§ Mr. KELLAWAYasked whether the attention of the Government has been called to the verdict in the case of Lord Howard de Walden v. Lewis, and to the speeches of counsel for the defence; whether the plaintiff admitted that at the reversion of the defendent's lease the Howard de Waiden Estate would become the owners of £130,000 of property built by the defendent; and whether the Government consider that persons who receive huge windfalls of this kind are in a position to pay a heavier tax than is at present levied on leasehold reversions?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE (for the Prime Minister)My attention has been drawn to the case mentioned, and to the speeches of counsel therein, especially to those of Sir Edward Carson and Mr. F. E. Smith and their animadversions on the leasehold system. I am not in a position to anticipate any of my right hon. Friend's statements on next year's Budget.
Captain CRAIGIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the lease in question is a ninety-nine years' lease, and whether the Radical Government expect to be in power on the termination of the lease?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSECertainly; as to the first part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question I see no reason to doubt the forecast. In reference to the first part of the question, the counsel to whom I have referred had a good deal to say on the hardships of the existing system.