§ "Notwithstanding anything in Subsection one of Section twenty-six of the principal Act the Commissioners may, on the request of the owner of any pieces of land which are contiguous, value those pieces of land together for the purposes of that Act, although those pieces of land are under separate occupation, if they are satisfied that in the special circumstances of the case it is expedient to do so, and any such valuation may be made under this provision, although any of the pieces of land had been valued before the passing of this Act, if the request for valuation is made by the owner of the land within three months after the passing of this Act, and in that case any valuation previously made shall be of no effect."
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe object of the Clause is this: Under Section 26 each piece of land under separate occupation has to be separately valued. It is clear there may be cases where lands are contiguous and under the same ownership and yet in separate occupation. One piece of land might have access to a public high road, and another might not. The owner of that land might desire to develop it and to treat both those pieces under one plan, and he may, therefore, ask permission to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case to value those pieces of land together. It is clear that the Commissioners may, if they do 997 not think the circumstances are reasonable, refuse to accept any such proposal as that. We give them clear discretion in the case. The object of the words I propose to add are to allow a period of three months after the passing of this Act to elapse to give time to owners to ask for joint valuation. There is an Amendment down in the name of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), and the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) to do something of the same sort, but they do not give the discretion of the Commissioners, which, we think, is all important. They say that these pieces of land, whether contiguous or not, so long as they belong to the same owner, shall be valued together. Under their Clause it would be possible for a great landowner in the county of Cheshire, owning a great estate in Westminster, to ask that his Westminster and Cheshire property should be valued together for the purposes of the Act. That is a proposal which we could not accept, and which it would be impossible to embody in this Act. It would also be very undesirable. We say that in places where there are pieces of land contiguous, and where it may be to everybody's advantage to value those pieces together, we should give the Commissioners discretion in the matter, and beyond that we do not propose to go.
§ Mr. CAVEI think it is quite reasonable that the word contiguous should be inserted. It should be applied to contiguous pieces forming part of one estate, and not to others far apart as suggested. There is another respect in which the Government Amendment differs from mine. This proposal gives a discretion to the Commissioners to value plots of land, which are contiguous, together or separately, as they think fit, while my Amendment makes it compulsory on the Commissioners where the owner of a number of plots desires it, to have them valued together.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEYes, only at the request of the owner.
§ Mr. CAVEI quite agree. We proposed to follow the Section of the existing Act, under which each piece of land, if the owner required it, should be separately valued. I do not see why the same principle should not apply, or why, where an owner of contiguous pieces of land requires them to be valued together, they should not, as a matter of right, be valued together. An hon. Friend has an Amendment 998 down to that effect. May I say one word in support of the view that this is really an important Amendment. Let me put the case which this Amendment is no doubt intended to meet. A man has a large estate in a town. I have in my mind a case which I know of, a company which has a very large estate in the Paddington district, consisting of a whole number of houses built in one block. The leases of the houses are running out, and in a short time the whole lot will be available for buildings under a new scheme. Under the principal Act, as it stands, each of those plots is being valued separately. Each little plot is valued as if it were only a small plot of land, and were subject to a number of easements, which, of course, these plots are in favour of adjoining plots. The result is that the total value is relatively small; but, so soon as the leases run out, the houses will come down, the whole estate will be developed, larger houses will be built; and the value of the land, as one estate, is very much greater than the aggregate of these small plots.
If you are really anxious to ascertain the actual value of the land, you ought to give the owner the right to have his land valued as one estate and not as separate pieces. Let me put an illustration. If you valued every alternate plot of land, the value would be relatively small; but, if you throw the whole together, then you get a very much larger value. Unless this right is allowed, very serious under-valuations take place. Of course, whereas the Government value these plots separately, they will be sold as one lot, and a large nominal increment will therefore accrue, on which duty will be levied. The increment will not be real but will only be due to under-valuation. I think it is realised that the point is of real importance, and I do not see why the discretion should not be given. Surely, in all these cases the owner is the best judge of the value of his land, and, if he wants to have it valued in the way which most truly shows the actual market value, I do not see why he should not have the right to do so, or why the Government should have the right to say: "No, we prefer to value it at a lower value," with the result, of course, that a higher tax will be levied.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI should like my hon. Friends to understand the real reason why this Amendment was brought forward by the landlord party opposite.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIt is brought forward by the Government.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODThe Amendment is asked for a very plain and simple reason. It is in order to get estates below the agricultural limit of £50 per acre for undeveloped land. We all know that land facing roads or near stations has a high value, and would naturally be caught by the Undeveloped Land Tax. That is exactly where it is intended to catch land, in order to force it into the market, so that it can be used for building purposes. The result of this Amendment will be that a man who has a piece of land on a road front or near a railway station will average it down by taking in all the hinterland which is of small value so as to bring the value of the estate below £50 per acre, and thus exempt it from Undeveloped Land Tax. Brushing aside all the subtleties which the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) introduced in order to obscure this Amendment, that is the root basis of the whole idea. What harm is there in having land valued in small quantities? You get a more accurate value by taking it in small quantities than in large quantities. I remember hon. Members opposite urging that land should be valued by the field, and that it could not be valued by the farm. It now suddently occurs to them that in this way they can avoid the Undeveloped Land Tax altogether. I protest against against this Amendment being brought forward by the Government, and I hope every Member who approves of the taxation of land values will vote against it.
§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIESI should like to know what are the special circumstances under which the Commissioners would be entitled to have contiguous land valued. If I understand the position rightly, it is that at the present moment, in order to ascertain the site value of a piece of land, it has to be valued by itself, but that in future the Commissioners will take into consideration the whole of the farm of which it forms a part. The inevitable result will be, if this Clause stands, that we shall have to give up the whole of the Land Taxes inasmuch as there will scarcely be any building value which will be taxed under the original Bill.
§ Colonel GREIGI want to say a word on the illustration of the hon. Member for Kingston. He gave the case of a landlord who cuts up his land into a number of small plots and puts houses upon them. The estate probably was not of very great value, but he cut it up into a large number 1000 of plots and put houses upon them, and so increased the value of the property and his income. He did that for his own purposes and for his own benefit, and, having done it, is he to be allowed to turn round and, because it is valued at a low price now, being valued in separate lots, say that is unfair because he can take all the houses down and throw the estate together again. The man cannot blow hot and cold in that way. He has cut up the estate into a number of plots and built houses upon them, and he must stand by that. Having done it, he cannot say it is unfair to treat him as having done it and to value the property in that way. I suggest that the illustration of the hon. Member does not bear out his contention.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe speech of the hon. Member who has just addressed the Committee really shows a wonderful misconception of the rights or the duties of a landlord and of the intentions of the Government. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not mean to say that, because at one time the best use the landlord could make of his property was of a certain kind, therefore he is to be held, under penalty, never to use it for any other purpose, but must always use it in that particular way. If the hon. Member does not mean that, then his contention has really nothing to be said in its favour. A man can only judge of the best use of his land, in round terms, by what is the most profitable use, and that, indeed, is the Government's contention. Anybody who followed the Debate of 1909 knows the contention was that it was the duty of the landlord at any given moment to make the best economic use, and that is the most profitable use of his land. That was his duty, and he did it. Now, in the changed circumstances, it is more profitable, as well as more advantageous to the community, that a different use should be made of the land. The hon. Member wishes us to say that because seventy, eighty, or ninety years ago he chose to use his land in a particular way, therefore he must always use it in that way or pay a penalty for altering it. I think that is nonsense. I do not wish to use offensive language. I therefore withdraw the word "nonsense," but I say the argument is absolutely untenable. More than that, it does not in the least square with the declared intention of the Government. They want to get at the value which is derived from the market value of the land at the moment. It is not the market value itself, but we have to 1001 get down to the site value, although the basis on which they work is the market value. If you value such a plot as my hon. and learned Friend described not as a whole but separately, and subject it to the conditions which attach to the separate use of each portion of the land as long as it is so divided up, you do not get its market value. You get something below its market value, and you are not therefore getting what the Government profess a desire to get; you are getting a fictitious value, a value fictitiously low. I hope the Government will not be deterred by arguments of that kind from listening to the appeal made by my hon. and learned Friend.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)I think the discussion has shown that the Government is wise in the limitations which it has imposed by giving discretion to the Commissioners. The result of the Debate which has taken place has made it manifest that it would be said by the owner, if he had the opportunity of making a request that contiguous plots should be valued together, he would do so when his object is to raise the site value, as would necessarily be his desire in the case of an urban area. On the other hand, if he was dealing with undeveloped land his object would be to lower the site value. You must in these matters deal with the special circumstances of each case. I think my hon. Friend is quite right in what he said that the words "special circumstances" to a great extent dominate this Clause. They are intended to limit its operation. In the opinion of the Government the Commissioners are the best persons to have the opportunity of considering whether, taking all the facts and circumstances of a particular case into consideration, they think it is fair and reasonable that two or three contiguous plots or more should be valued together. You may have a plot valued separately which may have but a small frontage, and you may have a large plot behind it which has no frontage. If you value these two plots together in an urban area you would get a fairer valuation by taking the whole as they stand, and then leaving the owner to declare the site value for the purpose of arriving at the increment. Under this Clause the Government intend, if there are circumstances of that kind and if the Commissioners really think that it is fair in making the valuation, to take contiguous plots into account, and to value them 1002 altogether, then they are allowed to do so. That is the concession which is made in this Clause. I submit that the whole argument has tended to show that the Government was wise in not making the full concession demanded and in not acceding to the Amendment put forward by hon. Members opposite. Nevertheless, in order to carry out their policy, which is to get at a fair valuation of the property they are wise in allowing under special circumstances discretion to the Commissioners to value contiguous plots together.
§ Mr. LANE-FOXWhat will be the result of what is going to be done? If they do not insist upon giving this discretion to the Commissioners, it is suggested on the part of the Government that the valuation will always be against the Government. My reply to that is that under this present Government proposal the action of the Commissioners will always be in favour of the Government. If it is to the interest of the owner that the two plots shall be valued together, it will obviously be the natural predilection of the Commissioners to value as against the owner and in favour of the Government. That cannot be avoided. I should like to say one word in reply to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood). He attributes to what he calls the landlord's party a subtlety of ingenuity which I wish we did possess. If wisdom was half so inherent among the party he calls the landlord party as it is amongst those who advocate the taxation of land values, they might be entitled to credit for ingenuity. But I certainly do think we ought to have some better answer than that which has been given to the case put forward by my hon. and learned Friend, in reference to the Paddington illustration.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODThe hon. Member has hit the right nail on the head, and I believe there might be unanimous agreement on both sides of the House on the lines he has suggested. In that case I would withdraw all I said about the landlord party. He alluded to the illustration cited by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston and drawn from Paddington. Exactly in the same way the Attorney-General quoted the case of small plots. But the Amendment does not refer to contiguous holdings irrespective of the size of the place. If it were limited to one acre or ten acres I should not so much object, but it is absolutely unlimited and you might get thousands of acres with 1003 a very low valuation under this Clause. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox) talks about the special circumstances and how the wicked Commissioners will refuse to allow landlords to amalgamate and average down. I have not any experience of these Commissioners, but wherever there is the individual on one side and the bottomless pocket of the State on the other side, it is always the State that gets left and not the individual. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash is against all these Land Taxes, and we need not pay much attention to that contention, but the introduction of these special circumstances is rather a point which makes this Clause worse than it was before. We see that it has not only raised doubts in the mind of the hon. Member for Barkston Ash, but it also introduces this horrible taint of bureaucratic interference. I should like to see these special circumstances ruled out because they give rise to all sorts of unsatisfactory suspicions. The next thing is that this Clause should be so altered that large estates should not be averaged down. We are all willing, so far as small plots are concerned, that we should have
§ a provision which would allow of averaging up or down, as is required, but we do object, in the case of these large estates, to this averaging down. This averaging down only refers to the very big landlords of the country who have several farms in their own hands. It is no alleviation whatever to the landlord who has only one farm. He has to take the road frontage without taking the hinterland into account and without any road land. I know of a case in the village in which I was born where one landlord with one farm will get no reduction, while another with four or five will average down. Any exemption which would leave it in the power of the large landowner to escape leaves the small one under an injustice, and that is my reason for objecting. If the Secretary to the Treasury will allow this Clause to be altered on Report in a way which will limit the size of the area of land to be exempted to five, ten, or twenty acres, I think we would be prepared to vote with the Government. If not, we must divide against them.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 310; Noes, 42.
1005| Division No. 84.] | AYES. | [9.50 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Brunner, John F. L. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Burke, E. Havlland- | Du Cros, Arthur Philip |
| Alden, Percy | Burn, Colonel C. R. | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) |
| Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) |
| Anderson, Andrew Macbeth | Butcher, John George | Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) |
| Armitage, Robert | Campion, W. R. | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Carlile, Edward Hildred | Falconer, James |
| Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. | Cassel, Felix | Farrell, James Patrick |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Cator, John | Fell, Arthur |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Cave, George | Fenwick, Charles |
| Balcarres, Lord | Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Ferens, T. R. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Ffrench, Peter |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Field, William |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Clancy, John Joseph | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward |
| Barnston, Harry | Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) | Clive, Percy Archer | Forster, Henry William |
| Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Foster, Philip Staveley |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Frewen, Moreton |
| Beale, William Phipson | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Furness, Stephen W. |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Gardner, Ernest |
| Beckett, Hon. William Gervase | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Courthope, George Loyd | Gibson, Sir James Puckering |
| Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George) | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Glanville, H. J. |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- | Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred | Goldman, C. S. |
| Beresford, Lord Charles | Croft, Henry Page | Goldsmith, Frank |
| Bigland, Alfred | Crumley, Patrick | Grant, J. A. |
| Bird, Alfred | Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Greene, Walter Raymond |
| Black, Arthur W. | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) |
| Boland, John Pius | Dawes, James Arthur | Greig, Colonel J. W. |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Delany, William | Gretton, John |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) |
| Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Dewar, Sir J. A. | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Guiland, John William |
| Brigg, Sir John | Dillon, John | Hackett, J. |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Donelan, Captain A. J. C. | Hamersley, Alfred St. George |
| Harmsworth, R. L. | Mehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Harris, Henry Percy | Menzies, Sir Walter | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Royds, Edmund |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Molteno, Percy Alport | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Money, L. G. Chiozza | St. Maur, Harold |
| Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Mooney, John J. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Morgan, George Hay | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Morpeth, Viscount | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Hayward, Evan | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Helmsley, Viscount | Morton, Alpheas Cleophas | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. |
| Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Mount, William Arthur | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Higham, John Sharp | Muldoon, John | Sheehy, David |
| Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter | Munro, Robert | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Hill-Wood, Samuel | Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C. | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Hinds, John | Neville, Reginald J. N. | Spear, John Ward |
| Hoare, Samuel John Gurney | Newton, Harry Kottingham | Staveley-Hill, Henry |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Nield, Herbert | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Nolan, Joseph | Summers, James Woolley |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Norman, Sir Henry | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Swift, Rigby |
| Horner, Andrew Long | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe) |
| Houston, Robert Paterson | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.) |
| Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Ogden, Fred | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Hunt, Rowland | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.) |
| Hunter, Sir Charles Roderick (Bath) | O'Malley, William | Tobin, Alfred Aspinal |
| Hunter, W. (Govan) | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. | Touche, George Alexander |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.) | O'Shee, James John | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) | Paget, Almeric Hugh | Walters, John Tudor |
| Joyce, Michael | Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Joynson-Hicks, William | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Keating, Matthew | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Webb, H. |
| Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Weigall, Capt. A. G. |
| Kirkwood, John H. M. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Knight, Capt. E. A. | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Kyffin-Taylor, G. | Perkins, Walter Frank | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) | Peto, Basil Edward | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Lane-Fox, G. R. | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Larmor, Sir J | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th) | Pollard, Sir George H. | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Pollock, Ernest Murray | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Pretyman, Ernest George | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Lundon, Thomas | Pryce-Jones. Col. E. (Montgom'y B'ghs.) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Radford, George Heynes | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor. Droitwich) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Winfrey, Richard |
| MacGhee, Richard | Reddy, Michael | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Maclean, Donald | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon) |
| Macmaster, Donald | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Remnant, James Farquharson | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| M'Callum, John M. | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Yate, Cot. C. E. |
| M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | |
| Magnus, Sir Philip | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | |
| Marks, George Croydon | Roche, John (Galway, E.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. W. Jones. |
| Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Rolleston, Sir John | |
| Meagher, Michael | Ronaldshay, Earl of | |
| NOES. | ||
| Barnes, George N. | Harwood, George | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Rowlands, James |
| Byles, William Pollard | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Hudson, Walter | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Crooks, William | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Snowden, Philip |
| Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Jowett, Frederick William | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Kellaway, Frederick George | Thomas, James Henry (Derby) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness) | Logan, John William | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Gill, Alfred Henry | Macdohald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Wardle, George J. |
| Goldstone, Frank | Markham, Arthur Basil | Watt, Henry A. |
| Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | Neilson, Francis | Wilkie Alexander |
| Hancock, John George | O'Grady, James | Wilson, W. T. (West Houghton) |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Parker, James (Halifax) | |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Raffan, Peter Wilson | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood and Mr. King. |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
§ Mr. CASSELI beg to move to omit the word "may" ["the Commissioners may on the request of the owner"] and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
The reason for the Amendment could not have been better put than it was by the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood). We want to know where we are. We do not want it left simply to the discretion of the Commissioners to say whether they think it expedient that this particular mode of valuation should be adopted in a particular case or not. The words of the Clause are, "if they are satisfied that in the special circumstances of the case it is expedient to do so." By expedient they would obviously mean expedient for the purposes of the revenue. Not "equitable," but "expedient" is the word in the Section, and in that case the owner will be in the hands of the Commissioners as to whether they choose to adopt his request to have two pieces of land valued together or not. In many cases it is obviously fair and right from the point of view of the owner that two pieces of land which are contiguous should be valued together. Valued separately they might have a quite different value from what they would have valued together. You may have, in some cases, a higher and in some cases a lower value when valued separately. If you take a case where two pieces of land are valued separately at a lower value, and the owner intends to deal with the land together, it is obviously unfair that he should have to pay Increment Value Duty on the increment valuation simply because a different unit of valuation is adopted on the second occasion from the unit adopted on the first occasion. Every case of that kind under this rule would be excluded by the Commissioners and would be bound to be excluded. The Commissioners have to determine whether it is expedient to adopt the request of the owner to have them valued together or not.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not know whether the hon. Member is discussing his later Amendment as an alternative proposal, in case the Government may choose to adopt it. If he intends to move the other Amendment at a later stage he is not in Order in dealing with it on the first Amendment.
§ Mr. CASSELI was dealing with this Amendment only, but pointing out the effect of the Clause as it stands with the word "expedient" in it, in order to show that as the Clause stands it would be inequitable that the word "may" should be 1008 left in and the word "shall" should not be substituted for it. It would be in equitable in a case where you have a certain unit of valuation for the original valuation that a man should be charged with Increment Value Duty simply be cause a different unit was adopted on the second occasion. Then there is also the point that, so far as the division of the unit is concerned, no discretion whatever is left to the Commissioners, under Section 26, if the owner requests that a part of land which is one occupation shall be separately valued, he can insist on it being done, and there is no discretion with the Commissioners at all. What reason is there for making a distinction in the case of the aggregation of pieces of land where you make no discretion in a case of the division of a piece of land? The point raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood) was this. He was afraid that some agricultural land might escape duty. I hope the House will take note of that reason. I hope the country will take note of that. It is not long since there was a correspondence between the Under-Secretary for India and the Leader of the Opposition, in which the Under-Secretary——
§ Mr. WEDGWOODMay I point out that I was referring to agricultural land which was wanted for building purposes.
§ Mr. CASSELThat is precisely what I was dealing with. In the case of agricultural land miles away from a town we now have it that it is intended to tax land used for agricultural purposes as soon as it is established that it is wanted for building purposes. The Under-Secretary for India took exception in rather strong terms to a leaflet which was issued, and in which it was stated that agricultural land was liable to taxation. Now we have it clearly established in this House that that is the case. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think the only reason with the semblance of reasonability in it which has been advanced against the Amendment was the suggestion of the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme, that possibly the Amendment might exempt some agricultural land which otherwise would be subject to taxation.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe hon. Gentleman, in moving the Amendment, very truly said that the principle of it had been discussed when we were discussing the Clause. Therefore I am sure he will pardon me if I do not follow him into the whole of the remarks he has made, and if I confine myself to what may be called the real 1009 question at issue, namely, shall the Commissioners in this matter have discretion or not? If the hon. Member will look at Clause 29 of the Finance Act of 1910 he will see that:—
"Any duty under this part of the Act may be assessed on or in respect of any such pieces of land whether under separate occupation or not, as the Commissioners think fit."
That is to say, the Commissioners have a perfect discretion to assess as they please. That is, I think, a wise and useful discretion, and we propose to preserve it in the present instance to the Commissioners. Upon the whole, both for the purposes of the individual and for the protection of the revenue, it is well that the Commissioners should have that discretion.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI agree so far, if I may be permitted to say so, with the Government and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood). I do not think that the Government could accept an obligation that the Commissioners in all cases should follow the wishes of the landowner. I agree also that it might be as unfair to the Revenue as I think it would be unfair to the landowner to leave the discretion absolutely to the Commissioners. Surely the arguments advanced on both sides of the House point to a middle course. The Government have drawn their Clause so that the valuation can only be ascertained in the way the Commissioners think expedient. It is not a question whether it is expedient or not. It is a question whether it is just or not. The question is what is the true value of the land, and how you are to get at the true value. If you take the proposal of my hon. Friend, you can get at it by taking the valuation of land in joint occupation, and if you take the proposal of the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme, you get at it by separate valuation. I submit, in the first place, that the Government ought to declare that it shall be done in the way my hon. Friend proposes, where it is equitable to do it—or words to that effect—and not where it is expedient in the opinion of the Commissioners, who are, after all, prone to interpret expediency if the particular thing tends to get revenue or not. I think, in the first place, we should say that it should be done where equitable and not expedient, and that the question whether it is equitable or not should be subject to an appeal, and not 1010 left to the discretion of the Commissioners or of the landowner. That is a conciliatory proposal made for compromise, which I hope the Government will see their way to accept.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSMay I suggest to the Government that they should insert words to provide that where equitable the land may be valued——
§ The CHAIRMANIf this Amendment is going to be moved separately, as I understand it will be, we had better take it in its proper place.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe question before the Committee is, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause." It is very inconvenient to divide upon that. We do not want to do so without knowing what the intentions of the Government are in regard to the subsequent part of the Clause. Would they say on this Amendment whether they can accept such an Amendment as I have suggested?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI do not think we really can go beyond the proposal we have made in the Clause that the Commissioners, if they think it expedient, may take the valuation in a certain way. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the Commissioners should act in the way hi" hon. Friend suggested if they think it equitable.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI suggested the ordinary appeal, but I am afraid I did not make myself clear. The Attorney-General said that you must not give absolute discretion to the land-owners because that would be unfair to everybody, having regard to the fact that they would always be prone to the particular method of valuation most favourable to themselves. I agree, but, on the other hand, if you leave it to the Commissioners they will always choose the particular form of valuation which is most favourable to the revenue, and in my opinion neither of these courses is advisable. Therefore, I suggest that you should say that pieces of land should be valued separately if that is equitable and just, and the question whether it is just or not should be subject to the ordinary appeal to the referee.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEWhat we have given here is a discretionary power to the Commissioners to do something which we feel will enable the land to be fairly valued. This is a particular Clause to arrive at a fair and just decision as to what is and what is not the fair value of these properties for 1011 the purposes of valuation. As to the valuation itself, that is subject to appeal to the referees, but whether or not there is a case for the valuation of a particular lot is not the question for the referees, but is a question for the Commissioners. I think we have made a very ample concession, and we are not justified in going beyond it.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI am going to support the Amendment, as the Government are not prepared to meet the Mover in any way. Under Clause 29 the Commissioners have power to separate pieces of land for the purpose of assessment. Naturally they will do that when they think they can get greater revenue by so doing. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and where we have got pieces of land, within the meaning of Section 29, which are used for one purpose—for example, a market gardener or grower of roses or other occupier of land who is giving a great deal of employment by the use to which he is putting his land, may have several pieces all used for the one business—the Commissioners have, under Section 29, power to separate those pieces of land into various pieces of land for the purpose of assessment of duty. They may put one value on the front land and another on the back land, yet the whole of that land is necessary for the purpose of carrying on the business of market gardener or rose grower. We want the owner or occupier of that land to be able to call upon the Commissioners to group the whole land as one occupation for the purposes of valuation. We do not want them to be able to pick the eyes out of the land which is used for the purpose of carrying on the business which is giving probably greater employment than any other use to which that land could be put, but that they should take the full fair average value of that land and assess from that. We want them not to take portions of land, as they have power to do under Section 29, but that they should be compelled to take the whole and assess on what is fair and equitable. If the Government will meet that it would not be necessary to press the changing of "may" into "shall," but unless the Government will meet that point, and if the mover goes to a division, I for one, if I am the only one in the House will support him.
§ Mr. POLLOCKThis Amendment might fee perfectly fairly accepted without in any way militating against the position the 1012 Government have taken up. We alter "may" to "shall," and if that were adopted, the Clause would run:—"The Commissioners shall, if they are satisfied in the special circumstances of the case, it is expedient to do so." What we have been contending for is that if it is to be at the discretion of the Commissioners then the Commissioners ought to do their duty, and, if they do their duty, then there ought to be an obligation upon them, which would be carried out by accepting the word "shall" instead of "may." If you adhere to the word "may" you give a second discretion to the Commissioners, because, although they are satisfied in the special circumstances of the case "it is expedient to do so," they have a still further discretion under the word "may," and, although they are "satisfied," they are not compelled. It is often suggested that "may," in certain circumstances, means "shall"; but I am quite certain that it is the intention of the Government to make this Clause as explicit as they can, and if they alter the word "may" to "shall," they will in no way alter their position in regard to the remainder of the Clause.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThis new Clause was inserted, no doubt, at the instance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in fulfilment of a pledge he gave me when I raised this point. By Clause 26 of the Bill:—
"The Commissioners shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act cause a valuation to be made.…of each piece of land under separate occupation, and if the owner so requires any part of any land which is under separate occupation shall be separately valued."
It is perfectly clear that the Commisssioners shall and are compelled by the Act to separately value any part of any land if the owner so requires. This, like most other Amendments, is a matter which has simply arisen in practice. It is not an imaginary grievance, it is an actual grievance, and it has arisen in this way. There are small houses in towns which are in the last stages, and are unsuitable to the site. Valued separately these houses have a very small value, and would be correctly valued at a very low figure, though the aggregate value of the site might be much greater than the value of those portions taken separately. However, the valuers might desire to be accurate, they cannot be so under the present wording of the Act, because they are obliged to value each of these small sites independently. 1013 All we ask is that there should be a similar right to the owner to require aggregation as he has to require separation or appointment under the existing terms of Clause 26. I see the force of the argument used by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wedgwood). I am bound to say that it never occurred to me, nor has it been suggested by anyone that large areas of agricultural land could be aggregated in the manner he suggests. I quite see that it might be so interpreted. But that is not our object. Our object is that there should be aggregation, where by dividing you do not get at the value. I am sure the hon. Member must see that that is a reasonable suggestion. I personally should not object to a limit of acreage. It is only intended to deal with comparatively small areas in towns. I do think you must have the word "shall." Having inserted it, you then come to the effect of Section 33, in which there is an appeal, as there is in all these sections. I do not think I am asking too much. Under the wording of the Clause this concession is not of very much value, because of the words "if it is expedient." The object of the Commission "if it is expedient" is to obtain as much taxes as he can. No doubt that is what he is appointed for fairly under the Act. I do not quite see why in the case of small houses on small areas this cannot be granted. Does the learned Attorney-General think, and if he says so I accept it, that under the wording of the Clause as proposed a valuer would really be obliged in the case I named to allow an aggregate valuation. If he thinks so, I am sure we would attach great importance to it. I do not think the words would do so, and there must be the word "shall." If it was "shall," and with an appeal under Clause 33, I think the whole appeal would be met, and also the object of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI think we have had a rather poor answer from the Government. It seems to me it is rather unsatisfactory to leave the position as it stands. A very reasonable request has been made from this side, and I do not think any reasonable answer has been made. The Secretary to the Treasury makes objection, but he does not explain his objection. He never said why the course taken by my hon. Friends is not fair. It seems that this Amendment is obviously so fair that I cannot understand the Government opposing it. What is the good of making a half concession. If you are going to make a concession in order to bring the scope of 1014 a Section somewhere within the bounds of fairness and justice, then you had better do it altogether. It is perfectly obvious the Government are terrified by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite. I doubt if any of those hon. Members have the faintest notion of what the point is. They very rarely have on this land question. Their one idea is that they want to tax the land.
§ The CHAIRMANI must ask the. Noble Lord to address himself to the Amendment.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI was only saying I doubted whether this Amendment was thoroughly understood in all quarters of the House. I feel sure that if it was that the Government would accede to it with alacrity, and that the pressure which is being put on them to resist it would be withdrawn. I think we are entitled to some further answer.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI can assure the Noble Lord we fully appreciate the points which are urged against the views we put forward. The Noble Lord seems to think, unless he gets the whole concession, which he and his friends desire, that he does not wish to accept any. That may be the view upon which he intends to proceed in the discussion of this Bill. But so far as we are concerned, this is carrying out a promise or indication on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in answer to a suggestion from the other side, the whole point being that whereas under the principal Act it was provided that there should be a right in the owner to separate a piece of land although it was under the same occupation, when it came to the question of the aggregation of particular parcels of land it was a different question, and in order that we might obtain a proper valuation required much more careful handling on our part than the right which was given under Section 26 of the principal Act. As the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire quite rightly says, it would not be right in the view of the Government that they should give way entirely upon this matter. After listening to the arguments, I feel that we ought not to make any further concession than is contained in the Clause. We have tried to meet what we thought was a grievance. What we desire is to get what, in the opinion of the Commissioners, as the persons best able to judge under the circumstances, is a fair and just valuation, and that is what we think we have provided for. Speaking for 1015 the Government, we find it quite impossible to go any further. Indeed, I understand, from some of the arguments put forward on the other side, that there is no value to be attached to the substitution of "shall" for "may." Whether you say "may" or "shall," it rests with the Commissioners; they have to exercise their discretion. If they exercise their discretion and come to a conclusion, it is given effect to, and it does not matter very much whether you say "may" or "shall." The danger in using the word "shall" and the reason why we resist the Amendment is that it might be said that there was some form of statutory obligation upon the Commissioners
§ which might lead to appeals or other applications with costs. What we intend is that the matter shall be dealt with by the Commissioners. Parliament has left many matters to the discretion of the Commissioners, and the feeling was that in leaving the matter to their discretion Parliament was acting quite rightly in this as in many other respects. I regret, therefore, that we cannot accept the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 165.
1017| Division No. 85.] | AYES. | [10.35 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Kellaway, Frederick George |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | King, J. (Somerset, N.) |
| Alden, Percy | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) |
| Allen, A. A (Dumbartonshire) | Essex, Richard Walter | Lansbury, George |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Falconer, J. | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th) |
| Anderson, A. M. | Farrell, James Patrick | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Armitage, R. | Fenwick, Charles | Logan, John William |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Ferens, T. R. | Low, Sir F. (Norwich) |
| Atherley-Jones, Llewelyn A. | Ffrench, Peter | Lundon, T. |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Field, William | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Lynch, A. A. |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Furness, Stephen | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Gibson, Sir James P. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Barran, Sir J. (Hawick) | Gill, A. H. | MacGhee, Richard |
| Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Glanville, H. J. | Maclean, Donald |
| Beale, W. P. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Goldstone, Frank | MacNeill, John Gordan Swift |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George) | Greig, Colonel J. W. | M'Callum, John M. |
| Birrell, Rt. Hen. Augustine | Griffith, Ellis J. | M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe) |
| Boland, John Pius | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | M'Micking, Major Gilbert |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Bowerman, C W. | Hackett, J. | Marks, G. Croydon |
| Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Brigg, Sir John | Hancock, J. G | Meagher, Michael |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. | Hardie, J. Keir | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Harmsworth, R. L. | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Mooney, John J. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Harwood, George | Morgan, George Hay |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Morrell, Philip |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Haslam, Lewis Monmouth) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Chancellor, Henry G. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Muldoon, John |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Haworth, Arthur A. | Munro, R. |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Hayden, John Patrick | Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hayward, Evan | Neilson, Francis |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Nolan, Joseph |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Higham, John Sharp | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard |
| Crooks, William | Hinds, John | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Holt, Richard Durning | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Davies, E. William (Eifion) | Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | O'Dowd, John |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Howard, Hon Geoffrey | Ogden, Fred |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hudson, Walter | O'Grady, James |
| Dawes, J. A. | Hughes, S. L. | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Delany, William | Hunter, W. (Govan) | O'Malley, William |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness) | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Dillon, John | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Duncan, C (Barrow-In-Furness) | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Jowett, F. W. | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Edwards, Allen C (Glamorgan, E.) | Joyce, Michael | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Keating, M. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Pointer, Joseph | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Pollard, Sir George H. | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Scanlan, Thomas | Webb, H. |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B. | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Radford, G. H. | Sheehy, David | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Raffan, Peter Wilson | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Rea, Walter Russell Scarborough) | Snowden, P. | Whyte, A. F. |
| Reddy, Michael | Strachey, Sir Edward | Wiles, Thomas |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Redmond, William (Clare) | Summers, James Woolley | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Richardson, Albion (Peckham) | Sutherland, J. E. | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Tennant, Harold John | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Thomas, J. H. (Derby) | Winfrey, Richard |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Walters, John Tudor | |
| Roche, John (Galway, E.) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | |
| Rowlands, James | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland |
| Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Wardle, George J. | |
| St. Maur, Harold | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay | |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Gardner, Ernest | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Archer-Shee, Major M. | Gastrell, Major W. H. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Gibbs, G. A. | Paget, Almeric Hugh |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Goldman, C. S. | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Goldsmith, Frank | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baird, J. L. | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) |
| Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) | Grant, J. A. | Perkins, Walter F. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Greene, W. R. | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gretton, John | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hambro, Angus Valdemar | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hamersley, A. St. George | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Harris, Henry Percy | Rice, Hon. W. Fitz-Uryan |
| Barnston, H. | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilton) | Helmsley, Viscount | Rolleston, Sir John |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hickman, Col. T. E. | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase | Hillier, Dr. A. P. | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Royds, Edmund |
| Benn, I. H. (Greenwich) | Hoare, S. J. G. | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Hohler, G. F. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Beresford, Lord C. | Horner, A. L. | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Bigland, Alfred | Houston, Robert Paterson | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Bird, A. | Hume-Williams, W. E. | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Boyton, James | Hunt, Rowland | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Brassey, H Leonard Campbell | Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath) | Spear, John Ward |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.) | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Joynson-Hicks, William | Staveley-Hill, Henry |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Swift, Rigby |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Kirkwood, J. H. M. | Sykes, Alan John |
| Butcher, J. G. | Knight, Capt. E. A. | Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.) |
| Campion, W. R. | Kyffin-Taylor, G. | Terrell, H. (Gloucester) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Down, North) |
| Cator, John | Larmor, Sir J | Tobin, Alfred Aspinall |
| Cave, George | Lewisham, Viscount | Touche, George Alexander |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Clay, Captain H. Spender | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Macmaster, Donald | Weigall, Capt. A. G. |
| Cripps, Sir C. A. | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Croft, H P. | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morpeth, Viscount | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Du Cros, Arthur Philip | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Eyres-Monsell, B. M. | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon) |
| Fell, Arthur | Mount, William Arthur | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Neville, Reginald J. N. | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Finlay, Sir Robert | Newdegate, F. A. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Fleming, Valentine | Newman, John R. P. | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Newton, Harry Kottingham | Younger, George |
| Forster, Henry William | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | |
| Foster, Philip Staveley | Nield, Herbert | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Cassel and Mr. Pollock. |
| Frewen, Moreton | Norton-Griffiths, J. |
§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIESmoved, after the word "contiguous" ["any pieces of land which are contiguous "] to insert the words "and adjoining a road or intended road."
The object of the Amendment is to meet the difficulty which the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) said existed, and to limit the Clause, so that that danger shall cease to exist. Under the Clause as it stands, if two pieces of land which are contiguous are going to be valued together, it is possible to add to the land for building, land of agricultural value, with the result that the average value would be reduced in a very large degree. For my own part, I have no objection to the inclusion of two adjoining pieces of land, or any other land, whether in the same occupation or otherwise, provided they are owned by the same person if valued together. What we object to is not the inclusion of two pieces in separate occupation, but the inclusion in the same valuation of land of a different character. We object to the site value of land, for example, being reduced by inclusion in a valuation of land which merely has an agricultural value. I know a case where there is a piece of land for which the county council was asked £4,500 an acre, whilst there is land immediately behind it with a value of not more than £200 an acre. If the Undeveloped Land Duty is to remain, and if the valuation under the original Bill is to have any effect, it is essential that only land of the same character should be included in the same valuation.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI do not think we can accept my hon. Friend's Amendment for a very practical reason. The hon. Member objects to the valuation of land of a different character together. He does not like the idea of what is distinctly rural land being classed for the purposes of valuation with urban land. Under this Amendment you might raise the question of what is a road or an intended road. Thus you raise difficult questions which we avoid by giving discretionary powers to the Commissioners to refuse to value urban and rural land together when a genuine difference of character arises. We believe that will meet my hon. Friend's view, which I entirely agree with. For these reasons the Government cannot accept this Amendment.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI would like the Government to reconsider this point. It is a question whether under this Clause people owning land in large quantities, part of which is valuable and the rest not, can 1020 bring it down to below £50 an acre by valuing it together. In many of our villages, where land is most urgently required for the building of houses, you have all along the village streets plots which are built upon, alternating with ordinary fields coming down to the road. All those parts of a field which are abutting on the road are valuable land, worth £100, £200, or, it may be, if the public authority want it, £1,000 per acre. It would be unjust for the owner of that land to escape paying Undeveloped Land Tax. Those are the very people we want to tax so as to force them to part with the land to people who want to build houses upon it or to force them to build houses upon it themselves. Under this Clause, as it stands, you will have these people averaging that land with all the purely agricultural land behind, and thus getting the value of the whole well below the £50 limit; although they may be asking the local authority £1,000 per acre for a portion. You will have them escape the very tax intended to hit them, and which we intended to bring land into the market. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) said the Clause was drawn up by the Government at their request in order to meet an entirely different situation. It was drawn up to meet the case of houses on small plots in towns where the property is deteriorating and where it is obviously inconvenient that the land value of one few yards should be different from the value of another few yards adjoining. There, I am entirely with the hon. Member, and I think he has a very strong case; but he never intended to get this extra concession, and I contend he might allow the Government to accept this Amendment, and thereby avoid what he never wanted, and what, I am quite certain, nobody on this side of the House wanted. The reason why the Amendment is brought forward is perfectly clear, and simple. It asks that this concession to the owners of contiguous tenancies should only avail when they are adjoining the same road or road that is to be. It exactly meets the case brought forward by the hon. Member for the Kingston Division (Mr. Cave) and by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to shout "Divide," but what did they do this afternoon? They wasted hour after hour.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member had better to speak to the Amendment.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODThis is a most important Amendment. It saves the position of the valuations of the land of this country under the new Doomsday Book, and I respectfully urge that a question of such vital importance to the whole country should be treated with consideration from every point of view. Hon. Members opposite have heaps of opportunities of putting their point of view, and I ask them to let us on this side of the House put our view also. We all want to get the accurate value of the land, apart from the buildings and improvements upon it, so that we may use that valuation in future. The only way of getting this valuation on sound lines is to use the landlord's information, to use the information of skilled valuers, and to get it in as small plots as possible, so that we may have as intimately as possible the value of every square yard and every acre of land. This Clause, as at present framed, deliberately avoids getting the true valuation and prevents securing the correct value of every yard of frontage. The position is perfectly obvious. We have a chance here of meeting the views of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) and I appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment, which will make this a thoroughly satisfactory Clause and give us a common-sense, sound valuation.
§ Mr. STANLEY WILSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that question.
§ Mr. RAFFANI desire to join in the appeal of my hon. Friend to the Government to reconsider this matter. The history of this matter is perfectly plain. The
§ hon. Member for Chelmsford was very frank. His object was, he admitted, to protect the owners of small houses in towns, and he has stated in the most emphatic manner he has no desire whatever to include great plots of agricultural land. I do appeal to the Government to consider whether it is desirable under this Clause to give much wider latitude than is demanded by the hon. and gallant Member, who himself approached the Government with reference to this matter. The hon. and gallant Member asked for a definite assurance with regard to that point. All that he asks for is given by my hon. Friend's Amendment, which he now proposes, and I do appeal to the Government not to extend such a wide latitude as would be given without any limiting words whatever. I have listened to what has-been said by the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government with great respect, but after all what he merely puts to us is a small difficulty of collection, and with regard to the merits of this Amendment, no objection has been stated either on behalf of the Government or the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford. Under these circumstances, I do feel that we are entiled to ask the Government to give us some intimation that, if this particular Amendment is withdrawn, they will meet us by some other form of words which will limit the Clause in the particular direction in which the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford has admitted it ought to be altered.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 359.
1025| Division No. 86.] | AYES. | [11.5 p.m. |
| Alden, Percy | Hudson, Walter | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Jowett, F. W. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Kellaway, Frederick George | Samuel, J. (Stockton) |
| Byles, William Pollard | King, J. (Somerset, N.) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Chancellor, H G. | Lansbury, George | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Crooks, William | Logan, John William | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Thomas, J. H. (Derby) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness) | M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe) | Wardle, George J. |
| Gibson, Sir James P. | Martin, J. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Gill, A. H. | Morrell, Philip | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Goldstone, Frank | Neilson, Francis | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Grady, James | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | Parker, James (Halifax) | |
| Harwood, George | Pointer, Joseph | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Ellis Davies and Mr. Wedgwood. |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Raffan, Peter Wilson | |
| Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Armitage, R. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Anderson, A. M. | Ashley, Wilfrid W. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Archer-Shee, Major M. | Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry |
| Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) | Arkwright, John Stanhope | Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Eyres-Monsell, B. M. | Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Falconer, J. | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Farrell, James Patrick | Lane-Fox, G. R. |
| Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) | Fell, Arthur | Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Ferens, T. R. | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Ffrench, Peter | Lewisham, Viscount |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Field, William | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Baring, Capt Hon. G. V. | Fitzroy, Hon. E. A. | Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale) |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Fleming, Valentine | Lundon, T. |
| Barnston, Harry | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs) | Forster, Henry William | Lynch, A. A. |
| Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Foster, Philip Staveley | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilton) | Frewen, Moreton | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Furness, Stephen W. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Beale, W. P. | Gardner, Ernest | MacGhee, Richard |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Gastrell, Major W. H. | Mackinder, H. J. |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Gibbs, G. A. | Maclean, Donald |
| Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase | Glanville, H. J. | Macmaster, Donald |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Goldman, C. S. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich) | Goldsmith, Frank | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Goulding, Edward Alfred | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Grant, J. A. | M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- | Greene, W. R. | M'Micking, Major Gilbert |
| Berestord, Lord C. | Greig, Colonel J. W. | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Bigland, Alfred | Gretton, John | Marks, G. Croydon |
| Bird, A. | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Black, Arthur W. | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Meagher, Michael |
| Boland, John Pius | Guinness, Hon. W. E. | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Gulland, John W. | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) |
| Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Boyton, J. | Hackett, J. | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Brigg, Sir John | Hambro, Angus Valdemar | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Hamersley, A. St. George | Mooney, J. J. |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Hancock, J. G. | Morgan, George Hay |
| Bull, Sir William James | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Harmsworth, R. L. | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Harris, Henry Percy | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Mount, William Arthur |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Muldoon, John |
| Butcher, J. G. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Munro, R. |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Neville, Regirald J. N. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Newdegate, F. A |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Newman, John R. P. |
| Cassel, Felix | Hayden, John Patrick | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Cator, John | Hayward, Evan | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Cave, George | Helmsley, Viscount | Nield, Herbert |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon) | Nolan, Joseph |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Henderson, J. M'D. (Aberdeen, W.) | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Chapple, Dr. W. A. | Hickman, Col. T. E. | Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Higham, John Sharp | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Hillier, Dr. A. P. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Hill-Wood, Samuel | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Collins, Stphen (Lambeth) | Hinds, John | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Hoare, S. J. G. | O'Dowd, John |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Ogden, Fred |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Hohler, G. Fitzroy | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Holt, Richard Durning | O'Malley, William |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Horner, A. L. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Croft, H. P. | Houston, Robert Paterson | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Crumley, Patrick | Hughes, S. L. | O'Shee, James John |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Hume-Williams, W. E. | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Hunt, Rowland | Paget, Almeric Hugh |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hunter, W. (Govan) | Palmer, Godfrey |
| Dawes, J. A. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Delany, William | Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Dillon, John | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) |
| Donelan, Captain A. J. C. | Jones, W. S Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) | Perkins, Walter F. |
| Du Cros, Arthur Philip | Joyce, Michael | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Joynson-Hicks, William | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.) | Keating, M. | Pollard, Sir George H. |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Kirkwood, J. H. M. | Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Knight, Captain E. A. | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Essex, Richard Walter | Kyffin-Taylor, G. | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Pryce-Jones, Col. E. | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) | Waring, Walter |
| Quilter, William Eley C. | Scanlan, Thomas | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Radford, G. H. | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Raphael, Sir Herbert H. | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | Webb, H. |
| Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Weigall, Capt. A. G. |
| Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Sheehy, David | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Reddy, M. | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Redmond, William (Clare) | Spear, John Ward | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Remnant, James Farquharson | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Rice, Hon. W. F. | Staveley-Hill, Henry | Wiles, Thomas |
| Richardson, Albion (Peckham) | Stewart, Gershom | Williams, P. (Middlesbrough) |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Strachey, Sir Edward | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Summers, James Woolley | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Swift, Rigby | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Sykes, Alan John | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Roche, John (Galway, E.) | Tennant, Harold John | Winfrey, Richard |
| Rolleston, Sir John | Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Ronaldshay, Earl of | Terrell, H. (Gloucester) | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon) |
| Rothschild, Lionel de | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Rowlands, James | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| Royds, Edmund | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Valentia, Viscount | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) | Walker, Col. William Hall | Young, W. (Perthshire, E.) |
| St. Maur, Harold | Walrond, Hon. Lionel | Younger, George |
| Salter, Arthur Clavell | Walters, John Tudor | |
| Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Geoffrey Howard. |
| Sanders, Robert A. | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | |
| Sanderson, Lancelot | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI beg to move, "That Mr. Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Mr. BALFOURI do not specially blame the Government for making the proposal to report Progress. I blame hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway who voted for the gag about four hours ago. The position is this: We have passed a closure resolution which compels us to take the remaining new clauses by eleven o'clock to-morrow night. There are a great many important questions which the Opposition, the natural critics of the Government, desire to raise on these clauses, and because hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway choose to occupy the time in discussions which were of a kind very much worse than any which were characterised as unbusinesslike by the Labour party this afternoon, these clauses are to be thrown over until to-morrow, and the discussion of our new proposals is to be unduly restricted under the closure resolution which the hon. Members voted for, and against any relaxation of which by the Government they protested. That is not business. The Labour party supported the Government. Do they think that that is a fair way for the majority to treat the minority?
We are restricted in the ordinary and natural opportunities which we possess, and are restricted by the perverse action of certain hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and the action of the Government which they support. The question before the House is the 1026 destruction of the rights of the minority, and they are using or abusing the rights of a very small minority to prevent a very large minority having their rights respected. The Prime Minister with regret, which I am sure was sincere, told us this afternoon that he was obliged to restrict our liberties, but he did not anticipate, I am quite sure, any suggestion that the very small time in which we were allowed to discuss our Amendments was to be further entrenched upon by the, irresponsible action of a certain number of Gentlemen below the Gangway. I think that, as the Government has taken away the greater part of our rights this afternoon, the least they could do was to protect us in the undisturbed occupation of the small remnant they had left.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI think that the right hon. Gentleman has imported an unnecessary amount of heat into this discussion. If my Motion had been assented to in the early hours of this afternoon, we would have had three more hours in which the discussion could take place. I cannot recognise that the occasion offers any ground of complaint of any sort or kind. The discussion has been a most reasonable one. We have given four additional hours on Thursday. In view of the fact that the Consolidated Fund Bill is now coming on, I hope that the Committee will agree to the Motion now before it.
Sir HENRY DALZIELAs a private Member, I must protest most emphatically 1027 against the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. What is the proposition which he ventures to make to the Committee at the present moment, and what has been the history of the proceedings to-day? We came down this afternoon, and we heard with great interest the proprosal of the Prime Minister. I confess I thought the case of the Government was strong when I read the proposal on the Paper, but I was convinced it was strong after the speech of the Prime Minister. The Debate went on for several hours, and so far as I could see without any really effective speech; with out any overwhelming argument in favour of surrender on the part of the Government, the Government gave a most important concession. I venture to say that that concession was given not as a result of Debates in this House, but as a result of a conversation behind the Speaker's chair, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite if he is going to determine the policy of the Government, if he is going to decide when an extra day is to be given and when it is to be refused, let him come and sit on the Government Benches. Let it be done openly, in the light of the House, and in the light of day. I do object as a private Member that, while these Debates are going on, while we are supporting the Government and listening to the arguments brought forward, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, without any reference to the Debate, should go behind the Speaker's chair—and I advise him that it is a draughty position——
§ The CHAIRMANThe place where a bargain may have been made does not arise on the question before the House to report Progress.
Sir HENRY DALZIELThat was only a passing reference. It has not been denied, and will not be denied, that an arrangement was made without the cognisance of the House. I take the opportunity of expressing my strong opposition to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, and also to the concession which the Government have made to-day. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition imagines that he has a right to complain, forsooth. After making a deal outside with the Government, by which extra hours are to be given on Thursday, he complains that Members below the Gangway, who have not been 1028 consulted, who knew nothing whatever about it, whose time has been taken away—taken away by the Government from their friends and given to hon. Members opposite—the right hon. Gentleman, forsooth, thinks that we should remain silent and take no part in further Debate. The right hon. Gentleman when he was making his deal ought to have said, "Of course, this is on the understanding that not one single private Member on this side of the House shall take part in the Debate." But he did not do that, and he has got to take the consequences. So far as I am concerned I hope my hon. Friends will give up no opportunity of which they can take advantage in order to express their views on any Clause or Amendment that may come before the House. Only one Amendment has been moved from this part of the House, and because of that we have had this outburst of indignation on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. As private Members we are not going to be dictated to by either of the Front Benches, no matter how distinguished may be the quarters from which appeals may be made. With regard to the protest which has been made we entirely dissociate ourselves from it, and we will use every opportunity we can in the course of further Debates.
§ Mr. BARNESI simply rise for one moment, not to speak for or against the Motion now before the House——
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYOn a point of Order, Sir. The hon. Gentleman said he is not going to speak either for or against the Motion, and I very respectfully submit to you that he therefore will not be in order in speaking.
§ The CHAIRMANI am not quite so sure of that as the hon. Baronet. I must hear what the hon. Member has to say.
§ Mr. BARNESI ought to have said that I did not rise so much for that purpose as to refer to something which fell from the Leader of the Opposition. In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), I think I ought to protest against the language used by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to myself and my hon. Friends. The right hon. Gentleman could not have been in the House during the whole of the Debate, or he would not have spoken as he did. What has happened? As a matter of fast, 1029 the time that has been taken up this evening has not been taken up by us, and has not been taken up by hon. Members behind me, no matter how strongly they may feel with regard to the matters that have been discussed. The great bulk of the time, in the earlier part of the evening at all events, was taken up by hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, and we only intervened, and very briefly, in the Debates which took place on the Amendments, and not on Amendments moved by my hon. Friends behind me. We never spoke on those Amendments at all. The only time taken by us was on Amendments put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and not from this side at all. Therefore, I rise, and I think I am justified in rising, to protest against language such as has been used, when the right hon. Gentleman said that we were guilty of perverse conduct, and unbusinesslike conduct, and irresponsible action. I say we are not guilty of any such conduct, and, on the contrary, what we have done, and our action to-night, is perfectly consistent with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester this afternoon. That is to say, we desire, and desire only, that this House should have the opportunity, not so much for rambling and repetition speeches, but of giving effect to the mandate of our Constituents who sent us here, and, in short, assuming control over business.
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYThe hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy has made a speech which I must say I am at a loss to understand. He first of all said that the rights of private Members had been taken away, and he apparently thought my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) was responsible for those rights being taken away. Who voted for the rights of private Members being taken away? Every hon. Member on this side of the House——
Sir H. DALZIELI did not blame the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I blamed the Government for taking it away and giving it to our opponents opposite.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe rights of private Members were taken away by his own Government and we on this side voted against that. I do not know which way the hon. Gentleman voted, but the vast majority of hon. private Members on the the other side of the House voted against private Members having their 1030 rights. If the hon. Member did not mean that my right hon. Friend was responsible for taking away rights of private Members, what did he mean?
Sir H. DALZIELI said that when private Members' time was taken away we understood it was going to be usefully and profitably used. We did not understand it was going to be given away to the Opposition.
§ Sir F. BANBURYHow has it been used during the last two hours? What was the contention of my hon. Friend—that it was used frivolously by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
§ Mr. CROOKSWe have not spoken these two hours.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) could not have been in the House when his Leader the hon. Member for Leicester spoke.
§ Mr. BARNESI was.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThen he must remember the hon. Member for Leicester turned round and in a dramatic manner said, "I hope my hon. Friends will never consent to obstruction." What have they been doing during the last two hours. "I hope my hon. Friends who vote for this guillotine Motion will see that everything is done to hurry through this particular Bill in order that the Parliament Bill may go on." What have hon. Members below the Gangway done? They have taken advantage of their Leader's absence—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no"]—and they have in no kind of way hastened the proceedings.
§ Mr. J. PARKERmade an observation which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.
§ Sir F. BANBURYExactly; a Division may be called for obstructive purposes. If the hon. Member and his friends desire to obstruct, they will find Divisions extremely useful. The hon. Member is becoming a pastmaster——
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Baronet must address himself to the Motion before the Committee.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI was misled by the interruption of the hon. Member. As I desire to see progress made, and a proper opportunity given for discussion, I will not detain the Committee longer.
§ Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
1032§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 233, Noes, 157.
1033| Division No. 87.] | AYES. | [11.35 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin) | Harmsworth, R. Leicester | O'Shee, James John |
| Acland, Francis D. (Camborne) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Alden, Percy | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Pearce, Robert (Leek) |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Harwood, George | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Anderson, A. M. | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham) |
| Armitage, Robert | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Pointer, Joseph |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Haworth, Arthur A. | Pollard, Sir George H. |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E) | Hayden, John Patrick | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Hayward, Evan | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Barnes, George N. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Henderson, J M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Bealc, William Phipson | Higham, John Sharp | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Hinds, John | Radford, George Heynes |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. George) | Holt, Richard Durning | Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (S. Shields) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Hudson, Walter | Reddy, Michael |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan) | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Brigg, Sir John | Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Burke, E. Havlland- | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John (Battersea) | Jones, Wm. S. Glyn- (Stepney) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Jowett, Frederick William | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Joyce, Michael | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Keating, Matthew | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Kellaway, Frederick George | Roche, John (Galway, East) |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) | King, Joseph (Somerset, North) | Rowlands, James |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Lambert, George (South Molton) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Lambert, Richard (Cricklade) | St. Maur, Harold |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Lansbury, George | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cockermouth) | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lewis, John Herbert | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Logan, John William | Scott, A. M'Callum (Bridgeton) |
| Crawshay-Williams, E. | Lundon, Thomas | Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel |
| Crooks, William | Lyell, C. H. | Sheehy, David |
| Crumley, Patrick | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Smith, Albert (Clitheroe) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Elffln) | MacGhee, Richard | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Davies, Timothy (Louth) | Maclean, Donald | Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, W.) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Macmaster, Dr. Thomas J. | Summers, James Woolley |
| Dawes, James Arthur | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Sutherland, John E. |
| Delany, William | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | M'Laren, F. W. S. (Linc., Spalding) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. | M'Laren, W. S. B. (Crewe) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Dillon, John | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Thomas, James Henry (Derby) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness) | Marks, George Croydon | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Martin, Joseph | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Edwards, A. C. (Glam., E.) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Walters, John Tudor |
| Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Mid) | Meagher, Michael | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Esmonde, Dr. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) | Waring, Walter |
| Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexford, N.) | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Essex, Richard Walter | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Falconer, James | Mooney, John J. | Webb, H. |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Morgan, George Hay | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Ferens, Thomas Richardson | Morrell, Philip | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Muldoon, John | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Field, William | Munro, Robert | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Furness, Stephen | Neilson, Francis | Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth) |
| Gibson, Sir James Puckering | Nolan, Joseph | Wiles, Thomas |
| Gill, Alfred Henry | Norton, Capt. C. W. (Newington, W.) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Glanville, Harold James | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Goldstone, Frank | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Guest, Major (Pembroke) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool, Scotland) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Guest, Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E.) | O'Dowd, John | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Ogden, Fred | Winfrey, R. |
| Hackett, John | O'Grady, James | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Hancock, John George | O'Malley, William | |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Goldsmith, Frank | Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury) |
| Archer-Shee, Major Martin | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Grant, James Augustus | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Ashley, Wilfred W. | Greene, Walter Raymond | Paget, Almeric Hugh |
| Bagot, Lt.-Col. Josceline | Gretton, John | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward | Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington) |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Hambro, Angus Valdemar | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.) | Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Banner, John S. Harmood | Helmsley, Viscount | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor | Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire) | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, S.) | Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. | Quitter, William Eley C. |
| Barnston, Harry | Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Hills, John Waller (Durham) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak) | Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan |
| Beckett, Hon. William Gervase | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Benn, Arthur S. (Plymouth) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Rolleston, Sir John |
| Benn, Ian Hamilton (Greenwich) | Horner, Andrew Long | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Houston, Robert Paterson | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Beresford, Lord Charles | Hume-Williams, William Ellis | Rutherford, William (W. Derby) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Hunt, Rowland | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Bird, Alfred | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Boscawen, Col. A. S. T. Griffith- | Joynson-Hicks, William | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Boyton, James | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Brassey, H. L. C. | Kirkwood, John H. M. | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Kyffin-Taylor, Gerald | Spear, John Ward |
| Bull, Sir William James | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Burn, Col. C. R (Torquay) | Lawson, Hon. Harry (Mile End) | Staveley-Hill, Henry |
| Butcher, J. G. | Lewisham, Viscount | Stewart, Gershom |
| Carlile, Edward Hildred | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Swift, Rigby |
| Cassel, Feilx | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Sykes, Alan John |
| Cave, George | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.) |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Lowther, Claude (Eskdale) | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Thynne, Lord Alexander |
| Courthope, George Loyd | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Walker, Colonel W. H. |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Mackinder, Halford J. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Macmaster, Donald | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Magnus, Sir Philip | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Croft, Henry Page | Malcolm, Ian | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Du Cros, Arthur P. | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Morpeth, Viscount | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Fell, Arthur | Morrison-Bell, Captain E. (Ashburton) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Morrison-Bell, Major A. (Honiton) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Fletcher, John S. (Hampstead) | Mount, William Arthur | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Foster, Philip Staveley | Neville, Reginald J. N. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Gardner, Ernest | Newdegate, F. A. N. | Younger, George |
| Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Newman, John R. P. | |
| Gibbs, George Abraham | Newton, Harry Kottingham | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster. |
| Goldman, Charles Sydney | Nield, Herbert |
Bill read the third time, and passed.
The CLERK AT THE TABLE (Sir Courtenay Ilbert)I have to inform the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker for the remainder of this day's sitting.
Whereupon Mr. EMMOTT, the Chairman of Ways and Means, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker.
Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.