HC Deb 27 April 1910 vol 17 cc536-79

Mr. VERNEY rose to call attention to the relation between the artificial restrictions in the use of land and unemployment; and to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the present system of taxation, rating, and tenure of land tends to restrict the best use of the land and the application to it of capital and labour, thereby hindering the production of wealth and causing unemployment."

I have no intention of attempting to cover the whole ground of this Motion. I have no panacea to offer for evils which exist, and, least of all, would I attempt a dose of quack medicine in the shape of Protection, which many years ago proved so mischievous to the body politic and the whole country at large. I would ask those who follow me whether we cannot arrive at some ideal as to what the tenure of land should be. I will deal mostly with tenure and very little with taxation or rating. There surely is some common ground upon which those who have been connected in the country with agricultural land, which has been my lot all my life, can possibly find some common ground upon which we can meet. I do not stand up here to propose a universal system of small holdings with an unlimited sub-division, without regard to soil, climate, neighbourhood of market, and conditions of those who live on the land; but I do think that, generally-speaking, opportunity should be given, and effort for varying kinds of tenure wherever the demand exists for them, freehold, leasehold, yearly tenancy, free trade in land, and no artificial restriction. Plots of land vary in size from the cottage garden, the allotment, the small holding and the farm—a tenure that would permit of facility of transfer and that would yet ensure adequate security to the tenant as well as to the freeholder, provided always that the land was being used for the good advantage of the community at large. Above all, I advocate that those who tive on the land and gain their livelihood by it should not be prevented by feudal law or arbitrary customs and restrictions from acquiring the raw material for their industry, that they should have access to the land in the same way as a tailor has access to cloth, or a shoemaker to leather. I think undoubtedly that there should be as little difficulty for the labourer to get his raw material and to rise in his profession and to advance in his trade and industry as for others who follow different lines of work, and who gain by their thrift and by their energy the position whicih they are able to hold later in life.

What is our English system of tenure. I venture to say that the landlord of a big estate holds a position which is held by perhaps nobody else in this country and by very few people abroad. He has got tremendous power in his hands over every farmer and every cottager on the estate, and, putting aside for the moment his legal right of eviction under the existing system, the comfort, the health, and the happiness of every family on that estate is largely dependent on the way in which the land- lord regards his position, duties to the people, and expenditure of his money. Landlords are called generally tenants for life, but those tenants for life make or mar an estate for many lives to follow after them. They may charge it with debts, of which the interest will make it absolutely impossible for succeeding landlords For generations to come to make farms tenant-able and cottages inhabitable. Many thousands of labourers to-day, and farmers also, are. suffering from the selfish and thoughtless extravagance of landlords who have been in their graces for generations perhaps. The heir to an estate, several thousands of acres perhaps, comes into his property as a young man, and is promptly informed by the family solicitor that he is nothing but a magnificent pauper. There is a mortgage, perhaps a hundred years old, absorbing £5,000 per year in interest. There are charges for the younger children; the widow two or three thousand more perhaps. There are bilk for repairs coming in, there is a large house to keep up, and the heir to the estate is the pauper of the family. He is supposed to give subscriptions to everything—to the hunt, the hospital, the churches and the chapels, friendly societies, bazaars, and athletic clubs—and the young man gives it up as a bad job, takes lodgings in London, lives in his club, and the old place goes to the dogs. That is the history of many an estate in this country, and a bad history it is, for not only he suffers, but the whole village, the whole estate, and every man and every woman and every child on it suffers. Farming deteriorates, and the farmers with the farms and the farm buildings. Those who can leave the place do so, especially the young men, and it takes many a long year to recover the mischief done by one single bad administration for one single life. There is the other picture, the bright one, and nobody has a better right than I have to dwell on that, of the landowner with brains enough and heart enough and money enough to keep everything straight, the friend of everyone on his property, helping lame dogs over stiles with quiet generosity which never leaks out, known-to everybody, loved by everybody, greeted with a nod and a smile by young and old. rich and poor. That is the other side of the picture, and I should not be fair if I did not represent that as1 well as the dark. Probably there are many in this House who have seen both as I have.

I wish to deal with the question of unemployment first of all from the general point of view. In 1851 there was a population in this country of 18,000,000, and at that time there were 1,370,000 workers on farms. In 1901, with a population not far short of double —32,500,000 —those 1,370,000 workers were reduced to 621,000. So that during the fifty years, while the population nearly doubled, the agricultural workers decreased to considerably less than half their former number. The worst of it was the most rapid decline took place during the last ten years. We all know that there are very good reasons given for that decline. People will tell you, with perfect truth, of the great advantages offered in the towns, how the opportunities for education, advancement, and everything else have been multiplied. I do not regret or grudge one of those opportunities; on the contrary, I think that that, is all as it should be; but, unfortunately, while the towns have advanced in this way, the country has not advanced in the same sense. Whereas young men to-day can find in the polytechnics in the great towns opportunities for pursuing their industry and climbing up the ladder from the journeyman to the employer by the aid of instruction of the very best kind, there are not the same opportunities in the country. The consequence is that many a young man in the country to-day is looking forward to the opportunity of coming into the town, where he can learn more and get better opportunities, rather than remain where he is with a wage of 15s. or 16s. per week, with the prospect of little better than the workhouse at the end of it all. In 1906 the Board of Agriculture published a Report on the decline in agricultural population. Allotments are very common, and the ground for them is forthcoming in many counties—not in all nor on all estates. The demand varies considerably, and depends largely on the distance of the allotments from the homes, the kind of soil, and the opportunities for cultivation. With regard to small holdings there is a difference. By looking through the pages of that Report it will be found that, while allotments are very generally forthcoming, the opportunities for getting small holdings are more rarely offered, with the result that the labourer who wishes, I think rightly, to gain an opportunity for rising in his trade and industry, having got an allotment, finds himself blocked because he cannot go any further. Those of us who would most willingly extend the system, and are engaged on county council small holdings committees, find a block in the way of many of our applicants, and we do not know how to remove it. The block is partly owing to the fact that there is a large expenditure necessary for buildings, fencing, and sometimes for water supply, in order to make the small holdings of real use to those who get them.

To show the curious and close connection between the tenure of land and unemployment I will give a concrete instance from a parish in my own county, of which I know the particulars. There in North Bucks was a farm belonging to an Oxford college. It consisted of 350 acres, partly arable, partly pasture. For many years the farm was occupied as a dairy farm, and about ten men and four boys were permanently employed. The farmer died and the new man, who was a non-resident, came from a distant county, and took the farm for breeding purposes. What happened? Eight of the men were dismssed: two men and one boy only are left, and occasionally a little casual labour is employed. That is the existing state of things, and it is typical of hundreds of farms all over the country. By way of contrast, in the same parish there are some ten or twelve small farmers, whose holdings cover very much the same acreage as the college farm. On those small holdings twelve households are supported, besides certain casual labour, which is tolerably continuous. Then, again, a very short distance from that parish, a nurseryman bought eleven acres, and has made a nursery garden, upon which he employs about three times as much labour as is employed on the 350 acres of the college farm. There you get the large farm, the small farmers, and the nurseryman with his intensive cultivation, and you could hardly have a greater contrast within a few miles. Everyone must see at once how closely connected are small holdings and population. In the Report of the Small Holdings Committee, 1906, there is the interesting evidence of Mr. J. H. Diggle, agent of the South Lincolnshire Small Holdings Association. He says:— Small holdings have been the fashion in the Holland Division of Lincolnshire for many years past. Within 40n square miles there are no less than 2,000 small holdings of from five to fifty acres. In 1891 —I call especial attention to the dates —the population of that division was 75,599. In 1901, instead of decreasing as it has done in many counties, it had actually increased by 2,000. Thus you find that, whereas in many other counties there is a melancholy story of a marked decrease in population in the last decade of the last century, in the districts where you have small holdings the population not only maintains its ground, but is likely to increase. The evils of depopulation are really not felt at all in those districts. As for the other parishes around, I find from the evidence in the Report to which I have referred that in ten years, when there were hardly any small holdings, perhaps none, there was an exodus supposed to mount up to 2,500 from nineteen parishes near Spalding; but from 1892 to 1902, since the Small Holdings Act was in full blast, the exodus has dropped. In those very same parishes where there were no small holdings in the earlier period, the moment the small holdings remedy was applied the population maintained its ground. Perhaps the House will bear with me while I quote two concrete cases of estates managed by gentlemen well known to most Members of this House. The first case is that of the President of the Board of Agriculture, a well-known Bucks and Lincolnshire landlord. The Noble Lord came into possession of his property in 1868. At that time there were on the Carrington estate sixty-one small holdings and 100 allotments of from 20 poles to an acre in extent. That was in 1868. In 1910, instead of sixty-one small holdings on that estate there were 219, and instead of 100 allotments there are 2,059. Besides this there are at this moment about 100 acres either leased or offered by the President of the Board of Agriculture to the county council. There are ninety-eight acres let to parish councils for allotment. There are 143 acres at Wycombe for the Small Holders Co-operative Association there. There are 967 acres let for the South Lincolnshire Small Holders Association, and, I was going to say the very best of it, but at all events, not the worst part of it is that these allotments and small holdings bring in to the owner of this estate a quite sufficient return —further, the rents are practically paid with absolute punctuality.

Take one village in Buckinghamshire, the village of Drayton Parslow, an entirely agricultural village, with a total population according to the last Census, of 369. The total acreage of that village is 1,749. Of this, 781 acres belong to the President of the Board of Agriculture. Of this land 417 acres are let out in allotments and small holdings, and the rest in two farms. About twenty men and boys are employed by the large farmers. The remainder—say 350—get their living mainly, not entirely, from the small holdings and the allotments on that estate. When you come to understand that the soil is poor clay, and that the village is five miles from the nearest station, and that the town there is not a market town, you will understand—everyone who interests himself in agriculture will understand —what splendid material is there—how gallantly the men who work these allotments stick to their job, and how well they deserve of their country. You will find, under circumstances which most people would tell you are singularly unfavourable for successful experiments in small holdings, a success where perhaps you least would expect it. May I give one other case in Lincolnshire, a case very well known to a recent Member of this House (Sir Charles Rose). The result of the work recently done during the last few years is so remarkable that I venture to trouble the House with it. Burwell Farm was leased in 1906 by Sir Charles Rose at a rental of £700 per year. He spent about £1,870 on equipment at the start, and £1,600 on eight new cottages and some additional buildings. For two years previous to Sir Charles Rose taking this farm it had been "in hand," managed by the Crown receivers, and thirty-nine men and boys were employed on that farm. Under Sir Charles Rose's new r égime there are now eighty-three tenants on allotments and small holdings. About twenty of them get their whole living off the holdings, and there is hired labour besides. The figures —I have got them at first hand —are very striking as regards the cattle and the stock on that farm. In 1906 there were sixty-six head of cattle; in 1907 that figure had risen to 171, and in 1909 to 267. In 1906 there were 122 pigs; in 1909 249 pigs. In 1906 the poultry numbered 267, and in 1909 637. Food stuffs bought in 1908 amounted to £753, and in 1909 to £1,141.

Anyone who is the least bit acquainted with the figures on agricultural estates will know what an enormous amount that means in progress, in prosperity, in success in encouraging the ambition of those who cultivate that land. I think, at all events, that the agricultural Members of this House will warmly congratulate the author of that interesting experiment on the success which he has achieved so far. May I also mention some of the attempts now being made to improve the small holdings movement, and to expand the policy which has proved so successful and beneficial to the country. There is a Bill before Parliament which bears the name on it of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture. That Bill is to provide compensation to tenants who have been served with notice to quit in order that their land may be used for allotments and for small holdings under the Act of 1908.That, I think, is an eminently fair measure. I have often come across farmers who inquire what the land is these small holders want? The answer, of course, invariably is the same: "We want the best." very naturally! Yet, I am sure everyone in this House will agree with me, that you may by taking away even a single field from a farm lower the average value of that farm so much that many farmers would give it up. Everyone who knows anything about the cultivation of land knows that the value for cultivation of one field may vary immensely. The top of the field may be worth 30s. an acre, and the bottom worth 5s. I have known such cases. They continually come up before us who happen to be members of a small holdings committee in our own county. A great difference in the value makes it very difficult indeed to deal fairly with the farmer, as well as every other class, in administering the Acts relating to small holdings and allotments. Let me say in passing no one has so little wish to run amok with the farmers than I myself have. I know so well the difficulties that they have to go through. We have watched many of them in bad season after bad season, struggling with many difficulties which have been successfully overcome only with great skill and energy, and nobody would wish to deal unfairly with farmers while they are trying to deal fairly with other classes of agriculturists. There are now attempts also being made to multiply small holdings. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham is bringing in a Bill, backed by several Conservative Members, in order to allow county councils in certain cases to advance the whole of the purchase money for small holdings. In addition to that under the right hon. Gentleman's Bill the county council may advance a large proportion for the necessary buildings to be put up. I have no kind of dislike to that provided always that it is on sound economic lines, and provided always that you get the right man and the right land brought together. Under these circumstances nothing could be more to the point than that you should give the small holder the power of obtaining the capital which is absolutely necessary for the work that he has got to do.

The Duke of Bedford is now making a very interesting attempt which we shall all watch with great interest. He is turning a farm of 450 acres near Ampthill into small holdings, and we all wish him success in that venture. I ask the House to focuss its attention on one or two proposals which I have to make. I think what we really want is to improve to some extent the Small Holdings Act where it has been found deficient. We want vigorous and active administration. We do not always get it.

I was put upon the sub-committee of the Bucks County Council, and I sat under a Conservative chairman to examine applications and to receive applications from those who wanted small holdings. We examined forty-three, and out of these thirty-eight were passed as thoroughly satisfactory. My Conservative friend who was chairman of that committee said to me, "This has been a perfect revelation to me. These men who come forward and ask for land are the very men who ought to be put upon the land." I am afraid, although that happened nearly two years ago, many of these men are applicants still, and will have to wait for months before they can get land for which they are so fitted and which they are thoroughly capable to work. What we want is to speed up the procedure under the early clauses of the Act of 1908. People who are acquainted with the actual administration of that Act will agree that is what is wanted, and I think the procedure could be speeded up without doing any harm or injustice to the farmers or to any other class.

The Act is very dilatory. It is a complicated Act to put in force. It may have been right as a matter of caution when the Act was first passed to extend the time for procedure so as to make quite certain that no damage should be done while the Act was in an experimental stage; but now, when the time for experiment is passed by, and people know what can be done under the Act, I think it would be safe to speed up some of the procedure so as not to keep applicants waiting month after month, and sometimes year after year, for land which they deserve to get. The county council were given powers under Section 49 of the Act to promote the formation or extension of co-operative societies for providing or working small holdings. I venture to suggest that the Development Fund, with which we will be dealing to-night, might profitably come in, and rightly come in, in helping in the formation of these co-operative societies. Those who have watched co-operation in Ireland as applied to agriculture, and who have watched co-operation in Denmark and Holland and other European countries, understand, as nobody else can, the wonderful assistance co-operation is to all sorts of agriculture in all sorts of different ways. May I suggest one way that has not been brought before the House before? The chairman of a syndicate of 160 farmers in North Holland once said to me: "Your inspectors in England are your farmers' worst enemies. They are our best friends; and why? For the simple reason," said he, "we employ our own inspectors. Your inspectors in England in most cases come around to penalise and to impose fines. The difficulty we have with the members of our agricultural societies is this: they are always sending for the inspector. They telegraph for him immediately anything appears to go wrong with the farm, and he comes, not to inflict a fine or to cause trouble, but to get the farmer out of his difficulties." This occurred in a dairying district, and he pointed out that if the milk is found in any way tainted the cans are sealed up by this official and sent on to the creamery; there they are further tested, if necessary, by the Government inspector, and if the milk is found to be injurious it is officially destroyed. I ask how about the farmer, does he not lose his milk? "Oh, no," he said, "he does not lose his milk, because there is a mutual insurance, and if the man had obeyed the rules of his society he will get paid for his milk the same average price that he has been getting for it for the last six weeks."

By co-operation you would solve this great difficulty of supplying pure milk, because it is to the interest of every farmer in that district that his milk should be pure, and there is no penalty attaching to him if disease should break out on his farm. It would be of immense interest to our dairy commerce in counties like my own, where dairy farming is the staple trade for the locality. I venture to suggest that it is an important thing that we should have every possible form of co-operation, that we should spend the necessary amount of money upon educating the younger men and fitting them to deal scientifically with farming in the future, and that we should encourage them and give them the best hopes, so that they may be anxious to remain on the land because there is a bright future before them. By doing so, I think this House will confer an enormous blessing upon the country, and make sure that we shall no longer have the curse of depopulation staring us in the face and increasing year by year until it has become a real national danger.


I rise with pleasure to second the Resolution which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Verney). He has spoken a great deal in regard to the latter part of this Resolution dealing with the tenure of land. I propose to confine myself principally to the other points spoken of in the other Resolution, namely, the taxation and the rating of land. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the problems which my hon. Friend has alluded to are very keen and pressing in agricultural areas. Any person who has paid attention to the very serious depopulation of our agricultural districts, and the great decrease in the agricultural population generally, must feel that this is a most serious matter for a nation such as ours, but although the problem is acute in the agricultural districts, I think the particular phases of it to which we call attention this evening, are, if anything, more acute and pressing in the urban centres of population. I have been all my life mainly an inhabitant of the towns, and I think if we study the condition of things in the towns we shall see that although the rightful use of land and the conditions of its tenure are of great value in the country districts, the right use of the land and the method of taxation and rating of the land are of infinitely greater moment in the urban districts. Our country has become during the last half-century a country consisting to the extent of 75 per cent. of urban population. Although land is indeed valuable in the agricultural districts it is infinitely more valuable for the elementary necessities of life in the urban districts, and we find that whatever discovery is made, whatever works are erected, if you sink a coal-mine, if you start a factory, if you develop a railway, whatever may be the useful purpose to which you set yourself, you are treated not as a benefactor, but very largely as a malefactor, and the enemy of the human race.

I can give as a case in point the council on which I sat as a member shortly after the year 1894. A railway runs through that little township about six miles in length. That railway was rated to the general district rates of the town at nearly £15,000, or at the rate of £2,500 per mile. The improvements brought about by this railway were very great, but the landowners in that particular area received all the benefit, while the railway, which had really been a great boon to the district and a still greater boon to the landowners, was burdened with taxation and assessed at the rate of £15,000 a year. A little later on coal mining property was developed very largely.

9.0 P.M.

Before the town had possessed a rural character, but after that it became a very hive of industry. Land which at the highest agricultural value had not been worth more than £2 an acre began to yield rentals of £50 per acre, and the persons who were in receipt of this profit did not contribute one halfpenny to local taxation, the whole burden falling entirely upon the workers and those who may be euphemistically described as "captains of industry." At least we can say to the credit of the mine owner that he did take some risk— Hope springs eternal in the human breast, and they were prepared to invest their money in the hope that they were engaging in a profitable enterprise. They did take the risk and they paid all the local rates. Tramways were constructed, new schemes of lighting and new streets were made, and large aggregations of men came together, and all the elements and needs of civilised society had to be met, and the whole cost of these new conditions fell not upon the men who were reaping the immense values to create which they had not lifted hand or foot, but upon those who developed the enterprise either by brains or capital, as in the case of the colliery owners and the railway company, or else upon the working men who were risking life and limb every day in these enterprises. Surely that is a condition of things which nobody can contend is equitable.

I noticed an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Sir John Randles) which proposes to call attention to unemployment and to insert in this Motion after the word "land" the words "when coupled with the free importation of competing foreign products not subjected to similar burdens." I am not going to enlarge upon that special Amendment, but I would like to ask the hon. Member's attention to the question whether it is not a fact that in every nation in the world where they have a similar system of land holding to that which exists in the British Isles, and where they have a similar system of rating and taxation you do not have exactly the same evils complained of in the shape of widespread unemployment continual recurring depression, and dislocation of industry as you have in the British Isles. That is beyond all dispute, whatever may be the nature of your fiscal system. This is a quack remedy which is suggested by the hon. Member, and that is the last word I am going to say about it. Instead of treating the people who initiate and develop industry as being folks deserving of credit, and deserving to have their enterprise assisted and encouraged, our present system of rating does everything to discourage and to throttle their efforts. Let me give a case in point. We have very near the Division I represent a great colliery company. It sank a great amount of capital, lost thousands of pounds upon the enterprise, paid away in royalty rents alone £10,000, and was met by the royalty owner half-way through the term of the lease by a request for a greater royalty. So great had been the local burden of taxation, that it was utterly impossible for the colliery company to pay. They said: "We really cannot go on." The royalty owner insisted upon his demand, and the colliery had to be closed. The royalty owner took over the shafts and the cottage property. In the meantime he had escaped all local taxation, and he paid very little indeed to Imperial taxation. Therefore, whatever enterprise the community engages in, is constantly bringing grist to the mill of the private landowner, and the burdens piled upon the general community makes it more and more difficult for the community to meet its increasing needs.

During the last ten years the town of Wigan has increased in rateable value by 30 per cent. The chances are that on an average £25,000 a year has been added to the rateable value during that period. That really means that to the owners of the ground rents there has been given this very large sum. It simply tends to check and to thwart the development and the industries of the place, and because of the high rates to-day, we find that town, like many other towns, unable to make that advance in general improvements which it really ought to make. The one person, or the one body of persons, who sit like "the Old Man of the Sea" upon the shoulders of every real improvement, checking the improvement, holding it back, and in many cases making enterprise impossible, are the people who escape local taxation, and who are paying as the days go on an ever lessening share of Imperial taxation, namely, the landowners of the country.

Every necessity of health, every amenity, and every social reform send up the value of the land. Hon. Members on the other side say, "Tax luxuries." There may be a good deal to be said for that, but our present system of rating and of taxation taxes necessities. There is no greater necessity than to have freedom to breathe and decent housing conditions whereby our people can live a decent Christian life. Is that possible in the great cities of today? I hope, as indeed everyone must hope, that it is becoming at least a little more possible because of the trend of general legislation and because of the awakening responsibility of the nation; but, if ever there was a city that suffered from congestion, it is the city that I am proud to own as my native place —the City of Liverpool.

Very many years ago Liverpool endeavoured to provide for the needs of its people, and they constructed at great expense a fine park —Sefton Park. They paid to the man who was good enough to let them have the land £250,000 for the land alone, and they spent in generally improving the site another £150,000. The landowner, the Earl of Sefton, retained the whole of the building frontage. They spent on that park, in order to enable that great community to breathe more freely, £400,000, and the whole of that immense burden fell upon the rates. The immensely increased value of the land, of course, sent up the rent-roll of my Lord of Sefton. He sat on velvet all the time. Than we wonder, when these conditions can be multiplied by the tens of thousands all the country over, why the rates are high and why every dividend-paying company every half-year sends out piteous appeals to its shareholders to try and get hold of the local governing councils in order to keep down the rates.

Liverpool, which, as everyone of course knows, is a great commercial city, had need not very long ago, for a new post-office. The Government built a new post-office. Land, of course, was again required, and my Lord of Derby was kind enough to provide the land. The land for which not a single halfpenny had ever been paid in the history of the whole of his family became worth to my Lord of Derby £100,000. The nation spent another £150,000 upon the erection of a building, and in that instance alone £250,000 were saddled upon Imperial taxation. The landowner gains £250,000, and pays, I suppose, something like 9d. in the £ Income Tax and believes he is very badly hit at that. A little later, when we try to improve things a bit he believes himself to be cruelly wronged, suggests the nation should be consulted, and hangs up the Budget in the meantime. That is the kind of treatment we are receiving.

I suggest that the burdens upon the people, because of the inequalities of our system of rating and of taxation, have reached a point when they very well cannot bear them. The land must bear a fair and increasing share of the taxation. There must not only be a valuation of the land, but there must be taxation for local and Imperial purposes of the value that that land is declared to possess. I do not see why if a person, merely for his own advantage, cares to hold land up, or if even he holds it up in the desire to get a greater price for it at a later date, an assessor is not entitled to some along and say, "Declare for yourself the present value of your land, and at your declared price that land shall figure in the rate book, and shall pay its fair share of the local charges." I do not see also why the Imperial tax collector has not an equal right to say, "Declare the value of your land." I am speaking of existing values. The Budget does not propose to tax existing values. It only proposes to tax values when they are increased on the present valuation. I would like to point out that even the Land Tax, which land-owners pay at the present time, was considerably reduced fourteen years ago. The tax was then 2s. in the £. In 1896 it was reduced to 1s., and a burden was thereby imposed upon leaseholders which they did not seem to be aware of; at least there was no outcry on their part; and, of course, there was no outcry from the people at the other end of the Chamber when the tax was reduced from 2s. to 1s. I say that that is a very unfair proportion. We have a right to declare that industry shall not be unfairly burdened in the manner it is. We have a right to say that the improvements carried out by the general community shall not result to the pecuniary disadvantage of that commuunity; but that those who really benefit by them —by the construction of new buildings, of school-houses, parks, and tramways, and the thousand other methods in which municipal enterprise manifests itself, I say we have a right to declare that the burden shall not fall on the improvement, but that it should be imposed on the person in receipt of the increased value of the land arising from the carrying out of the improvements. That is the main reason why I second the Resolution, because the burdens on the people in the urban centres are already so great that they have reached the straining, if not the breaking, point. Any person who has gone into the figures will have seen that the rent alone of the ordinary cottage property of this country has during the last quarter of a century increased by 30 per cent., and almost the whole of that increased value has gone into the pockets of those who toil not neither do they spin. A story is told of a landowner on the other side of the Irish Channel who was known as Cosy Murphy. He owned some land in Dublin. He was a bit of a pessimist; he was very doubtful of mankind. So one day he took to his bed, and he remained there for seven or eight years. Did his property deteriorate in value during that time? Not at all. Because of the necessities of Dublin his land increased in value week by week, and month by month, until eight years later, when he came out and viewed once more the face of man, he found that his property had quadrupled in value without the slightest effort on his part. Other people had been taxed to make Cosy Murphy comfortable. A system which permits of that surely merits the condemnation of everybody. It is so unfair to the toiler, it gives the sluggard and the drone a reward ten thousand times greater than any merit he may possess. Resolutions in this House, although they may seem at the moment to be futile, are really worth passing by reason of the effect they have in educating public opinion, and it is for that reason I have the heartiest possible pleasure in seconding the Resolution.

Sir JOHN RANDLES moved as an Amendment, after the word "land" ["rating and tenure of land"] to insert the words "when coupled with the free importation of competing foreign products not subject to similar burdens."

It is a matter full of significance that when a private Member of this House gets an opportunity to ventilate what he regards as a matter of urgency and of importance we all seem with one consent to come to the question of unemployment. The difficulty of the day seems to be to provide employment for large numbers of willing workers who find it impossible to earn a wage sufficient to keep themselves and their families in comfort. After what we heard during the Debates earlier in the evening on the Budget from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and others, one would think that we lived in a country where there is abounding and abundant prosperity; where we are all more or less wealthy, and where the last thing we need trouble about in the starving multitude of people, reinforced constantly by numbers who are living on the verge of starvation, and find it almost impossible to get their daily bread. All this is a severe comment on the conditions under which we live. The hon. Member who moved these Resolutions endeavoured to search, with some success, for the evils which help to promote unemployment. His Seconder addressed himself to some other points which he thought would afford a remedy. The Mover spent most of his time in dealing with the question of the tenure of land; the Seconder gave voice to his dissatisfaction with our system of taxation and rating. I myself agree with much that was said about the desirability of an improved tenure of land, and I was very glad to hear the Mover commenting as he did on the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings). I think it was a great mistake when the Bill under which county councils let small holdings was, in deference to certain opinions, prevented from making small ownership possible. The Bill does not help a man to become an owner.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson)

The Small Holdings Bill dealt with ownership only, in order to facilitate it, and there was not a single clause which put any impediment in the way of or any prohibition against ownership, indeed, the clauses were intended to facilitate it.


I do not suggest the Small Holdings Bill was a positive preventive, but I say it was not a Bill intended to promote small ownership. Perhaps I was not happy in my choice of words, but I wished to urge that small ownership is greatly to be desired, and that tenancy is of far less practical value and far less likely to be successful. I heard of a case during the last General Election which deals with this point. It was put to me at one of my meetings. A man said that in his neighbourhood he wanted to get fifty acres of land. The letting value was about £1 per acre. The county council proposed to let him have the fifty acres, but it was found that it would be necessary to build a farmhouse and farm buildings, and it worked out that, instead of having to pay the £1 per acre which he thought the land was worth, he would be called upon to pay nearer £3 per acre. He consequently said, "I am not going to take land at £3 an acre that I only regard as worth £1 an acre." In that case nothing came of it, and there must be many such, so that I say that it is very desirable to follow the line indicated by the Mover of the Resolution as regards the tenure of land in order to get the best out of our land. I agree we must remove these artificial restrictions which prevent us from getting the best out of our land, as they also do in regard to our manufactures.


Is rating a means of artificial restriction?


I am not going to quarrel with my hon. Friend as to the artificial restrictions. I am going to touch on the point raised by the Seconder. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the rating and taxation of land, and I might have some sympathy with him, but I notice that he rejects my remedy as a quack remedy. Still there is a good deal to be said for it, and while I agree that the system of rating and taxation is not a happy one as far as the remedy of the hon. Member was concerned, it seemed to me to be this, put more rates and taxes on the land.


Whether used or not.


We are told to get more out of the land, but what will that do? It simply means this, that rents will go up and the man at the bottom —the working man —who must have his place to live in, must have his house or cottage or whatever it may be, will find that all the burdens you are going to put on land in trying to get more out of the landlord in rates and taxes are going to come down with crushing weight on the man at the bottom. I am afraid that this remedy which is suggested is not nearly so easy as is that which we propose.

This country advisedly years ago adopted what is called Free Trade, and at the time I at any rate will not question the absolute desirability of the course which was taken. We found as a nation that we were a nation of agriculturists moderately well off, but as manufacturers we were just finding our feet, in consequence of the improvement in steam and the march of invention. Other nations were willing to do the agricultural work of the world, and gladly enough at that time they assented to the workshop of the world becoming our own country. It was a very wise policy then to sacrifice to some extent agricultural interests in order to build up huge manufacturing interests, and it was done advisedly, but I do think it is a mistake not to recognise changes in conditions. The conditions which were eminently suitable to that day and generation have changed, and that is why I find fault with those who like my hon. Friend call my remedy a quack remedy. They do not recognise the changed conditions.

When all the world were willing to be agriculturists, and we were to be the manufacturers, we must have free and open ports, so far as we could get them; but as time went on the other nations of the world came to the conclusion that they also would be manufacturing nations, and that they would artificially develop their manufactures. And this within our lifetime. I myself am not old, and I might give an illustration of what I know myself from my own trade—the steel trade. When I was young it is within my knowledge that the export trade of rails went to Continental countries, Germany, Italy, France, and the rest of them. Not by accident, not by superior methods of production, but by artificially designed preventives the other countries, as with the cutting of a knife, stopped the export into their country of this class of goods. That was artificial restriction, and we fell back upon other countries, Russia, the United States, Canada, and they in turn cut off our trade in the same way, because they designed artificially to do so. It was not the natural law of things, but it was artificial prevention and design, and they succeeded, and the whole change comes about. It is not only to one article that it applies, but to many, and to nearly every article which we produce in some form or another in some part of the world. That being so, what I say is this: Conditions are changed, and those conditions which have made it so desirable for us to put our energies into manufactures no longer exist. You could say in those days to the agricultural labourer, "There is no lack of employment for you if you turn to the manufactures and become labourers in our urban centres." But those conditions which attracted them have ceased, and we are not the great and leading manufacturing nation in the world. Other nations have gone in front of us. Take the case of iron and steel. We occupy to-day a third place, and not a very good third place, in regard to those manufactures. Our manufacturers who used to be first in this particular branch are now third, and a very long way behind the United States, so that the conditions have changed which made so advantageous the policy of our forefathers.

This change of conditions has made it necessary, if we exercise common sense, that we should look facts in the face with a view to changing our policy again. It is no use for my hon. Friend to say, "This is a quack remedy." When these other countries designed and perfected their policy they knew that they were agriculturists exclusively, and they desired to become both agriculturists and manufacturers, and there in the combination of the two you have the best conditions for the employment and contentment of the people. You have the alternatives which make for health and for prosperity. When other nations looked this policy in the face and decided to become manufacturing nations, as I say we should decide to become an agricultural nation, wise men, clever men, not just quacks, had to consider this question. In the United States Abraham Lincoln was faced with his problem, and he took the line which the Mover and Seconder would regard as a quack movement for the improvement of his country. Prince Bismarck was faced with the question of the employment of the German soldiers after the Franco-Prussian war. When the German military authorities were preparing to discharge large bodies of men on the country, he was faced with this question of employment, and he may have thought at first that the remedy was a quack one; but he faced it. [An HON. MEMBER: "How many years later?"] As many years as would give indication of the full facts, so as to enable him to decide whether he should continue his policy. Prince Bismarck went to the manufacturers and said, "So many men are coming from the army every year. You must find employment for them, and I will do what I can to enable you to do it." And the result has been the building up of an agricultural Germany and of an enormously rich manufacturing Germany.


May I point out to the hon. Member that it was nine years after the termination of the Franco-German War and after constant pressure from the Agrarian party that Prince Bismarck imposed a tariff at all?


I do not think that that is not in agreement with what I have said. It took nine years to convince Prince Bismarck, and I hope my hon. Friend will, after nine years, come to the same conclusion. It may not take so long in his case. At any rate, that was the conclusion that Prince Bismarck came to for Germany, quack or no quack. Take Canada. If the hon. Member will read the speech that Sir John MacDonald made in which he describes the condition prior to the adoption of tariffs in Canada, and after the adoption of tariffs, he will see that he attributes the prosperity of that country absolutely to the policy of tariffs. I say the United States adopted them. May I give a quotation that I got from to-day's paper from the Vice-President of the United States, Mr. Sherman, speaking, I presume, this week. This is long after Abraham Lincoln had initiated the policy. This is what he says:— He declared that the Protectionist policy of America could never be abandoned. The now law was working better than its framers had planned. It is a revenue getter, for it will probably wipe out the deficit in the first year. He pointed out on the other hand that the imports for the past eight months of the fiscal year exceeded by over $200,000,000 those of the previous year, and stated that nine-tenths of those imports could be made in America. He would not say that any American industry had been injured thereby, but he asked if it would not be well to examine closely these increased importations, and consider, when we again revise our tariffs, whether it will not be necessary to check the sentiment for further downward revision, and probably instead we will resort to revision upwards in some of the schedules. This is the result of the policy and the endorsement of it by a responsible statesman in the United States, and when our proposals are dismissed in two words as merely quack remedies, I think it is not giving due heed to considerations which, at any rate, have weighed with statesmen in other countries, and which have produced results which are causing, in my opinion, at any rate, vast masses of our fellow-countrymen to endure suffering and hardship which are removeable if we adopted, not the ideal policy perhaps, but the policy which has been adopted by statesmen in other countries, and which have made those other countries, at any rate, prosperous and largely wealthy, and carrying large populations in comfort and affluence.

To return to the question of agriculture and the tenure of land, you may put upon the land as many men as you wish; but what they really require and must have above all else is a market for their products. If they are to have a market for their products you must not close your eyes to the necessities of the case, and it is very difficult to get Free Traders to look at this question from the point of view of markets. It seems to be assumed that if a man grows potatoes, or any other product, there is a ready market waiting to take his products at whatever price may seem to him necessary, but that is far from the case. Our producers are being handicapped and restricted by the very incidence of this taxation, which is pressing so heavily upon the land, and which the tendency is to place upon the land, which must come out of the man who uses the land, whether it be for agriculture or for manufacturing purposes. At any rate, we are only doing what is common-sense if we impose a burden upon the competing foreigner who tries to sell in our markets equivalent to the rates and taxes which are placed upon the producer at home, and hence my Amendment. If the British farmer pays rates and taxes equal to 10 per cent, on the cost of what he produces, if he has to compete in our market with a man whose taxation does not amount to 1 per cent., how is he going to stand against the competition? We used to be protected by distance, but now, water carriage being so very much cheaper than land carriage, many parts are practically in close touch with our greatest markets at little more cost, or in many cases not so much cost, as the farmers farming land in our own countryside. It is commonsense. If you are going to adopt a land policy which will place men on the land you must give them a fair opportunity to compete with the foreigner, at any rate in our own markets at home. The remedies will be incomplete unless you couple with these pro- posals, which have to do with carriage and with tariffs, and take into account the whole circumstances of the case under which competition is to be conducted. The tendency, I agree, is, on large farms particularly, that the employment of the people is lessened very largely by the form of culture. Instead of our growing wheat, which will employ labour, we tend to grow grass. The same applies in our manufactures. Instead of using our coal to make iron and steel the tendency is to send our coal abroad and to sell it as raw material. Further on you see the same process. The tendency is rather for us to be selling our iron than to make it into manufactured steel. The tendency, in fact, in this country, under our system of taxation and tariffs, is more and more to supply the raw material to the foreigner and less and less to supply goods into which labour is put. Let me give an illustration of what I mean. It is quite a common thing now for coal sold on the Tyne to go to Germany and to come back to the West Coast of Cumberland and undersell Northumberland and Durham coke.


Can the hon. Gentleman give us any definite case where that is done?


I have bought it myself.


You have not.


I have bought coke from Germany and it has been sent from the Tyne. [An HON. MEMBER: "And I have sent the coals."] The chain seems to be complete. I speak subject to correction, but that is what I believe to be the case. Allow me to give another illustration which will perhaps more effectively bear out my point, that the tendency is for us to export articles with less of labour in them. I speak of what I know best. I will take steel rails again as an illustration. I take the Board of Trade Returns for five years. They are the latest I could get. They are for the five years terminating at the end of 1907. I find that from the United Kingdom, in the five years from 1903 to 1907, our exports of this particular commodity were as follows, leaving out the hundreds: 604,000, 525,000, 546,000, 450,000, and 430,000 tons, a steady diminution in years of great trade prosperity. Let me give the same figures for Germany, France, and the United States. They begin in 1903 with 451,000 tons, and the figures for the following years are 683,000, 627,000, 754,000, and 818,000, showing that in years of prosperity in the world's trade the total volume exported from these different countries greatly increased. These foreign countries almost doubled and we decreased. That goes to show that the tendency not only in agriculture, but in manufactures also, under the conditions under which we are living and working, is to employ less labour. Though we may have equal wealth we may have more unemployed. Though bankers and financiers and large capitalists may be making their wealth just as freely and fully, it is at the expense of the workers of the country —the vast population which find it difficult, if not impossible, to get employment. This is being aggravated by the conditions under which we are forced to live.

Let me point out the significance of these particular figures I have quoted. They show a diminution of 200,000 tons of rails in the annual exports. That quantity means about £1,000,000, which distributed in the countryside means that the working miners, the railways, the shipping ports, furnacemen, rollers, still-workers, the grocer, the farmer, the butcher, and tradesmen of all kinds; rates, rents, and taxes, charities, and all the rest which go to make up life, were poorer by the distribution of £1,000,000 less under these conditions. It may be argued that in return we get a cheaper food supply. To my mind cheapness is not worth worshipping at the expense of the happiness of a vast proportion of the population. In the particular industry to which I am now referring, I know that in my own locality not hundreds, but thousands of people find their employment intermittent, and during the last five years they have on the whole worked at their employment not more than 50 or 60 per cent. of their proper working time. That means that though wages are high and the conditions of employment on the whole satisfactory— the average wage is 30s. for man and boy—yet if you take that amount of wage, whether 30s., 40s., or 50s., if a man is intermittently employed, and only finds employment during 50 or 60 per cent, of his working time, he is in a worse position than if, with regular employment, the loaf cost him 1s. per week more. People who are intermittently employed would rather have regular work and pay a little more than have irregular employment. They would like this House, I am sure, not to dismiss a proposal of this kind, which goes, as many of us believe, to the root of a great deal of our difficulty in finding employment. They would not have it dismissed as a quack remedy. They would wish that farmers and producers of all kinds of commodities in this country should have fair play in competition with foreigners, and that people should not be forced to leave the land in which they were born to go to countries where tariffs are in existence, where Protection is the rule, and where the welfare of the workers is cared for.


The hon. Member who moved the Resolution (Mr. Verney) referred to many matters and I am sure hon. Members on this side of the House are in accord with much of what he said. He referred to the encouragement of allotments and small holdings by the President of the Board of Agriculture (Lord Carrington). The hon. Member perhaps made rather too much of what the Noble Lord has done in that matter. I am informed that his Lordship owns over 23,000 acres, and that his allotments work out at 9 for every 100 acres. Since this Debate, began I have been in communication with an hon. Member on this side of the House who is also a large landowner, and he tells me that on his land the allotments number thirty to every hundred acres. Reference was made to the small holdings upon Lord Carrington's property. The number works out at one small holding to every hundred acres. My friend whom I consulted tells me that the small holdings upon his property are double that number—certainly two to every hundred acres. I merely mention this to show that what the President of the Board of Agriculture has done, though no doubt very creditable, is not at all exceptional. Nor is such a method of development in any way confined to Members who are supporters of the present Government. I should like to point out that the number of allotments on the property of the President of the Board of Agriculture works out, roughly speaking, at about 500 acres, and the small holdings to 2,000 acres, allowing 10 acres to a small holding, so that after all is said and done the Noble Lord has still over 20,000 acres for large holdings. I think the hon. Member opposite might, have found many other cases which would have more strongly supported the policy which he and we alike desire to see developed. But here there is one little difference which we have with the hon. Member, and that is as to the principle upon which these small holdings are set up. We on this side of the House believe in the magic of ownership. Some of us perhaps own a piece of land, and know from our own personal experience that even if the land produces very little or nothing for us, yet the sense of ownership makes us concentrate our energies and attention upon it, and we are willing to make sacrifices for it. How much more would that be the case with occupiers if, instead of having the prospect all his life of making these eternal payments to the county council, with no prospect of ever coming any nearer the ownership of his holding, he had the prospect upon which the party with which I am associated has already concentrated its mind, that every yearly contribution which he makes towards the purchase of the property was bringing him nearer to the day when he would become absolute owner of the soil.

10.0 P.M.

The hon. Member referred to the disadvantage of land being charged with mortgages, and spoke as if it were tied up and there were no chance of getting at it, though it was not economically worked and the management was bad. In some cases that does exist. But we know that under the Settled Lands Act there is no difficulty about selling it. It can be sold even if it is in possession of a life tenant merely and the encumbrances can be wiped off. Then the land becomes available for what we might suppose to be far better management. With reference to the migration of the young people from the country to the towns, I rather gather from the hon. Member that the garish attractions of the cities have a great power of inducing young people to go from the country places to the towns. That unquestionably is so. But I think very often it is little realised in some country places, and credit in this respect is to such men as the hon. Member for North Bucks, who is in touch with country people, and who brings this before us as often as he has an opportunity of doing it—that, after all, life in the country is not a tedious or a monotonous life. On the contrary, it is a life containing far more variety than many of the occupations to be found in towns. Take the life of a country lad working on a farm. To-day he is ploughing, to-morrow he is hoeing or sowing. His other occupations, too, in the course of the week, are various. Now he is looking after the horses, now he is tending cattle, now he is feeding pigs. There is a constant variety and change, and he has an opportunity of mastering the details of an industry. But follow that lad to a town or a city where he becomes a textile operative, or works in a large ironworks. He is perhaps putting bits of iron into a hole the entire day, everlastingly doing the same thing. Tedium and monotony follow him day in and day out. and hour in and hour out. There is no comparison as to the attractiveness of the two lives. I think if that were more placed before our folk in the country many of them would be less attracted than they are to towns and cities.

Out of fifty young men who migrate into the towns, from the country there are perhaps only two who obtain the prizes of occupations. We do not hear about the forty-eight who gravitate to the docks or among the unemployed, and who are ashamed to come back to their village because of their condition. But we are constantly having brought before us one or two cases in which the country lad has been successful in the town. Very little was said by the Mover of the Amendment on the subject of taxation, rating, or the tenure of land, but reference was made by the Seconder to the subject of rating and tenure of land. There is no doubt that land is taxed out of all proportion as compared with other forms of property, and when we think of the way in which our rating, and taxing system arose it seems quite a reasonable thing that it should be so, because the time was when land was the only form of property, and therefore all the burden was put on the land. Therefore, even to-day, as we heard earlier in the Debate, we fail to realise that that condition of things obtains to a very great extent, and the state of affairs to which the hon. Member for North Bucks draws attention largely arises out of that fact. If once we recognise that the industry of land cultivation ought really to be put on the same level so far as the burden of taxation and rates are concerned equitably with other industries, then the agricultural industry will once more very largely revive and move in the direction of the conditions which at one time obtained. Now, as my hon. Friend reminded us a moment ago, freights constitute a very keen competition in agricultural work, and that is inseparably bound up with the condi- tions upon which the land is held. We were taught in our youth that water separated land, but we have long since passed away from that idea, and realise now that so far from water separating land, it unites land, and enables communication to be made in a way which even countries lying side by side cannot always command over the land. The question of unemployment is indeed a most serious one, and I am sure that we are sending out of our country year by year hundreds of thousands of the best of our people whom we can ill afford to spare. Vast numbers of them go from our country, finely developed, well-grown, industrious people, and not by any means paupers—people who go out from amongst us, taking with them considerable capital, and who are just the very people that we ought to keep at home, if we are to have a strong, active, virile nation to succeed us when we pass away. That condition does not obtain in other countries which are protected. [An HON MEMBER: "Italy."] There are a great many people who emigrate from Italy, but who return again. Italians go away and do their bit of work abroad, and then return to their country to enjoy the rest and leisure which their earnings in a protected country enable them to take. It is a habit of the Italian workmen to return to their native land year by year. We have heard a good deal of Germany, but Germany does not emigrate its people to the number of 200,000 a year as we do. Not a bit of it, and they have got a larger birth-rate than we have. As we are reminded, they have year by year a large number of soldiers going back to civil life, and for whom employment is to be found. Although they have these disadvantages from the point of view of finding employment, yet the emigration from Germany is very small, only about 30,000 compared with our 200,000. It must be that they find lucrative employment that satisfies them, or clearly like the people of Italy, or like our own people, they would seek abroad the employment which they cannot obtain at home.

All this points to a wrong fiscal system. The hon. Member for North Bucks called our remedy a quack remedy. It is a quack remedy, however, which has brought about wonderful results, and which we all of us look upon as highly satisfactory. We do not see why we, of all countries, should bear the burden of maintaining our markets and then place them at the disposal of the foreigner without any charge. That does not seem a reasonable thing. I think, if it be the question of giving someone a preference, it ought to be given to our own people. I have never yet heard any Free Trader explain why we should give the foreigner the benefit and relief of this 12 per cent. which we spend on the maintenance of our markets. It does not seem a sensible thing. Of course, if we are in such a strong position that we are able to make this contribution towards the prosperity of the foreigner, then I should not have a word to say. But that is not the attitude taken up by the Member for North Bucks, who deplores the large amount of unemployment, as we all do. Surely, under the conditions I have described, when we have not got any employment to spare, or contributions to give, either voluntarily or involuntarily, towards the prosperity of the foreigner, we should at any rate in the meantime say to him, "We have to pay 12 per cent. for the upkeep of our market, and if you want to enjoy the privilege of selling goods in it, whether it is meat, dairy produce, or whatever it is, we must ask you to contribute something towards the cost of it. Therefore, if you want to use our market, we must put a toll upon your products. You may send your products into our country if you wish to do so on paying 5 per cent. of the value." Although that would not go very far, it would, at any rate, go some way towards the upkeep of our market. That does not seem to be a very unreasonable proposition.

And why should they call it nonsense and a quack remedy I for one moment cannot understand. I may point out that we do not propose to the Colonies to make this contribution. That, again, is a perfectly reasonable thing. The foreigner does not propose to make us any concessions—not a bit of it. He knows perfectly well that so long as we are tied to the present fiscal system he can do anything he jolly well pleases. He knows too, that, if our system is given up, and we adopt a system which is substantially his own, he will have to come to terms with us. But our Colonies do not treat us like that. The Colonies even meet us before we make any advance. They give us, as in the case of Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, and so on, a vast preference over other countries. That is a reasonable policy, the advantage of which we recognise. We know that our trade with Canada and other Colonies goes up by leaps and bounds under the preference. We understand and recognise all that is being done by the Colonies, not under a cold-blooded and calculating arrangement, but out of good will, because we have not made any advance at all to them on our part. Therefore it is that in the case of the Colonies we do not ask them to contribute towards the cost of our markets. We think they ought to have some preference for their preference, but that is not the case in regard to the foreigner. The hon. Member for North Bucks spoke of our dairy farms, and he told us that the dairy farm employed ten men and two boys. Then he cast us down to a state of depression by saying that the dairy farm was being turned down into permanent grass, and that then eight out of ten men were discharged, and two boys out of four. We have seen that over and over again in all parts of the country. The cause of that is that the English dairy farmer has to pay 12 per cent. for the upkeep of the market, while the foreigner has to pay nothing of the sort. Therefore, the dairy farm, of course, gravitated into a condition of permanent pasture, giving practically no employment to anybody, or only to a herd or shepherd. He instanced also the case of a nurseryman, with 11 acres of land, who by intensive cultivation employed even more than on the 300 acres of the dairyman. That is a most delightful and encouraging state of things, but why does he want to maintain a fiscal system under which the nurserymen must go to the wall, and especially under a system of taxation under a Bill, to which I must not refer, by which in the neighbourhood of large towns he will find his land taxed? Those are important questions for the hon. Member, and while we lay to heart some of the suggestions he has made, I hope he will not forget some we have ventured to suggest to him.

I will make a reference with bated breath to a Noble Duke. The Duke of Bedford owned property called the Thorney Estate, and he was willing to sell it, I suppose. I suppose he wished to do so because it did not pay, a reason which justifies most of us parting with some of our property. It was a large estate worth about three-quarters of a million, I understand. Am I correctly informed that this Government negotiated with the agent of the Duke with a view to the purchase of that property upon certain terms? The point in the transaction, as I heard it, was as to the interests of the tenants. Under the Duke of Bedford the tenants would have the prospect of becoming owners of their land, and, indeed, I believe most of them have become owners of the land. What I want to know is whether I am correctly informed that during the time that this estate was known to be in the market the Duke of Bedford was negotiated with through his agent on behalf of the present Government with a view to the raising of the rents of the tenants on the estate until the rents should equal a 4 per cent. investment upon the purchase of it, and that then this Radical Government, which is full of eagerness for small holdings, and so anxious for small holdings on the letting system, the tenancy system which really discouraged the ownership of small holdings—the Government would then purchase the estate of the Duke, would rack-rent his tenants, and screw up the rents, which were then only 3 per cent., not on the value of the land, but merely on the money spent in improving the estate. They said they would come in and purchase the property at the price asked for it. That is a question upon which I should like to have an answer. I have pleasure in supporting the Amendment of my hon. Friend.


The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Carlile) stated that he had troubled the House only three times this Session. I have not yet troubled the House at all; therefore I must ask the indulgence of the House for the few minutes I shall detain them. It is quite impossible to cover the vast field which has been traversed by previous speakers, therefore I will confine myself to one aspect of the question which has been raised, namely, the repeated assertion that emigration is larger from Free Trade countries than from protected countries. The hon. Member for Cockermouth (Sir J. Bandies), in an eloquent peroration, asked why our people are required to go to lands where their labour is protected to make openings for themselves. I should like to ask where are those countries? Do our workmen seek openings for themselves in the protected countries of Italy, Spain, or Russia? The hon. Member talked about Germany. I am not afraid to deal with Germany. But Germany does not cover the whole map of Europe. There are all the other protected countries in Europe. From which of those countries is there not a larger emigration than from this country? But our people do not even go to Germany. The vast majority of the 200,000 of whom the hon. Member spoke go to our own Colonies. It is surprising to hear those who uphold so strongly the desirability of cementing our Empire bewailing the fact that men are going out to Canada and Australia for the purpose of building up the Empire by acting as colonists. It may be said that some of them go to the United States. That is true. But what is happening in the United States at the present moment? Under the scientific tariff in America, which appears to be working so admirably in the eyes of those who framed it, there is widespread indignation, as is shown by the recent election. Not only are the people voting against it, but they are crossing in tens of thousands over the border into Canada. Is that because of the tariff? Is the tariff in Canada higher than the tariff in the United States? Does the tariff in Canada protect better than the tariff in the United States? No. The reason is that in Canada they have still free land, and wherever men can get free access to the land the problem of unemployment does not arise. Men are going into Canada because lecturers are going up and down the country stating that 160 acres await any man who goes out to Canada and settles there. There a man can be sure, if he toils hard, erects a steading, and reclaims the land, that in his old age he will be able to enjoy the fruits of his labour, that no rack-renting landlord will be able to evict him as he can be evicted here, and that there will be no screw from the squire and the parson such as exists in English villages. That is why they are going to Canada. It is quite true that they are going also from Scotland. The men who are going from the North of Scotland are not men driven from the commercial centres because of Free Trade, but men driven from the soil because of the operation of unjust laws. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Carlile) spoke with bated breath of a noble duke. If I might, without bated breath, refer to a noble duke, I would say that, if there is a real desire to remedy unemployment there is one noble duke in this country who has the opportunity to make a great experiment. I refer to the noble duke who is president of the Tariff Reform League. I do not know if it is suggested that the Duke of Sutherland has accepted the presidency of the Tariff Reform League merely because he has a burning desire to deal with this question of unemployment. But if that be so, I suggest to him—and I suggest to those who think with him—that, after all, if you are going to change the fiscal system of this country you are going to make a tremendous experiment! I stand here as the representative of a Lancashire constituency. The men in my Constituency, cotton operatives and cotton manufacturers, are unanimously agreed that if this Tariff Reform system comes into effect a death-blow will be struck at their industry. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know that at the last election a manifesto was signed by everybody entitled to speak on behalf of the cotton industry repudiating Tariff Reform as a remedy. With regard to a good many other trades that is also true. It may be possible by Tariff Reform, at the expense of others, to build up certain industries which may give some employment. But the evil which you will create will be much greater than the evil which you will cure. You will throw out of employment a thousand men for every hundred to whom you give employment. That is the danger of the system to which the Duke of Sutherland is committed. He will be compelled, if he adopts that system, in the words of the Marquis of Salisbury, "to force food taxes upon a reluctant nation."

There is an alternative which he may adopt. In the Highlands of Scotland there are 3,200,000 acres of land given over entirely to deer forests. The largest holder of this 3,200,000 acres is the president of the Tariff Reform League. What I suggest to him is that, instead of attending the next meeting of the Tariff Reform League, he should call together his fellow landowners who own these deer forests, which are rated on an average at less than 1s. per acre. That is the value which the Duke of Sutherland and his fellow proprietors put upon them. I suggest that they should agree to sacrifice their sport upon the altar of the solution of this problem of unemployment. I suggest that they should offer 160 acres in the Highlands of Scotland to any settler who cares to have them. [An HON. MEMBER: "He could not live on it."] An hon. Member says he could not live upon it. Very well; let it be tried! In the old days it was tried. I know it has been tried. I have gone over the ground. I have seen the ruined steadings from which men have been evicted. I have seen the wild deer wandering where the child loved to play. I know that the noblest race of men have been evicted to make room for sport. But give the people the oppor- tunity. Give them, not 160 acres for nothing as they can secure in Canada, but give the land to them at the value put upon it by the owners, at a rental of Is. per acre, or £8 a year, and no rates charged upon improvements—because that is a fundamental thing in the solution of the land question. Then, I say, you will be able to settle in the Highlands of Scotland alone 200,000 heads of families who will be able, with their wives and families, to deal with a population of 1,000,000. That is something better than Tariff Reform as a solution of the unemployed problem. Try it. Set up again the old life which existed in the Highlands. Not until then will you be dealing with the question of unemployment. Only settle these men on the soil and you will have collateral advantages. You will be able to regain a healthy population such as lived in the Highlands in days gone by.

He says these men could not live upon such land. Does he forget the time when you reared your soldiers that fought at Alma, Inkerman, and Balaclava, and does lie forget that the best of these soldiers came from the Highlands of Scotland? When you want men to fight the German invasion that hon. Members opposite talk so much about, how many of them will you get from the gillies and from the millionaire landlords of Scotland? The Teal remedy for unemployment is to so use the land of the country which God has given us so that we may be able to make the best use of it for the benefit of the people. I have no doubt if the question is argued upon the platform, when the people understand what this quack remedy of Tariff Reform is, and that its object is merely to put money in the pockets of the few, and when they compare that remedy with the remedy which will be provided by the settlement of the people upon the land that God gave them, there will be no hesitation as to what the verdict of the people will be.


I am sorry that the exigency of time perhaps unduly shortened a very earnest and a very eloquent speech which has been delivered by the hon. Member who has just sat down. Hon. Members opposite rather affected to treat his eloquence and his earnestness with some derision. The hon. Member, at all events, has done that which hon. Members opposite have not been in a hurry to do. He has suggested what may be a small, but is nevertheless a genuine and practical remedy for some of the unemployment, and has suggested it in a case where it is peculiarly applicable. The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have talked of emigration and movements of the population, but the movement of the population with which my hon. Friend has just dealt was not voluntary emigration. It was a case where the most sober, the most thrifty, and the most God fearing portion of the population of these islands were driven from their homes to the backwoods of America and to the slums of Glasgow. When hon. Members opposite quite sincerely and quite properly put forward their remedy for unemployment they might, I think, have listened with some respect rather than with ridicule to a remedy which is restitution.

The Debate has covered wide ground, and the Resolution covers very wide ground. It is couched in terms so general that it is adapted, I think, perhaps intentionally adapted, to secure the assent of all sections in the House. I think everybody can vote for it. It is one under which the Protectionist, if he pleases, can shelter himself. The general terms of the Resolution will enable him to vote for it and yet mean by his vote that Protection is a remedy instead of the remedy suggested by my hon. Friend the Mover of the Resolution. It is a Resolution that the single taxer can vote for, and it can at the same time be voted for by hon. Members upon either side of the House who, instead of adding to the taxes on land, would give it further relief. It is one that can be supported by those who think that there is not sufficient relief of the restriction upon the transfer of land and by those who would place restrictions where restrictions already exist. In these circumstances I apprehend that the intention of the hon. Member in moving this Resolution was rather to invite discussion than to trouble the House with a Division. As far as the Government are concerned, like everybody else, they are in accord with this Resolution. The first part of the Resolution deals with the artificial restrictions in the use of land. The policy of the Government in that respect is worthy of being recalled to the attention of the House. Within the last four years we have done a great deal to remove artificial restrictions in the use of land—in fact, I do not know any Government in any time that has done so much. In the Agricultural Holdings Bill we inserted provisions which have given freedom of cropping, compensation for disturbance, and for loss or damage in the matter of game, capricious disturbance, and also the right of the tenant to make any improvement without the consent of his landlord. I think that is a very considerable advance in the freedom of cultivation, and this in some measure touches the question of employment, or, at all events, it does something to increase the farmer's share in the general agricultural prosperity. We have also passed a measure which, I think, will do more as a direct remedy for agricultural unemployment than any measure which has been passed by any English Government.

It is not an unfavourable opportunity, when discussing the relation between agriculture and unemployment, to ask the House for a moment to direct its attention to the effect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act. I think we are now entitled to say that that Act has proved a very striking and remarkable success. When we were discussing the Small Holdings Bill a good deal was said of the efforts made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in that direction. There were some who claimed that the initiation in this kind of legislation was to be found amongst those who sit on the opposite side of the House. Under the Act of 1892, which was passed into law just before the General Election of that year, there had been 800 acres, and no more, of land distributed as small holdings to those who had applied. That does not look as if the much - advertised and much - trumpeted measure of 1892 had done much to increase the general distribution of land in this country. In 1892 hon. Members opposite had their agrarian policy, and it was summed up in the Act of 1892, which resulted in the distribution of only 800 acres. The Small Holdings Act of 1908 has had but a short time for experiment, but we have already either acquired, or are in process of acquiring, 75,000 acres, settling no less than 6,700 persons. I would ask the House to consider those figures from the point of view of employment. Can anybody doubt, questions of fiscal controversy apart, that we have in that humble, useful, and sincere measure a direct and substantial palliative in regard to unemployment.

The hon. Member who seconded this Amendment spoke of the necessity for a career in the country. One hon. Member spoke with regret of the fact that a labourer's life in the rural districts of England offered so little prospect of promotion or prosperity, and, after all, what makes the man work well is the hope of some exceptional success. It cannot be said that English rural life has hitherto given that prospect to those who labour there. I would ask the House, two years after the coming into operation of the Act of 1908, just to see what we have done in this regard for the English labourer and what forces are now at work giving to the English labourer not mere employment, but employment which brings with it the hope of improvement in status, of a rise in life, and of a career in the occupation to which he has been called. First of all, in that Act we greatly extend the power to distribute allotments. We give the parish councils power to create allotments up to five acres—a most important step. Then the labourer, having acquired his allotment of five acres, may by means of intensive cultivation very well gain a substantial degree of prosperity which will enable him, by that thrift to which agricultural labourers are not unaccustomed, to rise from an allotment to a small holding, from a small holding to a farm, and from a farm he has the whole field of agriculture before him. [Laughter.] We have, during the period we have been in office, actually given the ladder by which the labourer may rise. Hon. Members opposite laugh at the idea of a labourer rising from an allotment to a small holding. [HON MEMBER: "No."] I understood them to do so. I understood they rather derided the idea that a man should rise from a farm. I do not think anyone can deny we have given to labourers, through their parish councils, the prospect of finding, on their native soil, a career suited to their ability. I do not think they themselves are fully conscious yet of their opportunities in that respect, or that they have yet adequately used parish councils for the sake of getting full and larger allotments. It is for that reason that I venture to call attention to the facilities which are within their reach. That is the remedy which we have not merely advocated, but which we have set in operation, and I would ask hon. Members opposite for a moment to consider their remedy as against it.

The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said they might have to pay a little more for their food, but that they were going to get more employment. Is that the method by which employment is to be acquired? They are to pay for their employment out of their food. That does not seem to be a very promising remedy. I imagine, if the people have to choose between the methods put before them, they will prefer some method of dealing with their grievance which does not put upon them the bitter and I think the wrongful and mischievous burden of extra prices to be paid for the nourishment of themselves and their children. Let us look at the remedy suggested from the other side of the House for unemployment. Both the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have said that the Tories have got an agrarian policy, and it is a policy which consists in the encouragement of land purchase instead of land hiring for the purpose of small holdings. They both used language, perhaps inadvertently, which implied that, as we had encouraged the hiring of land for small holdings, so we had discouraged the purchase of land for small holdings. I am sure that hon. Members, who talk of our not having encouraged the acquisition of the freehold for that purpose, could not have looked at the Act. Why it gives distinct and direct encouragement to the purchase of freeholds as well as the hiring of land. By Section 19 the county councils are actually empowered to advance four-fifths of the purchase money, yet hon. Members say that the policy of land purchase is their policy. It is not. During the whole of that Committee we made numerous proposals to facilitate land purchase. Hon. Members opposite said they were in favour of land purchase, but the test was, how far they were willing to promote cheap valuation for the purpose. Whenever we made any suggestion of any kind—and we did again and again—to facilitate land purchase by an economic valuation we were met with the most bitter opposition. Their idea was that the peasant or labourer who wanted an acre of land for a potato patch was to get it not by some economical valuation of an expert official, but by the application of the Lands Clauses Act through the most costly and elaborate machinery. The pretext now put forward by hon. Members opposite that they are in favour of land purchase is not likely to mislead those who are familiar with the proceedings of the Committee.

I come next to the remedy put forward by the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Sir John Randles) who suggested the imposition of a tax on foreign products not subject to similar burdens. But what are the products which come into this country which are not subject to taxation in the country of origin? Where do they come from? Is there any country in Europe or anywhere else where fiscal burdens on the produce of land are less than they are in England? In nearly all countries they have the most heavy burdens to bear before their produce is sent here. Take the case of America. There you have almost free land and a protective system so oppressive that the agriculturist is now almost rising in revolt against it. In America you have the true Tariff Reform movement. They are trying to reform the tariff and not seeking to create it. There the complaint of the agriculturists is that everything he requires for his use is raised in price most oppressively by the Protectionist system. He, therefore, is not a man who sends his goods here free of the burdens similar to those which rest on the British agriculturist. Is it suggested that with Russia, another great wheat exporting country, the farmer is free of the burdens which rest on the English farmers? So oppressive are the taxes which fall on the Russian farmer that the old system is now being superseded—the system of holding land in common—and when it was proposed to give the cultivator more land, he objected because the land was so overburdened with taxes, Imperial and local, that it was more than he was equal to to pay those taxes. So when one comes to talk of these commodities which are said to compete with ours, and which are alleged to be free from the burdens imposed on British products, I am driven to ask, "What are they?" and "Where do they come from?" It has not been stated in the course of this Debate. Another part of the Resolution with which I shall deal very briefly is a very interesting and important part. I should have liked to have dealt with it a little more fully. That is a point which has been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for the Ince Division (Mr. S. Walsh), who spoke on the fiscal side of the question from the point of view of the bad taxation. He urged that many of the present evils of our landed system could be diminished or abolished if we had a better system of taxation. I think that the Government can claim that they have not been wholly idle in that respect.

Undoubtedly it has hitherto been the custom, as my hon. Friend pointed out, in devising fresh taxes, to lay them more upon enterprise and industry, and the spirit of improvement, than upon property or unearned increment. Indeed, property of the kind known as unearned increment has hitherto had a very privileged position in our fiscal system. My hon. Friend pointed out all sorts of illustrations. He spoke of a railway which had greatly increased the rateable value of the district through which it passed, being subjected to pressing burdens, of the colliery which had developed a particular neighbourhood, and had gone into bankruptcy without any profit of its own, but with great profit to the landlord, who had paid no part of the taxation of the country. He also gave us the instances of Sefton Park and of a gentleman called Cosy Murphy, who made a considerable sum on the profits which he derived from other people. Everyone of these instances are instances which were dealt with in the Budget by way of contribution to our fiscal necessities, and we introduced the principle of taxing that which is due, not to the energy and industry of the particular taxpayer, but to the industry and energy of other taxpayers. A start has been made, and though I do not desire to see taxes extended, no one can deny that the Government has done a very great work and a very great national service in bringing within the area of contribution unearned increment arising out of landed value apart from that which is created by the landlords themselves. That has been introduced in no spirit of confiscation. It is simply that we have brought within the range of contribution that which is equitably just, as much the subject of public burden as any similar matter. It has been argued whether all taxes should not be raised out of land. If time allowed, I should be willing to deal with that question, but in the five minutes at my disposal I would advance one objection to that which has not been carefully considered by those who advance that suggestion. Are site values equal to the immense burden which would be laid upon them if they were made the sole subject-matter of rating? Take, for instance, property in London worth £50 a year. The site value of that property is equal, on a fair average, to something like £10 a year, and the rates will be equal to something like £18 a year, so that you could not possibly levy the whole of your rates upon the site value if you made it the only subject-matter of taxation. The rate would be 20s. or 30s. in the £, a result which would mean that the building, which you desire wholly to exempt from taxation, would nevertheless be subject to taxation. The only proposal made by those who are land-taxers which it is impossible for us to assent to or to treat as other than controversial, is the proposal that site values should be made the sole subject of taxation. That would be going beyond contribution. It would amount to confiscation and appropriation. We have stopped far short of that. Short of that the whole of our policy with regard to the removal of restrictions upon land, and in regard to tenure and to taxation is in the spirit in which this Resolution has been moved and seconded. There has been a good deal of discussion as to what is the best system of taxation, whether it should be direct or indirect, whether it should be on land or on labour. There is a better method than any system of taxation, and that is to cultivate in this House and the country the sentiment of thrift. It is better to have less taxation, but if there is to be taxation I challenge anyone to suggest a better subject-matter of taxation than those which the Government have adopted.


I do not wish to discuss the speech of the Attorney-General, with some parts of which I cordially agree, and with other parts of which I as cordially disagree. I want to call attention to one sentence in the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Raffan), in which he talked about 160 acres in Canada which were free from rating on improvements.


I did not say so. I said 160 acres ought to be free from rating on improvement.


They ought to be free, I agree. If hon. Members who cheered that sentiment had voted differently at a quarter past eight the Budget would have been thrown out.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 179.

Division No. 67.] AYES. [8.0 p.m.
Abraham, William Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Barlow, Sir John Emmott
Ainsworth, John Stirling Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. Barnes, George N.
Alden, Percy Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)
Allen, Charles Peter Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)
Armitage, Robert Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Barry, Edward (Cork, S.)
Ashton, Thomds Gair Barclay, Sir Thomas Barton, William
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) Hail, F. (Yorks, Normanton) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Bentham, George Jackson Hancock, John George Muldoon, John
Bethell, Sir John Henry Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Muspratt, Max
Black, Arthur w. Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Nannetti, Joseph P.
Boland, John Pius Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Neilson, Francis
Bowerman, Charles W. Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)
Bowles, Thomas Gibson Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) Nolan, Joseph
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Harwood, George Norton, Capt. Cecil W.
Brace, William Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Brady, Patrick Joseph Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Nuttall, Harry
Brigg, Sir John Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Brocklehurst, William B. Hazleton, Richard O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Bryce, John Annan Helme, Norval Watson O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Hemmerde, Edward George O'Doherty, Philip
Burt, Rt. Han. Thomas Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) O'Donnell, Thomas (Kerry, W.)
Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid) Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) O'Dowd, John
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Higham, John Sharp Ogden, Fred
Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) Hindle, Frederick George O'Grady, James
Byles, William Pollard Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Cameron, Robert Hodge, John O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood) Hogan, Michael O'Malley, William
Chancellor, Henry George Holt, Richard Durning O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Charnning, Sir Francis Allston Hooper, Arthur George O'Shee, James John
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) O'Sullivan, Eugene
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Clancy, John Joseph Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Parker, James (Halifax)
Clough, William Hudson, Walter Pearce, William
Clynes, John R. Hughes, Spencer Leigh Pearson, Weetman H. M.
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Illingworth, Percy H. Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W) Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Compton-Rickett, Sir J. Johnson, William Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Condon, Thomas Joseph Jones, sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) Pirie, Duncan V.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydfil) Pointer, Joseph
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Pollard, Sir George H.
Cory, Sir Clifford John Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Cowan, William Henry Jowett, Frederick William Power, Patrick Joseph
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Joyce, Michael Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Keating, Matthew Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Crosfield, Arthur H. Kelly, Edward Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Crossley, Sir William J Kettle, Thomas Michael Pringle, William M. R.
Cullinan, John Kilbride, Denis Radford, George Heynes
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) King, Joseph (Somerset, North) Raffan, Peter Wilson
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Lambert, George Raphael, Herbert Henry
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Rea, Walter Russell
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis Reddy, Michael
Dawes, James Arthur Lehmann, Rudolf C. Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Levy, Sir Maurice Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Devlin, Joseph Lewis, John Herbert Rees, John David
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charle- Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T. Rendall, Atheistan
Dillon, John Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Richards, Thomas
Donelan, Captain A. Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Doris, William Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Duffy, William J. Lundon, Thomas Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Edwards, Enoch Lynch, Arthur Alfred Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Robinson, Sidney
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Elverston, Harold Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas MacVeagh, Jeremiah Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Esslemont, George Birnie M'Callum, John M. Roche, John (Galway, East)
Falconer, James M'Curdy, Charles Albert Roe, Sir Thomas
Farrell, James Patrick McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Rowntree, Arnold
Fenwick, Charles M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leices.) Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Ferens, Thomas Robinson M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs. Spalding) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Ferguson, Ronald C. Munro Mallet, Charles Edward Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Ffrench, Peter Manfield, Harry Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Field, William Markham, Arthur Basil Scanlan, Thomas
Flavin, Michael Joseph Marks, George Croydon Schwann, Sir Charles E.
France, Gerald Ashburner Martin, Joseph Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Gibbins, F. W. Masterman, C. F. G. Seddon, James A.
Gibson, James Puckering Meagher, Michael Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. S.
Gill, Alfred Henry Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Shackleton, David James
Glanville, Harold James Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) Shaw, Sir Charles Edward
Glover, Thomas Menzies, Sir Walte Sheehy, David
Middlebrook, William Shortt, Edward
Greig, Colonel James William Millar, James Duncan Simon, John Allsebrook
Grenfell, Cecil Alfred Molloy, Michael Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey) Molteno, Percy Alport Snowden, Philip
Guest, Capt. Hon. Frederick E. Mond, Alfred Moritz Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Gulland, John William Montagu, Hon. E. S. Soares, Ernest Joseph
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Mooney, John J. Spicer, Sir Albert
Hackett, John Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Strachey, Sir Edward
Summers, James Woolley Walters, John Tudor Wilkie, Alexander
Sutton, John E. Walton, Joseph Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth)
Taylor, John W. (Durham) Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Wardle, George J. Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Tennant, Harold John Waring, Walte. Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Thomas, James Henry (Derby) Waterlow, David Sydney Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) Watt, Henry A. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Toulmin, George Wedgwood, Josiah C. Winfrey, Richard
Trevelyan, Charles Philips White, Sir George (Norfolk) Wing, Thomas
Twist, Henry White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) Young, William (Perth, East)
Verney, Frederick William Whitehouse, John Howard Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Vivian, Henry Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Wadsworth, John Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.
Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) Wiles, Thomas
Walsh, Stephen
Anson, Sir William Reynell Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings) Kerry, Earl of
Archer-Shee, Major Martin Duke, Henry Edward Keswick, William
Arkwright, John Stanhope Duncannon, Viscount Kimber, Sir Henry
Ashley, Wilfred W. Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.) King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)
Attenborough, Walter Annis Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Bagot, Colonel Josceline Faber, George D. (Clapham) Kirkwood, John H. M.
Baird, John Lawrence Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Falie, Bertram Godfray Knott, James
Balcarres, Lord Fell, Arthur Lane-Fox, G. R.
Baldwin, Stanley Finlay, Sir Robert Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.) Fisher, William Hayes Lawson, Hon. Harry
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Lee, Arthur Hamilton
Banner, John S. Harmood- Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue Lewisham, Viscount
Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor Fletcher, John Samuel Llewelyn, Venables
Barnston, Harry Forster, Henry William Lloyd, George Ambrose
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Foster, John K. (Coventry) Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.) Gardner, Ernest Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Beckett, Hon. William Gervase Gibbs, George Abraham Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Gilhooly, James Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm. Edgbaston)
Beresford, Lord Charles Gilmour, Captain John Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)
Bird, Alfred Goldman, Charles Sydney MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) Goldsmith, Frank Mackinder, Halford J.
Brackenbury, Henry Langton Gooch, Henry Cubitt Macmaster, Donald
Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury) Goulding, Edward Alfred M'Arthur, Charles
Bridgeman, William Clive Greene, Walter Raymond M'Calmont, Colonel James
Brotherton, Edward Allen Gretton, John Magnus, Sir Philip
Bull, Sir William James Guiney, Patrick Mallaby-Deeley, Harry
Burdett-Coutts, William Guinness, Hon Walter Edward Mason, James F.
Butcher, John George (York) Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Butcher, S. H. (Camb. Univ.) Haddock, George B Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Calley, Col. Thomas C. P. Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Mitchell, William Foot
Carlile, Edward Hildred Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth) Morpeth, Viscount
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. Hambro, Angus Valdemar Morrison, Captain James A.
Castlereagh, Viscount Hamersley, Alfred St. George Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Cator, John Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) Mount, William Arthur
Cautley, Henry Strother Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) Newdegate, F. A. N.
Cave, George Harris, F. L. (Tower Hamlets, Stepney) Newman, John R. P.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.) Newton, Harry Kottingham
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.) Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Healy, Maurice (Cork, N. E.) Nield, Herbert
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) Healy, Timothy Michael Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)
Clay, Captain R. H. Spender Heath, Col. Arthur Howard O'Brien, William (Cork)
Clive, Percy Archer Helmsley, Viscount O'Donnell, John (Maye, S.)
Coates, Major Edward F. Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire) O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Colefax, Henry Arthur Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Cellings, Rt. Hon J. (Birmingham) Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Compton, Lord Alwyne (Brentford) Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury) Paget, Almeric Hugh
Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.) Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall) Hills, John Walter (Durham) Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton)
Courthope, George Loyd Hoare, Samuel John Gurney Perkins, Walter Frank
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Pollock, Ernest Murray
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Pretyman, Ernest George
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford) Proby, Col. Douglas James
Craik, Sir Henry Horner, Andrew Long Quilter, William Eley C.
Crean, Eugene Hume-Williams, William Ellis Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Croft, Henry Page Hunt, Rowland Rankin, Sir James
Dalrymple, Viscount Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath) Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven) Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.) Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) Rawson, Col. Richard H.
Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston) Jessel, Captain Herbert M. Remnant, James Farquharson
Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow) Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan
Ridley, Samuel Forde Steel-Maitland, A. D. Wheler, Granville C. H.
Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral) White, Maj. G. D. (Lanc. Southport)
Rolleston, Sir John Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkc'dbr'tsh.) Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Ronaldshay, Earl of Strauss, Arthur Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Rothschild, Lionel de Sykes, Alan John Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Rutherford, Watson Talbot, Lord Edmund Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Salter, Arthur Clavell Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Sanderson, Lancelot Thompson, Robert Worthington Evans, L. (Colchester)
Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M. (Bootle) Thynne, Lord Alexander Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Tobin, Alfred Aspinall Yerburgh, Robert
Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Tryon, Capt. George Clement Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)
Stanler, Beville Tullibardine, Marquess of
Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Starkey, John Raiph Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Division No. 68.] AYES. [10.58 p.m.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. Gooch, Henry Cubitt Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Gretton, John O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Ashley, Wilfrid W. Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Bagot, Captain J. Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Perkins, Walter Frank
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Hambro, Angus Valdemar Pollock, Ernest Murray
Balcarres, Lord Hamersley, Alfred St. George Pretyman, Ernest George
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) Quilter, William Eley C.
Banner, John S. Harmood- Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) Rankin, Sir James
Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.) Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Barnston, Harry Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Rawson, Col. Richard H.
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire) Remnant, James Farquharson
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.) Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter Ridley, Samuel Forde
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Hills, John Walter (Durham) Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Bird, Alfred Hoare, Samuel John Gurney Ronaldshay, Earl of
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy Rutherford, Watson
Brackenbury, Henry Langton Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bridgeman, William Clive Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford) Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Brotherton, Edward Allen Horner, Andrew Long Sanderson, Lancelot
Bull, Sir William James Hunt, Rowland Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Castlereagh, Viscount Hunter, Sir Chas. Rodk. (Bath) Stanier, Beville
Cautley, Henry Strother Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven) Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Cave, George Kerry, Earl of Starkey, John Ralph
Chaioner, Col. R. G. W. King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)
Clive, Percy Archer Knott, James Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbright)
Colefax, Henry Arthur Lane-Fox, G. R. Strauss, Arthur
Compton, Lord Alwyne (Brentford) Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Talbot, Lord Edmund
Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.) Liewelyn, Venables Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Waisall) Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay) Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Courthope, George Loyd Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Thompson, Robert
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Long, Rt. Hon. Walter Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm. Edgbaston) Tullibardine, Marquess of
Croft, Henry Page Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich) Valentia, Viscount
Dairymple, Viscount MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) Macmaster, Donald Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.) M'Arthur, Charles Wheler, Granville C. H.
Duke, Henry Edward Mitchell, William Foot White, Maj. G. D. (Lanc, Southport)
Fell, Arthur Morpeth, Viscount Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Morrison, Captain J. A. Worthington-Evans. L. (Colchester)
Fletcher, John Samuel Mount, William Arthur Yerburgh, Robert
Forster, Henry William Newdegate, F. A.
Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Newman, John R. P.
Gibbs, George Abraham Newton, Harry Kottingham TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Gilmour, Captain John Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Sir J. Randies and Mr. Carlile
Goldsmith, Frank Nield, Herbert
Abraham, William Crossley, Sir William J. Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry
Addison, Dr. Christopher Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) Hemmerde, Edward George
Ainsworth, John Stirling Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Higham, John Sharp
Allen, Charles Peter Dawes, James Arthur Hodge, John
Armitage, Robert Denman, Hon, Richard Douglas Holt, Richard Durning
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Doris, William Hooper, Arthur George
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Duffy, William J. Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Barclay, Sir Thomas Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Barnes, George N. Edwards, Enoch Hudson, Walter
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) Elibank, Master of Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Barton, William Elverston, Harold Illingworth, Percy H.
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) Esslemont, George Birnie Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel
Bentham, George Jackson Falconer, James Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)
Bowerman, Charles W. Ferens, Thomas Robinson Johnson, William
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Flavin, Michael Joseph Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Brigg, Sir John Fuller, John Michael F. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Brocklehurst, William B. Gibbins, F. W. Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Gill, Alfred Henry Jowett, Frederick William
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Gtanville, Harold James King, Joseph (Somerset, North)
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Glover, Thomas Lambert, George
Byles, William Pollard Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey) Leach, Charles
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood) Guest, Captain Hon. Frederick E. Levy, Sir Maurice
Chancellor, Henry George Gulland, John William Lewis, John Herbert
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Hancock, John George Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Clough, William Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Clynes, John R. Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Macdonatd, J. R. (Leicester)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Cowan, William Henry Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) M'Callum, John M.
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Haslam, James (Derbyshire) M'Laren, F. W. S. (Linc. Spalding)
Crosfleld, Arthur H. Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Mallet, Charles Edward
Markham, Arthur Basil Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) Wadsworth, John
Martin, Joseph Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Walsh, Stephen
Masterman, C. F. G. Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Middlebrook, William Robinson, Sidney Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Millar, James Duncan Robson, Sir William Snowdon Waterlow, David Sydney
Mond, Alfred Moritz Roe, Sir Thomas Watt, Henry A.
Montagu, Hon. E. S. Rowntree, Arnold Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C. Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Muspratt, Max Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
Nellson, Francis Seely, Col. Right Hon. J. E. B. Whitehouse, John Howard
Nolan, Joseph Shackleton, David James Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Norton, Capt. Cecil W. Shortt, Edward Wiles, Thomas
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Simon, John Allsebrook Wilkie, Alexander
Palmer, Godfrey Mark Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim) Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth)
Parker, James (Halifax) Soares, Ernest Joseph Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Pirie, Duncan V. Summers, James Woolley Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Pointer, Joseph Sutton, John E. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W H. Taylor, John W. (Durham) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Pringle, William M. R. Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) Wing, Thomas
Radford, George Heynes Thomas, James Henry (Derby) Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Rea, Walter Russell Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) Young, William (Perth, East)
Rees, John David Touimin, George Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Rendall, Atheistan Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Richards, Thomas Twist, Henry TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Verney and Mr. Raffan.
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Roberts, George H. (Norwich) Vivian, Henry

Resolved, "That in the opinion of this House, the present system of taxation, rating, and tenure of land tends to restrict the best use of the land and the application to it of capital and labour, thereby hindering the production of wealth and causing unemployment."