attention of anyone who desires that this Bill should be at least tolerably just. The general theory of Increment Duty is, as I understand it, that a man in possession of land ought not to take the whole of the profits that accrue to him by reason of the sale of that land if a certain portion of the profits have been due not to his own exertions, but to the action of other people, sometimes described as communal action. But there 196 is a very important case where, though it cannot be said that any part of the profit is due to a man's own exertion, yet the profit is the result of intellectual exertion on his part, and intellectual exertion of an exceedingly valuable character in the interest of the State. Practically the whole, or almost the whole, of the development in modern times takes place by reason of builders buying land on the outskirts of towns, developing that land, and reselling it at a profit. A great portion of that profit, of course, is due to the works they have executed upon that land, and no part, as I understand, of that profit is hit by the Government proposals, but a certain proportion of that profit is due merely to the fact that they have brought the land into building; that it has become valuable for building, and therefore that what the Government call communal action has increased its value and the profit derived from that is profit hit by the Government. But these people do not live entirely by that kind of transaction. They deal with land in exactly and precisely the same way as you deal in any other commodity, and the process is exactly the same. The wholesale dealer in any commodity—tea, or corn, or wood, or anything else—buys the article wholesale, divides it into small proportions, sells it retail, and makes a profit, partly by the fact that he is paid for his service in dividing it up and partly also because he looks to buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest, which is taking advantage of the communal value of the article.
§ The builder acts in precisely the same way; there is no distinction whatever. He buys land in the gross, divides it up into small parcels and sells it, and he makes his profit partly by dividing it up and partly by his acuteness in being able to see where the land is going to be of the greatest value. Now you propose to tax that man 20 per cent. on every profit he makes in that way. That is to say, you are going to put upon those who gain an income derived in this particular way—an Income Tax Duty which cannot be lower than 20 per cent. It may be very much higher, because such a man will have to pay upon every profitable transaction this Income Tax, and for every transaction that turns out not to be profitable he will not get anything back He will have to pay, therefore, not 20 per cent. only, but 20 per cent. upon profitable transactions in which he indulges—a very much larger amount than 20 per cent. upon the balance 197 of his profits in land. I do not understand how the Government can possibly defend that proposal. They never have defended it or advanced a scintilla of argument in defence of it. It was put before them more than once not only in this House, but by deputations. I am utterly unable to see how it can be defended except in this way, that the moment you begin to exempt builders or people who deal in land you find yourself in very great difficulty as to the way you should treat other land. I agree in that, but it only shows how utterly unsound this tax is in the very essence of its being. I still think, even if it is impossible to deal with other injustices raised by this taxation—and I may incidentally observe it has nothing to do with dukes at all, but deals with a very deserving class of this country—this particular injustice ought to be removed from the Bill, if nothing else is done. I beg therefore to move the Amendment.
§ Mr. REMNANT
I second the Amendment moved by the Noble Lord, and I agree entirely with everything he has said upon the question. Surely the Government, who have professed themselves to be so anxious to facilitate the distribution of land among the people of this country, ought to accept the Amendment, which is intended to protect companies or private people who deal in land as a commodity and as the object of their work. I fail to see why in this case land should be treated in any different way from other commodities, such, for instance, as those of the baker who deals in bread, or the tailor who deals in clothes, or the banker, and so on. It seems to me there is no reason at all for taxing the trade profits of certain people, without making any allowances for trade losses, and for dealing in a different way from other people with this deserving class of the community. The dealer and traders in land represent with their employés a very considerable number of people, and, in spite of what the Prime Minister has said, land is suffering under a very severe depression at the present time. I will not say whether it is due to the Budget or to other causes, but I do say that land of this kind is in a very depressed condition, and is likely to remain so. Unless the Government see their way to treat those people indicated in the Amendment more fairly they will be inflicting on a very large number of people connected with this particular trade and industry an injury which I do not think they deserve in any way, and they will be 198 depriving them of the protection of equal laws given to all other traders. I hope the Government will even at this late hour really act up to their professions by making the exemption asked for in the Amendment.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
The Noble Lord, in moving this Amendment, submitted as a justification for raising a second Debate upon it that the first Amendment was moved at half-past one in the morning. Well, if every other Amendment moved at half-past one in the morning is to be proposed again, and another Debate raised upon it, I am afraid the Report stage would last for a very long time indeed. I do not think the Noble Lord himself was to blame that the discussion was a very inadequate one. I find there were at least 15 speeches upon that occasion, and the Debate lasted a very long time.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
I do not mean to put myself up as a censor or to express an opinion as to what should claim to be a speech or not. All I know is the Noble Lord delivered two speeches upon the occasion, and I know there were two or three from the Front Bench opposite, and there were speeches from the Government Front Bench. But, apart from that, I object in the first place to the words of the Noble Lord's Amendment, and I am quite sure that they would not confine the privileges he proposes to extend by these words to the particular class he has in view. It would be open to every man to say, "I bought land with a view of leasing or selling it." Every man who invested in land could say so. Every man who bought land, either for the purpose of occupying or cultivating it himself, or for the purpose of leasing or selling it, could claim that he bought it for purposes which would give him exemption under the Amendment of the Noble Lord. That is not the object which the Noble Lord has in view, but his speech is not at all consistent with his Amendment. Assuming for the moment, and it is necessary for the purposes of this Amendment to assume that it is desirable to tax the unearned increment in land, why should you exempt those who buy land for the purpose of leasing or selling it? The Noble Lord says that that is their business, but is that really sufficient answer? If it is, then it ought to be a sufficient answer against 199 rating as well. Take the case of a builder who builds a row of houses. He might say, "Why rate me at the same rate as the man over the road? This is my business. If you put 5s. or 10s. on this property you are taking away from my profits, and to that extent I should suffer." I think it is the first time a principle of this kind has been suggested in taxation, and I do not think the Noble Lord can seriously justify the introduction of an idea into our fiscal arrangements to the effect that you should say to a man, "If you buy merely for investment we will tax you, but if you are buying for speculation we will let you off." That is the proposition put forward by the Noble Lord. [An HON. MEMBER: "it is not a speculation."] Then what else is it? It is purely buying land to sell at a higher price, and surely that is a speculation, or, at any rate, that is what a builder would call it. The man is speculating in land and buying it in order to sell at a higher price. Why tax the man who invests in land and let off the man who speculates in land? There is absolutely no principle in this proposal, and it is really a thoroughly wild notion which has no precedent; it has no precedent and no justification in logic or common-sense or in any business arrangement I know of. The Noble Lord says we are taxing a man on his profits, but you are no more taxing him on his profits than you are rating him on his profits. Rates affect the profits of the man very considerably. In fact every tax upon property of that kind, whether it is a rate or a tax, must affect the profits. Let the Noble Lord see exactly what we are doing. In the first place, we are only starting from the valuation this year. If a man has paid a certain sum of money last year for land and it has gone up in value that increment belongs to him, because we are only beginning with the present value. We are allowing a margin of 10 per cent. for all these charges and for profits before we touch the increment.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
Certainly not, because 10 per cent. per annum would be so irrational a proposal that I do not think anyone imagined I meant that. There is an allowance of 10 per cent. upon the profit he makes upon the land before you begin taxing him. You afterwards take one-fifth of the profit after allowing not 200 what he spends upon the property, because you do not deduct merely what he spends, you deduct the value which he creates by means of the money he has spent, which is a very different thing.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
Very often a builder creates a value which is much greater than the actual amount of money spent, but he nevertheless gets his 10 percent., and he gets in addition all profit attributable to the money he spends and the skill and brains and enterprise he puts into it. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are in the habit of saying that the mere fact that you have got a 20 per cent. charge on increment is going to affect the value of land. Now you cannot have it both ways. If it is going to affect the value of the land then the builder must have discounted that when he bought the land. Therefore, it is something which he has already discounted in the price he has paid. It is something he has already got an allowance for from the person from whom he has bought. That is the argument which is always used on the other side. I do not think the Noble Lord would make himself responsible for a proposal that you should adopt this perfectly novel, irrational, and imperfect principle of discriminating between the man who buys merely for speculation and the man who buys merely for investment. If you do you could not carry it out because every man would say that he bought his land for the purpose of leasing it, or selling it, and therefore, you would get no tax at all. For these reasons I submit that the decision arrived at in Committee is one which the House would do well to adhere to.
The right hon. Gentleman has criticised me for not taking any share in the earlier discussion of this proposition. I propose now very briefly to remedy that omission in order to put myself right with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What is the defence of the right hon. Gentleman? He says, "How utterly irrational it is to distinguish between the man who speculates in land and the man who invests in land." I would ask why is it more irrational to distinguish between a man who lives on his property and one who does not live on his property? What is a speculator in land? He is a man who does business for the community at considerable risk to himself. Why is a distinction drawn in this case as against the investor who does nothing? 201 The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of logic and a great many other things, and he asks how can the Noble Lord be so irrational and even so wild as to suppose that we can distinguish between the man whose property exists in land, for which he does nothing but take the rent, and the man who takes a great risk to meet a public need? When my Noble Friend made his suggestion he was doing his best really to carry out the intentions of the Government. That he should have thrown at his head all these hard words, such as want of logic and principle, really fills me with astonishment. Of course, the Government have refused to accept the Amendment, and it is not much use having a discussion upon it much longer. It is, however, interesting because it throws light upon the way the Government are proceeding. I understand now that this is the first of a long series of subjects in regard to which these principles are to be gradually extended in order to deal with all the interests in the community. What my Noble Friend desires to save from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's grip is that increase in the value of the land which exactly corresponds with the increase in the value of a commodity when it is sold retail instead of wholesale. When, for instance, tea is sold retail there is an increase in the value, and it fetches more money because it is being sold retail instead of wholesale. That is unearned increment, I understand, in the view of the Government, in the value of tea. Apparently the man who buys wholesale and sells retail is a speculator. His gains are
§ analogous to the case mentioned by my Noble Friend. The dominant principle of the Government appears to be this: It is quite proper to regard as unearned increment that increase in the value of any commodity due to being dealt with retail instead of wholesale. The right hon. Gentleman defends that proposition by arguments which would apply to every commodity sold at a higher price retail than it is bought wholesale. I suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say if you do not hold that view you throw over the principle of rating, because people are rated on the profits which they make in shops, and all the rest of it. Are we to understand that this method of dealing with commercial transactions in land is only the beginning of a system in which all retail profits are to be attacked on the ground that there is in them an element of the unearned increment? It is to that conclusion, and no other, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech points. My Noble Friend distinctly made it clear to the House that he was dealing exactly with the case I put of a man who buys land and gains on the transaction, because he is carrying out with regard to transactions in land precisely what the retail dealer in tea does in regard to transactions in tea. That is my Noble Friend's point, and it has not been met by the Government. I hope the tea dealers will take notice of this.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 90; Noes, 221.203
|Division No. 809.]||AYES.||[7.15 p.m.|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.||Faber, George Denison (York)||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Moore, William|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Fell, Arthur||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Ashley, W. W.||Fletcher, J. S.||Morrison-Bell, Captain|
|Balcarres, Lord||Forster, Henry William||Newdegate, F. A.|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Foster, P. S.||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)||Gardner, Ernest||Oddy, John James|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Bertram, Julius||Gordon, J.||Percy, Earl|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Pretyman, E. G.|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Gretton, John||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Haddock, George B.||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hamilton, Marquess of||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Renton, Leslie|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Renwick, George|
|Cave, George||Helmsley, Viscount||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Hill, Sir Clement||Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)|
|Clark, George Smith||Hills, J. W.||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Kimber, Sir Henry||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Doughty, Sir George||Lambton, Hon. Frederick William||Smith, Hon W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Stanier, Beville|
|Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)||M'Arthur, Charles||Stanley, Hon, Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Starkey, John R.||Thornton, Percy M.||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)||Valentia, Viscount||Younger, George|
|Stone, Sir Benjamin||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Walrond, Hon. Lionel||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord R. Cecil and Mr. Remnant.|
|Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Grove, Archibald||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)|
|Alden, Percy||Gulland, John W.||Pollard, Dr. G. H.|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Armitage, R.||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Radford, G. H.|
|Astbury, John Meir||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Hart-Davies, T.||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)||Rees, J. D.|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Haworth, Arthur A.||Richardson, A.|
|Beale, W. P.||Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Beauchamp, E.||Hazieton, Richard||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Hedges, A. Paget||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)||Helme, Norval Watson||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Black, Arthur W.||Henry, Charles S.||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Brace, William||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Rose, Sir Charles Day|
|Branch, James||Higham, John Sharp||Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.|
|Bright, J. A.||Hobart, Sir Robert||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Brodie, H. C.||Hobhouse. Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Brooke, Stopford||Hodge, John||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Holt, Richard Durning||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)||Sears, J. E|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Hyde, Clarendon G.||Seely, Colonel|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Idris, T. H. W.||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles||Jackson, R. S.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Byles, William Pollard||Jenkins, J.||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Cameron, Robert||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Steadman, W. C.|
|Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Channing, Sir Francis Aliston||Kearley, Rt. Hon. Sir Hudson||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Kekewich, Sir George||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Summerbell, T.|
|Cleland, J. W.||Laidlaw, Robert||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Clough, William||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)||Tennant, H, J. (Berwickshire)|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)||Levy, Sir Maurice||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Lewis, John Herbert||Tomkinson, James|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Villiers, Ernest Amherst|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Lynch, H. B.||Walters, John Tudor|
|Crossley, William J.||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Curran, Peter Francis||Mackarness, Frederic C.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Dalziel, Sir James Henry||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Marnham, F. J.||Weir, James Galloway|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)||Massie, J.||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Masterman, C. F. G.||White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Duckworth, Sir James||Menzies, Sir Walter||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Erskine, David||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Wilkle, Alexander|
|Essex, R. W.||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Williams J. (Glamorgan)|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Evans, Sir S. T.||Morse, L. L.||Williamson, Sir A.|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Falconer, J.||Myer, Horatio||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Napier, T. B.||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Ferens, T. R.||Nolan, Joseph||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Norman, Sir Henry||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Nussey, Sir Willans||Winfrey, B.|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Nuttall, Harry||Wood, T. M' Kinnon|
|Glendinning, R. G.||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Amendment made: In paragraph (b), after the word "the" ["where the land"], to insert the words "fee simple of the."—[Sir W. Robson.]
§ Sir W. ROBSON
moved, in paragraph (b), to leave out the words: "Provided that in the case of a disposition made by any person purporting to act as an immediate giftinter vivos,whether by way of transfer, delivery, declaration of trust, or otherwise, marriage shall, for the purpose of this Section, be deemed to be valuable consideration; and."
§ This is an Amendment to omit certain words which we insert elsewhere in the form of a new Clause more beneficial to the subject, and, I think, more satisfactory to the House. The words here merely say that marriage shall be deemed to be a valuable consideration. It was very doubtful whether words thus framed would have had any effect. Anyhow, we have carefully considered the matter, and have gone much further. We have, in Clause 59, third paragraph, amended the principal Finance Act so that all gifts inter vivos made in consideration of marriage shall be free of the duty.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Amendment made: In paragraph (c), after the word "the" ["where the land"], to insert the words "fee simple of the."—[Sir W. Robson.]
§ Sir W. ROBSON
moved, in paragraph (c), after the figures "1885" ["Ireland Revenue Act, 1885"], to insert the words "in such a manner or on such permanent trusts that the land or interest is not liable to Death Duties."
§ This is an Amendment to insert words to prevent an anticipated but a not very likely danger. One of the occasions upon which the duty is made payable is where the land is held by any body corporate or by any body unincorporate as defined by Section 12 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885. It was pointed out during the Debate that a body corporate might hold land as a mortgagee or trustee, and that it would be advisable to provide against that case. We propose, therefore, to insert the words mentioned in this Amendment.
§ Amendment made: After paragraph (c) to leave out the words "and on each of those occasions."—[Sir W. Robson.]