§ (1) No Reversion Duty or Undeveloped Land Duty under this Part of this Act shall be charged in respect of land or any interest in land held by any governing body constituted for charitable purposes while the land is occupied and used by that body for the purposes of that body, and Increment Value Duty shall not be collected on any periodical occasion in respect of the fee simple of or any interest in any land held for the purposes of such a body, whether it is occupied or used by that body or not, without prejudice, however, to the collection of the duty on any other occasion.
§ The expression "governing body constituted for charitable purposes" includes any person or body of persons who have the right of holding, or any power of government of, or management over, any property appropriated for charitable purposes (including property appropriated for the purpose of any of the naval or military forces of the Crown).
§ (2) This Section shall apply to the fee simple of, or any interest in, any land held by a registered society as if the purposes of the society were charitable purposes.
782§ In this provision the expression "registered society" means any society or body of persons who are registered, or whose rules are certified or registered, by a registrar of friendly societies in pursuance of any Act of Parliament, and who by their rules make provision for the benefits set out in Section eight, Sub-section one, of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, and where the contract between the society and the member is of a permanent character.
§ Sir W. ROBSON moved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "land" ["shall be charged in respect of land"], to leave out the words "or any interest in land."
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI think we are entitled to ask why these words are being left out?
§ Sir W. ROBSONThis is merely a verbal Amendment.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONHow does the learned Attorney-General justify leaving out these words? As the Section now stands it reads, "No Reversion Duty or Undeveloped Land Duty under this part of this Act shall be charged in respect of land or any interest in land held by any governing body." It is now proposed to leave out the words "or any interest in land," and we are referred to the amended Definition Clause. I think these words are necessary, and ought to be retained.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMay I point out that Clause 41 says that land does not include "any interest in land."
§ Sir W. ROBSONWherever we have inserted those words we have always preceded them by the words "fee simple or any." I have no objection to leaving the words in, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Drafting Amendment made.
§ Sir PHILIP MAGNUS moved, in Subsection (1), after the word "body" ["for the purposes of that body"], to insert the words "and no Reversion Duty or Undeveloped Land Duty under this part of this Act shall be charged in respect of land or any interest in land held by any university, college, or endowed school, or society constituted for the advancement of science, literature, or the fine arts, the income of which is exclusively applicable for the purposes of that body."
§
I do not think I need to apologise for again bringing forward a Motion for the further exemption of distinctly educational
783
institutions from some part of these Land Taxes. I am very unwilling to repeat anything that was said during the Committee stage of this Bill, but I have brought forward this Amendment rather with a view of giving the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity of reconsidering the decision at which he arrived on the Report stage. I think he would be wise to grant the further exemption implied in this Amendment. I feel certain that throughout the whole of the United Kingdom this proposal will be regarded as a tax on learning, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is not desirous of inflicting an additional burden on learning. Judging from the replies given to my Amendment on the Committee stage by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General, I am afraid my previous proposal was not sufficiently explicit to be altogether understood by the Government. I know that the term "charitable purposes" is a very comprehensive one, and it includes religious and educational purposes and what may be called distinctly philanthropic purposes. The arguments adduced in answer to my proposal during the Committee stage did not refer at all to educational purposes, and were almost exclusively confined to religious purposes which were included in the word "charity." The Chancellor of the Exchequer said:—
If you are going to exclude universities, how can you include the Ecclesiastical Commissioners with their enormous values?
§
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
Land is getting more and more into the possession of great ecclesiastical, religious, and charitable institutions. Very considerable tracts are getting into their possession, and if this exemption is made it cannot be confined to educational institutions.
§ I am unable to see why it cannot be confined to educational institutions. Certainly the Amendment refers exclusively to educational institutions, and no others. One can always reason from analogies, and say, "This is the thin end of the wedge, and if we make further exemptions to educational institutions we shall be obliged to make them to religious and other charitable institutions." I am certain the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be the last person to desire to push all his proposals to their strictly logical conclusion, and I am asking him to consider this Amendment in the form in which it stands on the Paper, and not as regards the consequences to which it might possibly lead. Personally I should be very glad to see religious and charitable bodies exempted 784 from this Clause. At present we are only asking for the exemption of educational bodies. I believe that charitable bodies would be charitable enough not to begrudge any special exemption which might be given to educational institutions, although they themselves were excluded from such exemption. Another reason why I bring this matter up again is that my Amendment is not now so wide as that which was introduced during the Committee stage. It does not propose that land which is held by universities or schools shall be exempted from the Increment Land Duty on the occasion when that land is sold. As a matter of fact, universities, colleges, schools, and other institutions, on behalf of which I am pleading, do not often sell the land that they possess. Therefore the concluding words of the Clause as they now stand would not very much affect these institutions. We ask that no Increment Duty or Reversion Duty shall be charged upon land which is not only occupied or used, but which is also held by these bodies. The Clause, as it stands, is a little misleading. It was clearly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge that there is practically no exemption whatever granted to these charitable institutions, and certainly not to the universities or colleges, by the first exemption—namely, that no Reversion Duty shall be charged—because it is perfectly evident that a Reversion Duty cannot possibly be charged whilst the land is in the occupation of these institutions. The only exempton therefore which the Clause gives is with respect to the Undeveloped Land Duty. I should be very sorry if it should be thought that the Government are making any great concession by introducing the words "Reversion Duty." If the wording of this Amendment is not clear—it was rather hastily drafted by myself a day or two since—I should be quite prepared to accept any other words which make it perfectly clear that land which is held, even although it may not be occupied by any of these educational institutions, shall be free from the Undeveloped Land Duty and the Reversion Duty. I should like to point out that there cannot be any logical distinction between land which is used and land which is occupied. Land which is used by an educational institution for the sole purpose of maintaining that institution must stand in exactly the same position as land which is occupied by it. It is impossible to make any clear distinction between the two. Land used at 785 one time may be occupied at another time, and whatever reasons may exist in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having endeavoured to exempt land which is occupied by a university or a college or a school from any one of these duties must certainly apply to land the income from which is used for the maintenance of the universities which occupy it. There is really no logical difference whatever.
§ There is no analogy whatever between ecclesiastical property and property held by educational institutions. The Government does not make annual grants to religious bodies in the same way that it does to most educational bodies. Many of our universities and nearly all the endowed schools on behalf of whom I am pleading receive grants from the State, but the State does not give grants to ecclesiastical or religious bodies. Consequently, there is really no analogy between the two, and, unless this exemption is granted, what the State really gives with one hand it will take away with the other. I believe it would be an absolute saving to the State to make this exemption, because they would save the cost of valuing the property at present held by all these education institutions, and it is probable that otherwise the State would have to increase the grants made to them. There can, therefore, be no reason for first putting a tax on them and then increasing the grants which are made. There is no doubt whatever that unless the exemption 13 made these institutions will very much suffer from the additional tax, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to bear in mind the fact that this country gives very much less money to universities and to secondary schools than other countries, mainly for the reason that pious founders in the past have left large sums of money for their use. It must be admitted that it will certainly tend to discourage further legacies of this kind being left to educational authorities, if it is known they are going to be taxed in this way. The universities already are not required to pay Income Tax upon investments in ordinary trustee securities, and the reasons which have induced the Government to grant exemptions from Income Tax to universities when their property is invested in the funds surely ought to apply when it is proposed to levy an additional tax on land held by these institutions. If that money were invested in Consols, no Income Tax would be paid.
786§ I venture to think, without repeating the arguments used on the Committee stage, that I have made out a case for the reconsideration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the decision to which he had previously arrived. He may very likely say that the finances of the country do not permit it, that the exemptions already made have eaten up all the balance, but the whole of this money is a very small matter, and, looking at the final Budget introduced a few days ago, one sees that there is still a certain margin which would enable him to accede to this small additional exemption. I should like to say one word with respect to the case of Dulwich, which has very often been before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am quite certain the Attorney-General, when he replied to the arguments used on behalf of Dulwich, was not familiar with all the particulars of the case, and I venture to say that he was quite unconsciously misrepresenting the facts. Since then he has received a letter from the Dulwich authorities, to which I think so far no reply has been given. The Attorney-General led the House to think that the Dulwich authorities were purposely holding up their land, although it was very much wanted for building purposes in the immediate neighbourhood, and that if they liked to sell it they could invest their money and gain a considerable interest from it. In the course of a letter to the Attorney-General it is stated that the estate is being developed on a coherent town planning scheme to maintain the rural character of the neighbourhood. There are already within the boroughs in which the estate is situated 4,670 vacant houses, with a loss to the rates of £65,975. The governors are regularly developing the estate on lines making for the health and well-being of the people. Dulwich is only similar to other cases, and it must be evident to anyone familiar with the facts that it is not always possible to sell land as one supposes. One may be able to sell land, but if one does, he destroys the amenities of the district and sells it for purposes wholly inconsistent with the fact that a school exists in the neighbourhood. It cannot for one moment be said, as was stated without full knowledge of the facts by the Attorney-General, that the authorities of Dulwich School are holding up their land merely for the purpose of obtaining a higher price. I sincerely hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will now be able to say that, to the extent to which it is proposed in this Amendment, he will be 787 able to grant this exemption. There is no doubt that this particular tax in its incidence cannot be regarded as other than a tax upon learning.
§ Sir H. CRAIK seconded the Amendment.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEWe had a very long Debate on the substance of this Amendment in Committee when the same issue was raised, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not therefore regard me as being in the slightest degree discourteous to him if I do not go at any great length into the reasons which prompted the Government on that occasion to refuse to accept such an Amendment, and which, I think, justify them in maintaining the attitude they then adopted. It would be quite impossible to accept an Amendment of this kind and not to extend it to religious bodies. I do not see upon what ground you can give exemptions to science and art, and refuse it to religious objects; and it is quite impossible for us to accept the Amendment unless we are prepared to accept the wider proposition submitted to the judgment of the Committee by the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. G. Cave) to extend the exemption to religious bodies. The moment you did that you would get back to the old days when there was a conflict between the Crown and the Ecclesiastical authorities of this country with regard to the exemption of charitable and religious organisations, not merely from the rates, but from all taxes as well.
§ Sir P. MAGNUSThat is not the Amendment.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI agree that the Amendment does not include ecclesiastical corporations, but I really do not see on what ground you could refuse to extend the exemption to ecclesiastical corporations if once you give the benefit of it to the universities. I know the older universities, who are much more intimately concerned financially in this matter than the other universities, are satisfied with the proposals made on the Committee stage, and are not carrying the matter any further. Let me point out this consideration, that the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman really means exemption from rates and taxes altogether, and that is not certainly asked for by all the universities.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONOh!
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI am sorry I made that remark. I am afraid the hon. Member will have something to say, but I 788 must add that, according to the decision of the courts, the older universities are not exempted.
§ Sir P. MAGNUSThe University of London succeeded in getting income returned for the last four years.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThat does not apply to the older universities. I believe, indeed, that Glasgow University is not excepted.
§ Sir H. CRAIKNo.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI think it is far better to increase the grants to universities than to give these special exemptions.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will carry the principle further, and if he will apply it to local as well as to national taxation. Will he give equivalent grants to religious buildings instead of their present exemption from rates? If he will do that he may remove a great deal of the misconception which exists in the public mind at the present time, and especially in the minds of Nonconformists, that the Church of England enjoys special privileges.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONAs far as the representatives of the older universities are concerned, I may say that they are in no way satisfied with the position at the present moment. This I am induced to remark by the observation which fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer only a few moments ago. The other representatives of the older Universities would have been present but for urgent reasons, but I know they share my dissatisfaction with the present state of things, and the only reason why we have not taken a more active part in the Debate is that we do not desire, on this side of the House, to waste time. We have been given to understand that there is no chance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer changing his view, and this Amendment, which has been very carefully drawn, was decided upon as the shortest method of formally entering our protest. I must say that the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer do not seem to be conclusive on this point. The Amendment was drawn with the express purpose of exempting universities and schools from this particular taxation. I venture to say there is no reason why they should not be so exempt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer considers that, if you exempt them, you must also exclude religious bodies, monasteries, and institutions of that nature. But there is no connection 789 whatever between these two. In the case of universities considerable Government grants are made, but in the case of monasteries and similar institutions, at any rate in England, there are no such grants. I may say that this Amendment
§ has the unanimous support of the representatives of the universities.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 196.
791| Division No. 839.] | AYES. | [6.40 p.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Forster, Henry William | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Foster, P. S. | Percy, Earl |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Gretton, John | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Haddock, George B. | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Hamilton, Marquess of | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Heaton, John Henniker | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Cave, George | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hill, Sir Clement | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Jolcey- | Hunt, Rowland | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Joynson-Hicks, William | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) | Kerry, Earl of | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Keswick, William | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Kimber, Sir Henry | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Du Cros, Arthur | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) | M'Arthur, Charles | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Newdegate, F. A. | Younger, George |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | |
| Fell, Arthur | Oddy, John James | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir P. Magnus and Sir H. Craik. |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) | Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Higham, John Sharp |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Agnew, George William | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hodge, John |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Alden, Percy | Crosfield, A. H. | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Crossley, William J. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hudson, Walter |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Idris, T. H. W. |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Jackson, R. S. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Dobson, Thomas W. | Jardine, Sir J. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) |
| Barker, Sir John | Essex, R. W. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Evans, Sir S. T. | Jowett, F. W. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Everett, R. Lacey | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Beale, W. P. | Falconer, J. | Lambert, George |
| Beauchamp, E. | Ferens, T. R. | Lamont, Norman |
| Bell, Richard | Ferguson R. C. Munro | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Fuller, John Michael F. | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Ginnell, L. | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Glendinning, R. G. | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Glover, Thomas | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Lupton, Arnold |
| Black, Arthur W. | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Lynch, A. (Clare, W.) |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Griffith, Ellis J. | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Branch, James | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Maclean, Donald |
| Brodle, H. C. | Gulland, John W. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) | M'Callum, John M. |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Maddison, Frederick |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Haworth, Arthur A. | Marnham, F. J. |
| Cameron, Robert | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Massie, J. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hedges, A. Paget | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Clough, William | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Morse, L. L. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Myer, Horatio | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Napier, T. B. | Rose, Sir Charles Day | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Rowlands, J. | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Nuttall, Harry | Russell. Rt. Hon. T. W. | Toulmin, George |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Vivian, Henry |
| O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Wardle, George J. |
| O'Malley, William | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Sears, J. E. | Weir, James Galloway |
| Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Seely, Colonel | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Shackleton, David James | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Pollard, Dr. G. H. | Sherwell, Arthur James | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Snowden, P. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Radford, G. H. | Stanger, H. Y. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Raphael, Herbert H. | Steadman, W. C | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Rea, Rt. Hon Russell (Gloucester) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Rees, J. D. | Strachey, Sir Edward | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Ridsdale, E. A. | Summerbell, T. |
§ Mr. RAWLINSON moved, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words: "but no Increment Value Duty shall be collected on the sale of any such land or of any interest therein in any case where the proceeds of such sale are invested within six months in the purchase of other land, or of some interest in other land, to be held for similar charitable purposes."
§ I have been asked by the London Playing Fields Association to move this Amendment, and possibly the Government may see their way to accept it. That association is a society engaged in charitable work under the presidency of Mr. Chandos Leigh, and their system is to buy up small plots of land and let them out to people for the purpose of playing games, such as football and cricket. The Bill exempts the land from taxation so long as the association occupies it for those purposes, but the way the body does its work is this. They buy a piece of land and get possession of it, and then perhaps they sell a bit of the frontage, and with the proceeds they buy more land for their purposes. That really is how the society lives. The Members can make no profit out of these transactions, and it is not a question of speculation or anything of that sort. As the Bill stands it is intended that the association shall be exempt from all taxation as long as they use their land for cricket and football, and as to that we are all agreed. Whenever they are forced to sell some part of a football or cricket field, however—the frontage or anything of that kind—they reinvest the money at once in a larger portion of land more suitable for the purpose of games, and in that way they at the same time are enabled to pay their way. This Amendment is not contrary to the spirit of the Bill, because it refers to 792 property in existence at the present time, and if they sold it they could not pocket the money or divide it among their members, or use it for any purpose except to provide cricket and football fields on charitable lines. Therefore, I do not propose this Amendment in any hostile spirit, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept it, because it does not affect the principle of the measure, and makes no difference in the present state of affairs.
§ Sir SAMUEL SCOTT seconded the Amendment.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThis claim is of much larger extent than that which the House of Commons has already refused to concede. What does it mean? By the Bill all charitable institutions are exempted from the ordinary Corporation Increment Duty, but the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to extend that in cases even of sale so long as the money is reinvested in land. Of course that means that all they have got to do is whenever they sell to reinvest their profits in land, and thus secure complete exemption from the whole of our taxation.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONThey must still keep the land for the same purpose—football and cricket.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIt is not merely football and cricket; every charitable institution of every sort or kind is included, and if they reinvest their money in land they will be exempted from the provisions of the Bill. That may not be the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but that will be the effect of his Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Drafting Amendment made.
793§ Sir HENRY CRAIK moved, at the end of the second paragraph of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "and including all universities, colleges, schools, and other institutions for the promotion of literature, science, or art."
§ The point which I raise by this Amendment is one which I brought forward in Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not object to the merits at all. We fought that out in Committee, and he is, I understand, willing to concede what we ask. He has announced over and over again that he intends that these charitable purposes shall cover universities and colleges.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEPerhaps I may interrupt the hon. Member. There seems to be some doubt as to whether the old universities will come within the words "charitable institutions," and the hon. Gentleman wishes to make that clear. If he moves the Amendment in this form, leaving out the word "including," so that it runs "and all universities, colleges, schools," etc., I shall be prepared to accept it.
§ Proposed words, amended accordingly, there inserted in the Bill.
§ Sir JOHN JARDINE moved, in Subsection (2), after the word "society" ["any land held by a registered society"], to insert the words "or by a company or body of persons incorporated by the Joint Stock Companies Acts, 1862 to 1900, or by a special Act, and precluded by its memorandum of association or Act from dividing any profit amongst its members."
§ I believe that the proposal is in accordance with the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I move it on behalf of the National Trust for the Preservation of Places of Historical and National Interest, as there is some doubt whether the present words of the Clause cover this society, which is incorporated under a special Act of 1907. I ought to explain that this society is empowered by statute to accept on behalf of the nation lands and property to be held in perpetuity provided that they are such as ought to be preserved for the benefit of the whole nation. It differs very largely from charitable societies and institutions, although it is of a kindred character, inasmuch as it holds property for the benefit of the whole nation.
§ Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH seconded the Amendment.
794§ Sir W. ROBSONI shall be glad to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, but his wording requires a little alteration. He has referred to the Joint Stock Companies Acts, 1862 to 1900, but they have now been superseded by the Companies Consolidation Act. If he will move his Amendment in this form I shall be glad to accept it: "or by a company within the meaning of the Companies Consolidation Act, 1908, or any body of persons incorporated by special Act if that company or body is, by their memorandum of association or Act, precluded from dividing any profit amongst its members."
§ Sir J. JARDINEI will move the Amendment in that form.
§ Proposed words, amended accordingly, there inserted in the Bill.
§ Drafting Amendments also made.