§ Notwithstanding anything contained in The Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, undeveloped land duty shall not be charged on the site value of any land which is used for market gardens, nursery gardens, or allotments, and for which there is no immediate demand for building purposes.
§
The Clause is a very simple one, and I trust it will meet with the sympathetic consideration, of the House, and particularly of the Government Bench, Section 17 of the Act of 1909 provides that agricultural land shall not be charged except it exceeds £50 per acre as its value for agricultural purposes. I have had an opportunity of saying a few words about the Super-tax and the superfluity of wealth, and I now want to say a word or two on what is considered the superfluity in the value of land. The Undeveloped Land Tax, like the Super-tax, is not unpopular, and it is capable of being explained in a broad and popular way, as it has been explained on a thousand platforms. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a master of word painting, and he can bring forward pictures of the tailor's shop at Cardiff, or the Welsh girl, or a duke, or the greedy and grasping grabber of land, and
2262
so forth. Bear in mind exactly what he said in 1909 when introducing the Budget:
There is another aspect of this matter which I should like to say a word upon before I come to the actual proposals of the Government. I have dwelt upon the fundamental difference in the demeanoar of land owners towards their urban tenants, and that which under the inspiration of more high-minded and public-spirited principles guide their conduct towards their aged tenants. There is no doubt that the spirit of greed is unconsciously much more dominant and unrestrained in the former case. One disastrous result of this is that land which is essential to the free and healthy development of towns is being kept out of the market in order to enhance its value.
§
That was true in a certain sense, but that picture was adopted by other speakers, distorted and overdrawn, with the result that this Undeveloped Laud Duty was made out to be a necessary and popular tax, and became part of the great Budget. This tax having been imposed two or three years ago, of course we are now able to assess the result of if. I was rather interested, in looking over papers I had, to find what the Chancellor of the Exchequer prophesied would be the result. In "The People's Budget," explaining the 1909–10 Budget, and written by the right hon. Gentleman himself, this is what he said about it:
The second proposal relating to land is the imposition of a tax on the capital value of all land which is not used to the best advantage. The owner of valuable land which is required or likely in the near future to be required for building purposes, who contents himself with an income therefrom, wholly incommensurate with the capital value of the land in the hope of recouping himself ultimately in the shape of an increased price.
§
Having explained what the Increment Tax was, he went on to say:
I therefore feel justified in assuming that a duty of a halfpenny in the pound on undeveloped land and ungotten minerals will produce not less than £350,000 in the current financial year.
§
Then, in introducing the Budget this year, the right hon. Gentleman also naturally made a certain forecast of what Undeveloped Land Duty would bring during the current year. He said:
This year we hope to be able to complete the valuation of most of the undeveloped urban sites and——
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEOn a point of Order. This is a very small point, which simply raises the question of the exemption of market gardens. The hon. Gentle- 2263 man is going into the question of estimates of the whole Undeveloped Land Duty, a course which will involve a reply on my part, and I suggest it is not germane to the question on the Paper.
§ Mr. SPEAKERPerhaps the hon. Member would come to the point.
§ Mr. NEWMANI will come to the point as quickly as possible. I will take a concrete case of the actual operations of this Undeveloped Land Tax. I take my own Division, the Enfield Division of Middlesex. I suppose in the whole of my Division there is not a single acre that is not built over which has not got a value above its agricultural value, that is to say, Undeveloped Land Duty will be charged, or can be charged, on every single acre in my Division, always excepting golf grounds, football grounds, and cricket grounds. There is not a single acre that is not being used, and all being put to the best value it can be possibly put to, though I quite admit it has depreciated in value since the Budget, and at the present moment——
§ Mr. SPEAKERIs the whole of the hon. Member's Division market gardens?
§ Mr. NEWMANIn my Division we have a great many acres under market and nursery gardens. At least six of the biggest nursery gardeners in England, whose names are household words throughout the country, have their gardens there; and on behalf of this class I desire to show why they should be exempt from Undeveloped Land Duty. What is the position of these men? I will deal, first of all, with the large market gardeners. They mostly own their own land. By the nature of their trade they have to be near a big market where they can sell their produce easily. These men are exposed to severe foreign competition. Their profits have gone down lately year by year, and under the Insurance Bill an additional heavy burden will be laid upon them. These men, who know their own business, have told me that the Undeveloped Land Duly will represent a tax of from 1s. to 1s. 6d. on their rental value. There are three years' taxes due now. I had hoped that the whole of the amount would not be collected at one time. I put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to not more than one year's tax being collected at a time, but I could not get a satisfactory answer. 2264 Therefore it is possible—I hope not probable—that these men will have a tax of 3s. in the £ levied upon them. That, combined with the imposition under the Insurance Bill, will certainly mean that some of them will not be able to continue to carry on their business. Take next the small man, the tenant who leases land from the landlord. I admit that until his lease runs out he is all right. But the minute his lease runs out the landlord will either have to turn him out or pay Undeveloped Land Duty on the land. In any case there is no encouragement for the landlord to keep the man on the land. It is better for him to send the tenant away and cover the land as quickly as possible with bricks and mortar. Take, then, a smaller, but perhaps more important, class, who ought to have the sympathy of every Member of the House, namely, the allotment holders. Members who, like myself, represent semi-urban divisions, have in the course of the year to attend a great many fruit and flower shows. It is wonderful how in small places near London the allotment holders can produce the fruit and vegetables they do. I suppose it is because a great many of them are descendants of rural or agricultural men. We want to encourage these men. We do not want to make it impossible for them to keep their allotments. But that is what this Act does. There was one notorious case in my Division where, soon after the Act was passed the rent of the allotment holders was actually raised. In this Undeveloped Land Tax there is no revenue and less justice. Where a market gardener, or a nursery gardener, or any man at all, actually sells his land, and makes a profit—if it can be shown that he makes a profit—then I may perhaps admit that he might pay a certain percentage, not to the revenue of the country, but to the local rates. What is going to happen, say, with the Undeveloped Land Duty that we are going to pay all over my Division? It is not going to be spent to develop Enfield. It it going perhaps to develop British Somaliland. Apart, however, from these considerations, I do say that where land is not being held up, and where it is being profitably employed, this tax ought not to be chargeable.
§ Mr. CAMPIONI desire to second the Clause moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield. I am very glad to have this opportunity of saying a word on what is no doubt a very great industry, 2265 and an industry which a great many of my Constituents are very closely interested in. I take it that the principal object of the Undeveloped Land Duty is to induce a great amount of land to come under bricks and mortar. This Clause has for its object that where it is proved that there is no difficulty in obtaining land for building that market gardeners, nursery gardeners, and allotments should not be taxed. I think a case in my own Division is a very good illustration. In the borough of Worthing it has been calculated that there is no less than forty miles of glasshouses. I am quite aware that those houses are not liable for Undeveloped Land Duty. But there is a very large industry in the cultivation of high-class fruits and high-class plants. This ground is not at present required for building purposes, and it finds a great deal of occupation and permanent employment for a number of people. In addition, in the borough and on the outskirts there are some four or five hundred acres of market gardens and nursery gardens under cultivation.
If there was any difficulty in obtaining land for building at a reasonable figure there might be something to be said for charging Undeveloped Land Duty on these properties. As a matter of fact in this particular case—and I have no doubt it applies to a great many other cases throughout the country—the population is increasing, and the building that is wanted—I do not mean speculative building—for the increase of the population is easily procurable, while the borough is increasing in size, and I think in prosperity too. In the case of the market gardens and the nursery gardens propinquity to a big town and propinquity 10 a market is almost a necessity. That being so, it follows that in almost every case the nursery garden or market garden will come under the total amount, and will be subject to Undeveloped Land Duty. The market gardening industry is one that requires some consideration. The profits of it are not large, competition is very keen; consequently, although employment is regular, wages, as a rule, are not particularly high, and any increased charge on this industry must necessarily militate against an increase in the rate of wages of those employed. We hear a good deal about the necessity of our getting people back to the land. That is an idea which we all on both sides support. I venture to suggest that the encouragement of this industry, which employs a greater num- 2266 ber of people per acre than are employed in the ordinary agricultural industry, is one that is deserving of the attention of His Majesty's Government. It is a healthy occupation; it is an occupation which employs some four or five men to the acre as against one man to tea acres in other branches of agricultural industry, and when you come to another industry, which is also a growing industry and increasing in my Division, that of the French system of intensive cultivation, where more men still are employed to the acre, there is a great deal more need for consideration. I put these points as briefly as possible. In cases such as I have described, where there is no difficulty in obtaining land for building purposes, it would be relieving considerable hardships upon an important industry and would be conferring benefits upon those employed in that industry, and upon the town which benefits from that industry, and would be a benefit not only to the masters, but to those who are employed as well, and I hope therefore consideration will be given to my suggestions.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWith every word that fell from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in his admirable speech I am in full sympathy. I quite agree with what he said about the desirability of improving intensive cultivation and encouraging that sort of cultivation in this country without having to go abroad for its produce. I am thoroughly in sympathy with what he stated about that. I think I shall be able to satisfy him there is nothing in the Bill as it stands to interfere with that quite famous industry which has arisen in the course of the past few years, more especially in his constituency. I should like to say a word as to what fell from the hon. Member (Mr. Newman). He gave us a dismal, not to say a funereal account of the industry in his constituency. He was not as hopeful about Smilax as the hon. Member for Worthing was about intensive cultivation. Let me say to the hon. Member that he, and his constituents as well, will find considerable comfort from the inconsistencies of his speech, and in the inconsistencies of his own Amendment. He will find the best answer to his speech in his own Amendment. He gave an account of the destruction that would fall upon market gardeners' industry owing to the prevalence of this tax, and in a few sentences later he said there was no revenue at all raised from this tax. If there is to 2267 be no revenue I do not see how his constituents are going to be oppressed. I would also call his attention, to the fact that in his own Amendment he gives a complete answer to the demand he makes. He referred to the case of the market gardeners and the nursery gardeners, where there is no demand for land for building purposes. In such cases the hon. Member may depend upon it that the best economic rent is that received from the gardeners themselves. What it means is that before we get at the building value you have to deduct the value for agricultural purposes, and the value of those purposes is exceedingly high. Take the case of Worthing. The rents are very high for these allotments, and run to prodigious figures by the acre, in fact, they are let in much smaller plots. If in these cases you capitalise the value of the land on the basis of the rent, I should not be surprised at their value for agricultural purposes being higher than for building purposes. That would certainly be the case under this Amendment, because the assumption is that there is no immediate demand for building purposes, and if you take land for which there is no immediate demand for building purposes near a very good market, the value of the market gardens is higher than the immediate value for prospective building use. I listened very carefully to both the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment for specific instances, because a good many valuations have been completed, and I thought they would have given me a single instance where the building value was higher than the value for nurseries and allotments. I doubt very much whether they can give me such a case, and even if they can I am certain that the margin is so small that when you come to charge the duty the burden will be found to be very small indeed. So far from this duty being a burden in these cases, I think the other part of the hon. Member's argument that there will be very little revenue indeed is more likely to be true because the land is being put to the best use. The hon. Member invited me to survey a very wide field, but I really cannot go into considerations outside the Amendment, and if I did I should very properly be called to order, but I should be very glad to answer the hon. Member if he will raise those points on the Third Reading. I am now dealing with his Amendment, and from that point of view there is no burden thrown upon the market gardener by the Bill. In the 2268 vast majority of cases they are not owners of the land but they rent it and are not the owners of the freehold. Therefore, the Undeveloped Land Tax, if there were any, and it would be a mere trifle in these cases, would fall upon the owner and not upon the market gardener, so that it is no burden at all upon them. If it is a burden it is a burden upon the owner who receives a very high rent indeed, amounting to as much as £10 or £15 an acre in many cases and in the neighbourhood of Brighton it runs into a very high figure.
§ Mr. NEWMANIn my Constituency the land comes mostly under the freehold system.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGECan the hon. Member give me a single case where the duty runs to more than a few shillings per acre, while the landlord is receiving £10 or £15 per acre. I thought the hon. Member would be able to supply me with at least one case where there had been an assessment of the kind he complains of, but there has not been any such case. This matter was discussed at very great length upon the Budget, and I am not sure it was not discussed last year. I only mention that as a reason why I think we might soon come to a decision upon it. The cases mentioned in this Amendment are not cases which exist in fact. It is only in the case where there is a building value and where the land is used as a market garden that the owner will have to pay upon the value of the land. That is the principle. The principle is not the driving of land into bricks and mortar. All we say is he must pay on the true value of the land.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe right hon. Gentleman has just told us this Undeveloped Land Tax had nothing to do with driving land into bricks and mortar, but on the Budget Bill he urged it again and again on the ground that it would force land to return to building purposes. I think that was his principal defence for it.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEindicated dissent.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI think I can undertake to find the right hon. Gentleman ample confirmation of my statement in his own speeches. Leaving the object of the tax, I come to the merits of the case. The right hon. Gentleman divided it into two parts. In the first place, he said if there is any tax it is only a few shillings, and, in the second place, 2269 he said it is paid not by the market gardener or the allotment holder, but by the owner. It would be just as injurious to the market garden and allotment industry if it were unprofitable to the land as if it were unprofitable to the tenant. Then the right hon. Gentleman says it will only be a few shillings. I wonder he did not say a halfpenny. He wants instances. I will give him an instance I have cited before. A piece of land, let partly in a market garden and partly in allotments at £3 per acre. The capital value of that is £100, but its value for sale is £200, because of its prospective building value. There is £100 on which duty is payable. The right hon. Gentleman says it is only a few shillings, but, if you make the land less remunerative than it is now you do not encourage market gardens or the provision of allotments in the neighbourhood of large towns. You penalise them, and make it less likely they will be retained or provided in the future. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think, overlooks is the fact that on the necessities of the case these industries are almost always carried on on land which has a prospective building value, but for which there is no immediate building demand, and the value of it, therefore, at the time is greater than the capitalised value of the agricultural rent. I do not think that there are any cases where the rent of agricultural land or the capitalised value of the rent of land used as agricultural land, is higher than in the Bill. But there are many cases in which the reverse is the case, and the right hon. Gentleman is, in fact, doing what he always professes to wish to avoid: he is discouraging the use of land in this way and is driving it into bricks and mortar.
Mr. EDGAR HORNEI would like to take the case of land which has a certain building value. Builders come along from time to time to take up land in the neighbourhood. There is a certain disinclination to let land for the purpose of market gardens, because it might interfere with an opportunity of turning it into building land. If a man takes land for market garden purposes he has a right to a long notice and is entitled to very heavy compensation for the fruit trees and the work he has put on it before the owner can get it back and let it for building purposes. I speak of one particular instance which I can remember, where for years an estate was gradually developed for building purposes, and the difficulty caused by letting 2270 it for market gardening was so great that it was necessary to pay about £30 per acre in order to make it possible to turn it into building land. I think it is very important that land should be made the best use of and that there should be every encouragement, especially in cases where so much labour has been spent on it. It would be a very small matter for the Government to give way on this point and at the same time it would encourage owners to let their land for market gardening. Every inducement should be given to owners to allow land to be used for market garden purposes.
§ 11.0 P.M.
§ Mr. COURTHOPEThe right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked for an instance, which would support the Clause, of market gardens or allotments. I should like to give him one dealing with allotments. He will admit that it is desirable, from the point of view of the working-class community, that allotments should exist within reasonable reach of the dwellings of the working people themselves. In the case which has come within my own personal knowledge, there is an extensive allotment ground just outside a small but growing country town. The actual ground occupied by the allotments is not immediately ripe for building, but undoubtedly it will be so in the course of the next two or three years, and it has, therefore, a distinct prospective building value. It is let, I will admit, not at the best economic rent from the point of view of the landowner, but at what is undoubtedly the most economic advantage to the community at large. The allotments are let at quite a low rent, from 2d. to 3½d. per rod.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat is not the full agricultural value.
§ Mr. COURTHOPEI admit that, but the important point is this: that in the interests of the working people who occupy them, these allotments are let at rents varying from 2d. to 3½d. a rod, the landlord maintaining the fences, gates, paths, and so on. To my knowledge the owner has within the last year received offers to purchase the land for prospective building purposes, on one occasion £350 an acre, and on another occasion £480 an acre. A very elementary calculation will prove to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the amount of Undeveloped Land Duty for which the owner will be liable, assuming he is assessed on the value of 2271 the price that has been offered, will exceed the net rents which he now receives. I think that may fairly be cited as an instance in support of the Clause. Of course, it may be said that this is not the best economic use to which the land can be put, and I admit that from the point of view of the owner it is not.
But a very remarkable thing has happened in respect of this very allotment ground and the ground immediately ad joining it. The whole of this allotment ground was occupied at low rents, and there was a considerable demand for further allotments. The local parish council were approached by a number of would-be allotment holders, and they in turn approached the owner of this and the surrounding land and asked whether he would provide further ground for allotments. He offered some suitable ground as near as possible, not at a fancy rent, but at the agricultural rent he was actually receiving at that time from the tenant of a farm of considerable acreage, a rent of 30s. or 31s. an acre. The parish council, on going into the matter and working it out, found that they would be obliged to charge 7d. a rod to the allotment holders in order to maintain the allotment ground without placing a charge upon the rates. They were unable to secure allotment tenants at that rent. The would-be allotment holders did not think it possible to pay as much as 7d. a rod. One of two courses were open. The owner of the land has either got to charge the full rack-rent value and get his 7d. or 7½d. a rod—in which case the allotment tenancies would cease altogether, and I think that would be to the loss and not to the gain of the community at large in that district—or else he has to go on letting the land at what I admit is apparently an uneconomic rent, and submit to pay an Undeveloped Land Duty which actually exceeds the net rent coming to him from these allotments. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at that from the point of view of the interest of the community and of the working men who occupy these allotments he will see that in a case of this kind it is all important that the owner should not be compelled to shut up the allotments which are now let at a cheap rent, and for that reason he should be willing to accept some Clause with the same object as this. If nothing of this kind is done there is no doubt that either the rent of the allotments will be raised to a large extent, or else the land will have to be sold for 2272 prospective building purposes, and that particular village will be deprived of the allotments. I am willing to give privately the names of individuals and of places. This is a typical instance, but one which has actually happened within my personal knowledge, and there are many cases where the owners of land are desirous, in the interests of the community, of providing allotments within the reach of the dwellings of the working classes, and at a rent within the means of the working classes, and yet who, if no Amendment is made to the Undeveloped Land Duty, will be compelled to deprive the community of the advantages they now enjoy.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODIt seems to me that hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken look upon this ½d. tax as one which will be bad for market gardeners. I am supporting it because I think it is good for market gardeners, and likely to increase the number of market gardeners in the country. One hon. Member pointed out that there was a large amount of land in Surrey which had a large building value, but which at present the owner was not inclined to be allowed to be put to market gardening use for the very natural reason that the market gardener would have a large claim for compensation. But surely this tax provides an increased inducement to the owner of the land to allow it to be used for market gardening purposes. It is levied on the difference between the capital building value and its total value for agricultural purposes. If you do not use it for market gardens, that is what the tax is based upon. If, on the other hand, it is used for market gardens and the land is improved by manure, the value of that land for agricultural purposes will be £100. Therefore there will be a smaller tax to be paid by the landlord, and consequently an increased inducement to put it to market-garden purposes. That is one example of how the ½d. tax will increase the area of market gardens and reduce the area for grazing and other agricultural purposes. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said quite rightly that the landlord was making a loss in any case by keeping his building land out of the building market and using it for market gardens, because he only gets £3 an acre for market gardens, while he would get £10 if the land was used for building purposes. But he would make a bigger loss if he only got £1 an acre.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe value of the land for agricultural purposes 2273 is not affected by the use to which he puts it. The value is the same whether it is used as a field for grazing cattle upon or for market gardens, or for intensive cultivation.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODThe right hon. Gentleman will see at once that if the owner did not use the land for market garden purposes he would still have to pay on the difference. In any case surely it would be to his advantage to get £3 per acre instead of £1. He would have an additional advantage and incentive to get that sum because he has to meet the tax. Therefore, however you look at it, you will see that the tax must result in more land being put to market garden purposes. It would be an advantage to allow the land to be used for building purposes rather than for market gardens. Employment would be given in the building trade in building houses, and there would be employment for kitchen gardeners in growing vegetables for the house, and for men in making tennis lawns and what not. I therefore support the Government in resisting the Amendment.
§ Mr. BUTCHERThe hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wedgwood) says the tax is necessary to make a landowner use his land for market gardens rather than for agricultural purposes. I should have thought myself that if he could get a better rent for market gardens than for agricultural purposes that would have been quite enough to make him use it for market gardens. I do not think I need follow the hon. Member any further. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at any rate to exempt land used for allotments from the tax. There are few more urgent needs for the working-class population of our great towns than to have an adequate supply of allotments in the neighbourhood of these towns, and to have them at a moderate rent. These allotments are not only a healthy recreation for the working classes in their leisure time, but also afford a very valuable addition to their domestic resources. I have some experience of that in my own Constituency in the city of York. There is a large and growing demand for allotments in the neighbourhood of that city. Those allotments are immediately taken up, and have led to small flower shows, vegetable shows, and undertakings of that
§ character, which are greatly valued by the population and are in themselves most desirable. Now it is proposed to put a tax on this land which is let for these purposes, and I hardly imagine that the Chancellor would deny that the effect of putting that tax on will be to cause an increased rent to allotment holders. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I venture to hold the opposite opinion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that this is a tax on the owner, but if you put a tax on the owner of land which he can let for such purposes, surely in nine cases out of ten that tax will be borne by the allotment holder.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThere is Schedule A.
§ Mr. BUTCHERThe broad proposition is that if you put a tax on the owner of land, the owner will try to put it on the man who pays the rent. Will anyone tell me that if a man is willing to let his land at £3 an acre for allotment purposes, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts on a tax of 5s. or 10s. per acre on the owner, the owner will not try to get it from the tenant? Of course he will. The question is whether he will be able to get it in all cases. That depends on the demand for allotments. If the demand for allotments is, as it is, a large and growing one, in the neighbourhood of big towns, he will be able to get it. There may be cases, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, in which duty will not be charged on the land referred to in this Clause, but it is equally true that there are cases in which the tax will be paid for such land. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. A. Chamberlain) gave a very obvious case of land which is not yet actually ripe for building, but which has a large prospective value for building purposes. Why should you not exempt that land? This tax will fall most severely on the poor working classes and the small occupiers, and by exempting allotments you will relieve the working classes from having to pay increased rent for them.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 103; Noes, 177.
2277| Division No. 448.] | AYES. | [11.20 p.m. |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Baird, J. L. | Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) |
| Archer-Shee, Major Martin | Baldwin, Stanley | Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Banner, John S. Harmood- | Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Haddock, George Bahr | Pole-Carew, Sir R. |
| Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich) | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Bird, A. | Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. |
| Boyton, J. | Harris, Henry Percy | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Helmsley, Viscount | Royds, Edmund |
| Bull, Sir Willam James | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Burn, Col. C. R. | Hills, John Waller (Durham) | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Butcher, J. G. | Hoare, Samuel John Gurney | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.) | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Cassel, Felix | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Kerry, Earl of | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) | Kirkwood, John H. M. | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford | Staveley-Hill, Henry |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Larmor, Sir J. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Swift, Rigby |
| Courthope, George Loyd | Lewisham, Viscount | Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central) |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Talbot, Lord E. |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.) |
| Dixon, C. H. | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Touche, George Alexander |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Macmaster, Donald | Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford) |
| Fell, Arthur | Malcolm, Ian | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Forster, Henry William | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Gardner, Ernest | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Gibbs, George Abraham | Mount, William Arthur | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Goldsmith, Frank | Neville, Reginald J. N. | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Newdegate, F. A. | Younger, Sir George |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | |
| Grant, J. A. | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. | |
| Greene, Walter Raymond | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Newman and Mr. Campion. |
| Gretton, John | Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge) | |
| Guinness, Hon. W. E. | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Elverston, Sir Harold | Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Essex, Richard Walter | Lansbury, George |
| Adamson, William | Esslemont, George Birnie | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Falconer, James | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) |
| Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) | Ferens, Thomas Robinson | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Ffrench, Peter | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Armitage, R. | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Low, Sir F. (Norwich) |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Furness, Stephen W. | Lundon, Thomas |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Lynch, Arthur Alfred |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick, B.) | Gibson, Sir James Puckering | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Barton, William | Gill, Alfred Henry | M'Curdy, C. A. |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Gladstone, W. G. C. | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Benn, W. T. (T. H'mts., St. George) | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) |
| Bentham, G. J. | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Hackett, J. | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil |
| Black, Arthur W. | Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) | Marks, Sir George Croydon |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Hancock, John George | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Morrell, Philip |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Needham, Christopher T. |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Nolan, Joseph |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Haworth, Sir Arthur A. | Norton, Captain Cecil William |
| Chancellor, H. G. | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Helme, Norval Watson | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Clough, William | Henderson, J. M'D. (Aberdeen, W.) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Clynes, John R. | Henry, Sir Charles S. | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Higham, John Sharp | Ogden, Fred |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Hinds, John | O'Grady, James |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | O'Shee, James John |
| Cowan, William Henry | Hodge, John | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Holt, Richard Durning | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Hope, John Deans (Haddington) | Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. |
| Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Davies, E. William (Eifion) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Hughes, S. L. | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| De Forest, Baron | Johnson, William | Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry |
| Denman, Hno. Richard Douglas | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Reddy, M. |
| Doris, William | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Jones William (Carnarvonshire) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Jowett, Frederick William | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Kellaway, Frederick George | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) |
| Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | King, J. (Somerset, N.) | Robinson, Sidney |
| Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Roe, Sir Thomas | Tennant, Harold John | White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston) |
| Rowlands, James | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Toulmin, Sir George | Wiles, Thomas |
| Scanlan, Thomas | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander | Williams, P. (Middlesbrough) |
| Shortt, Edward | Wadsworth, John | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | Walters, John Tudor | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) | |
| Summers, James Woolley | Watt, Henry A. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Sutton, J. E. | Webb, H. |
Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. SANDYSI beg to move that the following new Clause be read a second time:—