§ Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged in respect of any land which is used or occupied for the purpose of market gardens.—[Mr. Eyres-Monsell.]
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ Mr. EYRES-MONSELLIn submitting this second Clause which stands in my name, although it is tempting to speak on a subject which I have been trying to since January of last year, I do not propose to say anything in support of it. I do so because I think I have occupied an undue share of the disgracefully short time allowed us by the Government, and also to show hon. Gentlemen that obstruction is the very last thing that we do want. I am, therefore, not going to further detain the Committee.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI did not mean to intrude on this House so soon after my joining it, and should not do so were it not for the fact that this Clause very vitally affects my Constituency. It is not only a part of England where market gardens are, but market gardening is one of its chief industries; and, although I fear from the smile on the face of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the Government are not going to assent to the Clause, I do make one appeal to them in regard to the difficulty which the Undeveloped Land Duty must place, not only upon the owners, but on the tenants of market gardens. I want to go back to Section 16 of the old Budget, which established these duties. I find that land is deemed to be developed by the erection of dwelling-houses or even the erection of glass-houses. The Government might extend their definition of the development of land one stage further. If I as a market gardener take a tract of land and erect glass-houses on it under the old Act of 1909, that is deemed to be developed land. I wish to put it that the planting of fruit trees may equally be some development of the land, and for this purpose I cannot help thinking that the development of land has assumed too artificial an aspect. Development of land does not mean really development of land by building. I can assume many cases in which land might be well developed in the interests of the community without actually being built upon. I suggest that the development of a large amount of land in the neighbourhood of London for intensive culture, the planting 1252 of fruit trees and the planting of all those varieties of vegetables which constitute the highest intensive culture of land, is really development. I take it that the object of the Government in forcing land by these taxes into development is not merely to bring land into the market for the erection of houses, but to bring it to its best use from an economic standpoint. I submit that the planting of land near our large towns for intensive culture, for fruit trees and so forth, is really, temporarily, at least, a very high development, and there is a large amount of land to-day, notably in Brentford, which while it has undoubtedly a potential building value, while it may have an actual building value, while it may be worth, as I believe it is-worth, £200 or £300 an acre for building purposes, is still not all needed for building development, and may be very well in the next ten or twenty years be utilised profitably to the people and to the State for development as fruit gardens.
The point I want to make is really not merely on behalf of the landlord—I suppose it would be impossible at this hour to get much sympathy from the benches opposite on behalf of the landlord—but on behalf of the tenant, because, however much you may pass laws to prevent the landlord making a contract with the tenant to pay these duties, whenever a fresh tenant comes along there is bound to be an increase in the rent practically by the amount of the duty. To take one slight illustration. There is a vast amount of land on the confines of London let to market gardeners at a rent of £4 or £5 an acre at least. That would be worth £100 an acre in market value. A great deal of that land is worth considerably more for building purposes—£300, £400, £500 an acre. Under the last Budget, as it now stands, the owner of the land will have to pay a halfpenny in the £1 annually on the building value. Is it possible to believe that after the owner has paid 300 or 400 halfpennies per acre every year when a new tenant comes along he is not going to say to him, while I let it to my last tenant at £4 an acre, I very much regret I must ask you £5"? It is only human nature. However you may try by Parliamentary devices to put it on the landlord in these particular cases, sooner or later the tax is bound to fall upon the tenant. I do not know of any other exception which is so burning as this exception of market gardeners in and near our large towns, because the Government sooner or later will get the increased value of the 1253 land which the population is giving them. On land worth £100 an acre when market gardening began, which has gradually risen year by year to £300, £400, or £500 as building land, when it comes to be developed into building land you will get your Increment Taxes. Landlords will grant a lease of it at a building rate, and the Government will get their one-fifth of the Increment Value, so that the whole of the time it is being used for market gardens the State is still earning its Increment Value as it rises in value. The Government might well meet my hon. Friend and grant this one boon to the market gardeners of London and large towns, giving them an exception from Undeveloped Land Duty, while all the time the landlords, whom I believe to be the real object of the tax, will have to pay increment duty when the land comes to be developed for building purposes.
§ Captain WEIGALLI feel strongly on this subject simply and solely as an average agriculturist, representing an agricultural constituency, first from the point of view that during the whole of my life I have been concerned with the management of agricultural estates in this country; and, secondly, from the point that I have only recently concluded an unenviable experience of five months' continuous electioneering in agricultural constituencies. During that period hon. Gentlemen opposite have hurled all their eloquence against me in endeavouring to persuade agricultural electors that the whole of the agricultural land of this country was absolutely exempt from Undeveloped Land Duty and Increment Duty. It seems to me that this Amendment opens up a very wide vista, far wider than that affecting merely the market gardens of the country. It means that unless you are going clearly to point out, both to owners and occupiers of agricultural land, that they are exempt from this taxation you are going to close the door to a large amount of expenditure which is neither luxurious nor absolutely necessary.
All those who have either owned, managed, or farmed large acreages of land know that an enormous amount of expenditure goes through what is known as the clerk of the works staff on large estates. It is neither luxurious nor absolutely necessary, but it goes to make the tenant farmer's holding more accommodating and more attractive to him, and the labourer's cottage more comfortable, and the labourer himself, therefore, more contented. Unless you are going clearly to 1254 show the owner of agricultural land that he is to be exempt from Undeveloped Land Duty, you are going to close the door to that expenditure, and therefore to hit both the agricultural tenant and the agricultural labourer. There is not the slightest doubt that there is an immense amount of land in this country bordering on centres of industry let at a rent of £3 or £4 an acre. Capitalise that at twenty-five years' purchase, and you get the capital value of £100 an acre. I have had acres and acres of land in my charge that is being put to its best economic use for purely agricultural purposes. It is let at £4 an acre if I offer it; and there is land I have offered for the last ten years, and have been willing to sell at its purely agricultural value, and I have not had a buyer, simply because the centre of industry has been over-built and local taxation has arrived at a figure when those who live in the locality do not desire to build. Therefore, the whole of that land is being put to agricultural use, and that agricultural use represents the best economic use to which the land at the present moment can be put.
The men who are living in these conditions under an individual landowner are living in very much better conditions than they can possibly hope to do under any State-aided scheme, for the simple reason that they have elasticity of arrangement in paying their rent, and the average landowner in this country certainly cannot be said to have imposed unfair conditions on those occupying under him. If you get tenants and labourers under these conditions while the land is being put to its best economic use—I am speaking for the agricultural community alone—I say that, unless you can clearly show that you are sincere in your protestation that agricultural land is to be exempt, then this Amendment which clearly shows that agricultural land, so long as it is purely agricultural land, is going to be exempt from Undeveloped Land Duty, should be accepted. You would then show that you are sincere in your protestations. I emphatically deny that under the Finance Act agricultural land of the kind I have endeavoured to describe is exempt. All I wish to point out is that it is open now to the Government to make it absolutely clear to the agricultural community that they are sincere in their protestations that agricultural land shall in future be exempt. I am perfectly sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that there is, rightly or wrongly, existing 1255 now among those who own agricultural land a feeling of instability and insecurity. The effect is that, so long as that feeling of instability and insecurity exists, you must be striking a blow at the whole of the agricultural prosperity of the country, because if you are going to close down the doors of ordinary expenditure which the average landowner has been making, you are going to impose an unfair burden on those who have to get their living out of agricultural land. On these grounds I hope most sincerely that the Government will accept this Amendment.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThe Government cannot possibly accept this Amendment, and I think it will require very little consideration on the part of hon. Members to realise that, if, as I strongly believe, it was not already realised before the Clause was moved. The Debate we had on the last Clause with respect to the taxation of agricultural values travelled over a great deal of the ground that has been covered during the discussion on this Clause. If the Government were to accept this Amendment, the result of it would be that there would be very few cases in which you would get Undeveloped Land Duty at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I am much obliged to the hon. Member for the candour with which he has expressed his agreement with me as to the way in which the Revenue would lose. It is quite plain, of course, that the object of the Amendment is to get rid of the Undeveloped Land Duty. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, I will say that the object is to get rid of the Undeveloped Land Duty in so far as hon. Members opposite have any hope of getting rid of it at all. If this Amendment were accepted you might get rid of Undeveloped Land Duty wherever you liked, provided that you turned the land into a market garden. There is nothing to get in that case. If the land is cultivated as a market garden then you are not liable to Undeveloped Land Duty under the Amendment. Let me point out further that market gardens are, in case of any doubt, included in agricultural land under the definition Clause, Section 41, of the principal Act. The agricultural value of this land does not bear any duty at all. It is made as plain as it possibly can be by the section of the principal Act. If hon. Members will only refer to Sections 16 and 17 they will see quite plainly that there is no Undeveloped Land Duty 1256 charged upon agricultural value. It is only when the building value exceeds the agricultural value that Undeveloped Land Duty becomes payable, and it is only payable in respect of the amount by which the site value exceeds the agricultural value. It is perfectly plain from the sections of the principal Act that we have in this matter provided for the way in which the tax is to be levied. Undeveloped Land Duty stands in a category by itself. That duty is payable under the principal Act by the owner. It is expressly made payable by the owner under the Act, and not by the tenant. The result is that a market gardener who is a tenant will not have to pay the duty at all. It is the owner who in the end——[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There is no use saying "No," for the Act says it is to be paid by the owner. I do not intend to say anything more with regard to that.
I would point out once more to hon. Members who may have forgotten some of the Clauses in the Act, or who may not have the Clauses present in their minds at the moment, that by Section 18 of the principal Act we have exempted from Undeveloped Land Duty persons occupying small holdings where the total value of the land does not exceed £500. Under that Clause the market gardener, for whom a good deal of sympathy is asked, is provided for already, and, whatever happens, so far as he is concerned, he gets out of paying Undeveloped Land Duty on his holding, even if the building value exceeds the agricultural value. In all the circumstances the only claim that could be made for the Duty would be in respect of the amount of building value in excess of the agricultural value, and no more. I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment, which, if accepted, would destroy the effect of the Undeveloped Land Duty.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe hon. and learned Gentleman's defence of this Bill is singularly instructive, because the Committee will observe that already in respect of this matter as regards the particular distinction which we have been seeking to get the Government to introduce in reference to Increment Duty, and which the Government have for the last two hours vehemently resisted, the hon. and learned Gentleman for the purpose of making his defence points out, that in this case it is provided by the principal Act that Undeveloped Duty would be charged only on the excess of the building value over the agricultural value, and the object of this last Amendment, which for the last 1257 two hours the Government have been resisting, was to secure that Increment Value Duty also should be charged only upon the excess of the building value above the agricultural value.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThe one was Increment Duty and the other was Undeveloped Land Duty.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThat is perfectly true: Just as I might say that yesterday was Monday and to-day is Tuesday. But if the principle is sound that you should tax only upon the difference between building value and agricultural value, and in order to defeat this Amendment the Attorney-General founds himself upon the fact that that is done, with regard to Undeveloped Land Duty; then the case is even stronger in regard to Increment Duty, where the assumption was that the landowner had got additional value to which he had not contributed, than in the case of the Undeveloped Land Duty where there is no such assumption, but where there is found to be in the possession of the owner a certain value which you choose for taxation. What is the result of the policy which the Government are pursuing in this matter? The theory, as I understand it, is that wherever ground has a building value in excess of its value for other purposes it ought to be built upon; that whoever, being the owner, and having control of it, uses it for other purposes than building uses it unprofitably, and that if enlightened self-interest does not lead him to get the highest price he could for building on it at once you must fine him by taxation. The theory of the Government is that a vast amount of land is being held up for building, although the owner could get greater prices by using it, and although it is required for building, and although it is to the interest of the community and the owner alike that it should be built on. I join issue on that point. In regard to the kind of land referred to by my hon. Friend it is not the interest of the community to force that land into building lots. In the first place, I think that you cannot force it all into building lots, and for many years to come the only use you can put it to is an agricultural use and the best use you can put it to for the community is an intensive agricultural use or a market garden use.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESThe best economically?
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINYes, the best economically and the best for 1258 the community. In the Budget of 1909 it is taxed, but it will not be taxed if it has not a value in excess of its agricultural value.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESThen what does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the best economic use?
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIf he will allow me to finish the answer to his question and will attend to it, he will see that there is an answer, and he will see that he is wrong. But that depends on his having patience to listen and being willing to give his intelligence to the subject. If the land has no higher value for any other purpose than for agricultural purposes it will not be taxed, but there is a vast amount of land which has a higher value given by its prospective use for building, but not by its present use for building, and all that land will be taxed. Take land which to-day is worth £3 an acre for agricultural purposes, representing a capital value of £100, and say that that land is in the neighbourhood of a town and will in the course of a dozen years be required for the town's development. Will the value of that land in the market to-day be only the £100 which represents its present agricultural value? It will be its future building value, discounted by the number of years that have to run before that value can be realised. If so many years hence that land can be sold for building purposes at £1,000, its value to-day may be £200, £300, £400, or £500, rising up to that figure according to the number of years which have to run before it can be used for building purposes. During all those years it will be taxed, if used as a market garden, and yet to use it as a market garden is, in the narrowest sense of the word, the sense in which the hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones) used it—the best economic use to which the land can be put. That is to say, it is the way in which you can get the greatest amount of money out of the land during the time.
But I am going a little further than those dry economics. I must beg the House to consider for a moment whether it is really in the interests of a great town that you should drive every acre of land within the limits of the town into the builder's hands? Do you want, when once a town, as it were, gets its grip on a district that every atom of ground that is capable of being covered by bricks and mortar should be covered? Do you not realise that the bigger a town gets the more important it becomes that yon should 1259 have open spaces? When corporations or private donors, very often landowners, go to great expense to buy open spaces, not merely as playgrounds in which people can absolutely run about, but as lungs to give breathing spaces to the town itself, I say then that in the interests of these great communities it is not desirable that all this land should be built over as soon as possible. It is much more desirable that it should spread over a larger area and leave open spaces in the midst of the bricks and mortar. Many of those spaces are left for a very long time, when you have got a reasonable return under the old system out of the use of the land for market gardens, and such like, or allotments which are covered by an Amendment to this Clause, or similar purposes. But you are going to say that if the land continues to be used for that purpose, as land for breathing space, that it shall be subject to a special tax, and the moral ground-work of your tax is that the landowner is improperly exercising his rights and improperly withholding his land from the builder. You would therefore put the utmost pressure, both direct and indirect, moral and financial, upon the landlord of any such open spaces to cover them with buildings at the earliest possible time. The House has devoted a good deal of attention to town planning and open spaces, and such like subjects, and I urge Members not to strike a blow on the other side by doing something which, pro tanto, undoes the work that they are doing in town planning and in other directions as regards the interests of the community as a whole. But there is another interest concerned, that of the tenant of such land. The learned Attorney-General emphasised the fact of the agricultural value not being exceeded. But invert his proposition. If the landlord raises the agricultural rent until it represents a return upon the building value of the estate, he is exempt from the tax, but if he continues to charge the agricultural rent which he formerly charged, then he is taxed as an evil-doer. I have ventured to put my own personal case to the House before, a thing one always hesitates about doing. I am not a big landowner. I own a little land in the neighbourhood of Birmingham. It is let in four portions.
There is a small holding occupied by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), there is a small holding occupied by a tenant farmer, a portion is devoted to allotments, and 1260 another portion is let to an horticultural society. I wish to draw attention to the land let for allotments. This land was bought a good many years ago for £200 an acre, because it was supposed to have a building value. There is plenty of land in the neighbourhood and certainly the land occupied in allotments is not, in my opinion, the first to be acquired for building purposes at the present time. These allotments are let at £3 an acre, which represents a capital value of £100. I am asked to renew the lease to the small holders. If I do so what is the position which confronts me? I am assuming that the land is worth no less and no more than when it was bought thirty years ago—£200 an acre. It is let for £3 an acre for agricultural purposes, and I therefore assume its value to be £100. The building value I assume to be £200—I do not think it is less, I do not think it is more. If I renew the lease what do I do? I make myself subject to the tax, I expose myself to the stigma, according to the Government theory, that I am withholding from building purposes land which ought to be built upon. That is the answer I have to make to the tenants, and thereupon they come to me and say, "If the district council offered you £6 per acre rent instead of £3 which they are paying then the agricultural value would be the same as the building value, and there would be no tax. There would then be no stigma, and instead of you being out of money you would get double the rent." That is perfectly true. That is the case I have got to deal with myself, and it is the case many another landlord will have to deal with. I quoted this in the House before, and I observed that the "Westminster Gazette" said, "What does Mr. Chamberlain complain of? He bought the land twenty or thirty years ago for £200, and when he bought the land it was because he thought it had a building value, and if it has a building value that is to be taxed." That is an entire misconception. I never would have ventured to bring before the House a personal grievance in that way. I did not raise the case, because I was going to be taxed but because here in a picturesque form was an argument which is presented to the landlord's mind, and suggested not by the landlord himself but by the tenants, who sooner than have that land turned into building land suggest that I should double the rent that I receive in order to escape the tax, and to escape the moral stigma that the Government put upon me.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTHas the right hon. Gentleman the land let at half the agricultural value it might let for?
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI think £3 per acre is the fair agricultural value, but if I can prove that for the whole of that land, something over twenty acres, I can find eighty to one hundred persons willing to offer me £6 per acre, I defy the Commissioners to say that that is not agricultural rent, if I get that offer from agricultural tenants for agricultural purposes. If you ask me whether I think that is a fair rent, no, I do not. The whole purpose of the tenants in offering the suggestion is not that that is its real agricultural value, but they offer that fancy price as an agricultural price; so that the reason for taxation disappears, the stigma disappears, and that I may leave it in their occupation.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTDoes the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the tenants are offering the higher rent as philanthropists?
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINA deputation from them suggested they would pay that because they want the land for agricultural purposes, and because they do not want their landlord to be forced to do that which the Government and the hon. Member are trying to make him do, namely, to turn his land away from agricultural use to building use, and to cover it with bricks and mortar at once.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTIt seems to me that on his own showing the agricultural value of the land is higher than that at which the right hon. Gentleman has let it.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI do not think it is, neither they nor I. I think £3 per acre is a fair rent. I am talking of the rent I receive of the gross acres, because, of course, they have to pay more to the district council since it is divided up. I think that is a fair price, but if you drive all the landlords in the neighbourhood to cover their land with bricks and mortar then I agree that the rent of agricultural land in that neighbourhood might be doubled. There will be famine prices paid for land. That is what is happening. From fear lest the land should be taken from them they are offering me a famine price. That is the result of your legislation. That is what you call exempting all agricultural land from the duty. You will never persuade my Con- 1262 stituents and the tenants under the district council who are tenants under me, that the provisions of your Act are fair, or in accordance with your own account, as long as they know the facts as they are presented to them at the present time. I suggest two pleas to the Government. The first is the general plea that it is not in the interest of the community to force landlords to build on all this open land, but that, on the contrary, it is much better that these lands should be left vacant as long as possible as open spaces, because in proportion as you force landlords to build you will force corporations to buy the land at enhanced prices from the landlord to save some part of it from the builder. Then there is the interest of the particular tenant, who will be met again and again by the landlord with the statement:—"If I continue to let the land to you for agricultural purposes I am held up to contempt by the Government as a wrongdoer; I am fined by the Government for misusing my land; therefore I must take it away from you unless you bring it again into the category of agricultural land by offering me a price which makes the agricultural equivalent to the building value."
§ Mr. LEIF JONESThe right hon. Gentleman has not convinced me that we are taxing agricultural land. He has, however, made the very remarkable statement that we are raising the value of agricultural land to famine prices. We have nearly doubled the agricultural value of land which he himself possesses, and he is now in the position to get £6 an acre for land which he has let at £3. It is a curious commentary on the usual criticisms on the action of the Government.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINDoes it occur to the hon. Member what kind of speeches would be made by hon. Members opposite if I took advantage of this Act to double the rent?
§ Mr. LEIF JONESI am the last man to blame the right hon. Gentleman for getting the market value for his land.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThat is the whole case against the landlords of England.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESI am not concerned in making a case against the landlords of England. In this matter not a word has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman to prove to me that one penny of the tax falls on the value of agricultural land. 1263 The right hon Gentleman spoke about dry economics. I think he did wisely to desert them during the greater portion of his speech. The Increment Value Duty, admittedly, does not fall on the agricultural value of land.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINYes, it does.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESI must withdraw the word "admittedly."
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINAdmittedly it does.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESAs regards Increment Value Duty, it is a question of the standard that you take. The Government have taken a fixed standard at a given time. The complaint made by hon. Members opposite is that when levying Increment Duty the Government do not start from a higher agricultural value which may have been reached after 1909, but they start from the standard of 1909. It is only in that sense that they can possibly claim that these taxes fall upon agricultural land. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, I believe that to be so, and the right hon. Gentleman reminded me that I had sat through all the Debates, I had had the advantage of listening to all his speeches, and still that is the view I hold. My view has not changed by a year spent in studying the operations of the tax, Form IV., and the various other outgrowths of the Budget of 1909. When we come to the Undeveloped Land Tax again it has not fallen upon agricultural land, because the tax does not operate until the land has a higher value for building purposes than its agricultural value. That at least is not denied by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The right hon. Gentleman talked about some prospective value which land might have over and apart from its present value. I have always been at a loss to understand what this prospective value is of which hon. Members opposite speak. The prospective value, the right hon. Gentleman says, is discounted—[Interruption]—If the land has a higher value, I would submit to the Opposition that there is nothing unreasonable in putting a tax upon it.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke once or twice of the stigma of being subject to the Undeveloped Land Duty, and of accounting himself a wrong-doer. I submit that is a very unreasonable way of treating that tax. If there is land that has this higher value produced in the neighbour- 1264 hood of towns, then it is a very reasonable subject for taxation. Certainly no social disadvantage has been shown to attach to it. I follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument that it is undesirable to force building forward. That is quite a reasonable argument which he holds very strongly, and for which there is a great deal to be said. But I do not think he is entitled to speak as if we were attaching a stigma to everyone who has to pay Undeveloped Land Duty, or that he is a wrong-doer because of this tax. The amount of the tax is an exceedingly small one. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of the £200 total value of the land referred to by the right hon. Gentleman £100 was for agricultural value, and the other £100 is subject to the tax—4s. 2d. a year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Per acre."] I am bound to say that neither in the tax itself nor in the amount has the right hon. Gentleman very much to complain of.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI make no complaint on my own account. I hesitated to mention the case, which I merely did by way of illustrating my point.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESI think the tax is a small one. I deny that it falls upon agricultural land in any sense. Nothing the right hon. Gentleman said in his development of the case against this tax in 1909 has made any hon. Member of this House dislike it more. Further experience of these taxes has not led us to believe that the Government have not acted wisely in putting these taxes upon land values.
§ Mr. ROYDSThis has been a very instructive Debate. It has shown that hon. Gentlemen, or at any rate a certain number of them on the other side who supported these Land Taxes through thick and thin did not understand the basis of the taxes at all. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said he studied the Act for some time and was satisfied that agricultural land was not taxed at all. He said Increment Value Duty was chargeable on the difference between the agricultural value of the land as it existed on April, 1909, and the present site value. The hon. Member is entirely mistaken. Increment is not chargeable upon that; it is chargeable on the difference between original site value and the new site value without regard to agricultural value at all. I want to put the hon. Member right, because I hope, after my explanation, to convert him into an opponent instead of a supporter of the tax. The hon. Member was not aware 1265 that Undeveloped Land Duty was chargeable when land was not built upon; he had to be told that Undeveloped Land Duty was chargeable, notwithstanding that the land had not been built upon. These are the two main taxes supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite, yet they do not understand the very foundation of them.
§ Viscount HELMSLEY 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. ESSEXThe right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire spoke about land being forced by the operations of these taxes into building land as being undesirable. I join issue with him in one way, though agreeing with him in the main. We who support these taxes support them not merely as revenue-producing agencies; we support them for the further reason that we believe they will bring more land into the market for building operations, and, instead of getting what we now get, miserable, squalid little square backyards in hundreds of thousands of our working-class houses, we should have larger portions of land attached and big gardens to add to the amenities of the dwellings of the poor. The hon. Member who has just spoken has an Amendment extending the operation of this tax by making it possible to call any little pieces of land upon which anything is grown agricultural land. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide."] I have only another word to say and I mean to say it.
§ The CHAIRMANI really must ask hon. Members not to cry "Divide, divide." This conduct is really of a disorderly character.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYIs it not within your recollection, Mr. Emmott, that we were once told from the Chair that when the House did not wish to hear an hon. Member speak the practice was to cry "Divide, divide."
§ Mr. ESSEXThe "t's" are crossed and the "i's" are dotted in subsequent Amendments by which in short any owner of land who wants to defeat the operation of the Act has only to put twenty-five cabbages upon his land and call it allotment or market garden land and then the object we have in view of making our towns healthier and more beautiful is defeated. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) triumphantly remarked that this tax is laid upon agricultural land, 1266 and it was said by a colleague of his that within his own experience the agricultural value of his land would probably be raised 100 per cent. by the operation of this Bill.
§ Mr. HENRY TERRELL rose to continue the Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide."]
§ The CHAIRMANI really must appeal to hon. Members on my right to allow the hon. Member to address the Committee. There is only a quarter of an hour before this Debate must conclude, and it is not fair to take up all the time by these disorderly interruptions, whether they come from the one side or the other. I regret to say to-night they have come from both sides.
§ Mr. HENRY TERRELLThe hon. Member opposite (Mr. Leif Jones) said my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) had not convinced him, but I do not suppose my right hon. Friend or anybody else would under any circumstances convince the hon. Member of the iniquity of the Undeveloped Land Duty. The reason why my right hon. Friend failed to convince him was made clear by the hon. Member himself when he told the House that he was at a loss to understand what was meant by the prospective building value of land. I should have thought anybody who had had the slightest experience of landed property in this country would perfectly well have understood what was meant by the prospective building value of land. Dees the hon. Member imagine for a moment when he talks of land having at one time an agricultural value of £100 an acre and some years afterwards having a building value of £1,000 an acre that value grows in a night, like a mushroom? The value grows gradually, as the neighbourhood increases and develops. If you have land with a purely agricultural value of £100 an acre it may in the next five years be worth £200 an acre, but at the end of that period it is not ripe for building. You have to hold it for some years before it becomes ripe, but, whilst it is becoming actual building land it has a prospective building value, and it is that prospective building value which is taxed by the Undeveloped Land Duty. Let us consider how that applies to agricultural land. Market gardens and allotments and land of that kind is called agricultural land within the meaning of these sections relating to the Undeveloped Land Duty. Just see how you are going to hit the small market gardener in that respect. Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite 1267 often speak of the value of encouraging intensive cultivation in the neighbourhood of towns. But here you are preventing it; you are imposing such duties on the only land capable of being used for that kind of agriculture that you prevent that kind of agriculture being followed at all. You cannot have that particular industry miles away from a town, you can only have it in the immediate neighbourhood of towns, and the land, by reason of its being in that immediate neighbourhood has a prospective building value. It is because it has that value that it is suited for this particular kind of agriculture. The tax has to be borne by the occupier: you may be quite sure that the owner of that land, which is a limited quantity, will pass the burden on to the occupier. If hon. Members will only look at this apart from the party aspect, they will see that by these duties they are doing their best to prevent this very land being used for market garden and allotment purposes. I venture earnestly to appeal to hon. Members who really desire to encourage this form of agriculture, which is essentially the form most suitable for the working classes of this country to support us on this occasion rather than to vote for a proposal which would simply hamper it.
§ Mr. EYRES-MONSELL 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.
§ Dr. ADDISONThe right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire spoke of the difficulty arising from the fact that the land had a prospective building value which could not be realised. By the operation of this tax we want to squeeze it into building land, and thus do
§ away with the injustice arising from the fact that it is prospective. I should like for a moment to examine the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman's argument amounted to this. He said that this land has a prospective building value of £200 an acre, but in the meantime he let if for market gardening purposes for £3 an acre, but in consequence of the odium which this unjust tax would give rise to be would be invited to raise the rent to £6 an acre, and the object of this performance of his was to relieve him of a tax which amounted to 4s. 2d. That means that the tenants would press upon him an extra rent of £3 per annum in order that he may not incur the odium of paying 4s. 2d. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide."]
§ The CHAIRMANPerhaps hon. Members do not understand that we must divide upon this Question at eleven o'clock?
§ Dr. ADDISONI was just pointing out, if the hon. Members opposite will allow me for a moment, that the right hon. Gentleman's argument was that this land existing in the neighbourhood of a large centre of population, in consequence of being squeezed by the operation of this Act and of this tax, a great community would have to pay a large price for their building land. Therefore this Act resulted in a larger price for land——
And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 27th March, proceeded to put forthwith the Question on the Motion already proposed from the Chair.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 287.
1271| Division No. 90.] | AYES. | [11.0 p.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich) | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Clay, Captain H. H. Spender |
| Archer-Shee, Major M. | Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- | Clive, Percy Archer |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Bigland, Alfred | Clyde, J. Avon |
| Ashley, W. W | Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith- | Cooper, Richard Ashmole |
| Astor, Waldorf | Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) | Courthope, G. Loyd |
| Baird, J. L. | Boyton, J. | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Bridgeman, W. Clive | Craik, Sir Henry |
| Balcarres, Lord | Bull, Sir William James | Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Burdett-Coutts, William | Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.) | Burn, Colonel C. R. | Croft, H. P. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Butcher, J. G. | Dalrymple, Viscount |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Campion, W R. | Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Carlile, E. Hildred | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. |
| Barnston, Harry | Cassel, Felix | Dixon, Charles Harvey |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Castlereagh, Viscount | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Cator, John | Du Cros, Arthur Philip |
| Beckett, Hon. William Gervase | Cave, George | Fell, Arthur |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey |
| Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Royds, Edmund |
| Forster, Henry William | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Foster, Philip Staveley | Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Frewen, Moreton | Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. A. S. Geo., Han. Sq.) | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Gastrell, Major W. H. | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Gibbs, G. A. | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Goldman, Charles Sydney | Mackinder, H. J. | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Goldsmith, Frank | Macmaster, Donald | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Magnus, Sir Philip | Spear, John Ward |
| Grant, J. A. | Malcolm, Ian | Stanier, Beville |
| Greene, W. R. | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Gretton, John | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Guinness, Hon. W. E. | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Haddock, George Bahr | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | Stewart, Gershom |
| Hambro, Angus Valdemar | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Mount, William Arthur | Swift, Rigby |
| Harris, Henry Percy | Neville, Reginald J. N. | Sykes, Alan John |
| Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Newdegate, F. A. | Terrell, H. (Gloucester) |
| Helmsley, Viscount | Newman, John R. P. | Touche, George Alexander |
| Hill, Sir Clement L. | Newton, Harry Kottingham | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Hillier, Dr. A. P. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Hills, John Waller | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Hill-Wood, Samuel | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Hoare, Samuel John Gurney | Paget, Almeric Hugh | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Hohler, G. Fitzroy | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Hope, Harry (Bute) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Weigall, Capt. A. G. |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Horner, Alfred Long | Perkins, Walter F. | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Houston, Robert Paterson | Peto, Basil Edward | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis | Pole-Carw, Sir R. | Winterton, Earl |
| Hunt, Rowland | Pollock, Ernest Murray | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath) | Pretyman, E. G. | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon) |
| Ingleby, Holcombe | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.) | Quilter, William Eley C. | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Ratcliff, Major R. F. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Knight, Captain E. A. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Yate, Col. C E. |
| Lane-Fox, G. R. | Rawson, Colonel R. H. | Yerburgh, Robert |
| Larmor, Sir J. | Remnant, James Farquharson | Younger, George |
| Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End) | Rice, Hon. W. F. | |
| Lewisham, Viscount | Rolleston, Sir John | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Eyres-Monsell and Mr. Joynson-Hicks. |
| Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Ronaldshay, Earl of | |
| Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Rothschild, Lionel de | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Chancellor, H. G. | Flavin, Michael Joseph |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Chapple, Dr. W. A. | France, G. A. |
| Adamson, William | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Furness, Stephen W. |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Clancy, John Joseph | Gelder, Sir W. A. |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Clynes, John R. | Gibson, Sir James Puckering |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Collins, G. P. (Greenock) | Gill, A. H. |
| Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire) | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Goldstone, Frank |
| Anderson, Andrew Macbeth) | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) |
| Armitage, R. | Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Crooks, William | Greig, Colonel J. W. |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Crumley, Patrick | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Davies, E. William (Eifion) | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) |
| Barnes, George N. | Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Gulland, John William |
| Barren, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.) | Dawes, J. A. | Hackett, J. |
| Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Delany, William | Hill, F. (Yorks, Normanton) |
| Barton, W. | Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Hancock, John George |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Dewar, Sir J. A. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Bentham, G. J. | Dickinson, W. H. | Hardie, J. Keir |
| Bethell, Sir John Henry | Dillon, John | Harmsworth, R. (Leicester) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Donelan, Captain A. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) |
| Boland, John Pius | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Harwood, George |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) |
| Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) | Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Brigg, Sir J. | Elverston, H. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Bryce, John Annan | Essex, Richard Walter | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Falconer, J. | Hayward, Evan |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Farrell, James Patrick | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Fenwick, Charles | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Ferens, T. R. | Higham, John Sharp |
| Byles, William Pollard | Ffrench, Peter | Hinds, John |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Field, William | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Fitzgibbon, John | Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich) |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Muldoon, John | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Hudson, Walter | Munro, R. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Hughes, S. L. | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. | Samuel, J. (Stockton) |
| Hunter, Wm. (Lanark, Govan) | Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | Neilson, Francis | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel | Nolan, Joseph | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. |
| Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) | Norman, Sir Henry | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Johnson, W. | Norton, Capt. Cecil W. | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Sheehy, David |
| Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Jowett, Frederick William | O'Doherty, Philip | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Donnell, Thomas | Summers, James Woolley |
| Keating, Matthew | Ogden, Fred | Sutherland, John E. |
| Kellaway, Frederick George | O'Grady, James | Sutton, John E. |
| King, J. (Somerset, N.) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) | O'Malley, William | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Lansbury, George | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Thomas, James Henry (Derby) |
| Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th) | O'Shee, James John | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Palmer, Godfrey | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Parker, James (Halifax) | Verney, Sir Henry |
| Low, Sir F. (Norwich) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Wadsworth, John |
| Lundon, T. | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Pearson, Weetman H. M. | Walters, John Tudor |
| Lynch, A. A. | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Pointer, Joseph | Wardle, George J. |
| MacGhee, Richard | Pollard, Sir George H. | Waring, Walter |
| Maclean, Donald | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Power, Patrick Joseph | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| M'Callum, John M. | Price, Sir Robert J (Norfolk, E.) | Watt, Henry A. |
| M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) | Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) | Webb, H. |
| M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe) | Pringle, William M. R. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Radford, George Heynes | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Manfield, Harry | Raffan, Peter Wilson | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.) |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Rainy, Adam Rolland | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Marks, George Croydon | Raphael, Sir Herbert H. | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Marshall, Arthur Harold | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Reddy, Michael | Wiles, Thomas |
| Meagher, Michael | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) | Williams, P. (Middlesbrough) |
| Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County) | Rendall, Athelstan | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Menzies, Sir Walter | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Millar, James Duncan | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Molloy, Michael | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Winfrey, Richard |
| Money, L. G. Chiozza | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Robinson, Sydney | Young, W. (Perthshire, E.) |
| Mooney, J. J. | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | |
| Morgan, George Hay | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. W. Benn and Mr. W. Jones. |
| Morrell, Philip | Roche, John (Galway, E.) | |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Roe, Sir Thomas |
§ The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dis-
| SCHEDULE. | |||||
| ENACTMENTS REPEALED. | |||||
| Session and Chapter. | Short Title. | Extent of Repeal. | |||
| 10 Edw. 7, c. 8 | … | … | Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910 | … | Section fourteen, Sub-section (3); Section forty-four, Sub-section (1); the words "and on licences for motor cars" in Sub-section (1) of Section eighty-eight; Sub-section (3) of Section eighty-eight; and Section ninety-one. |
§ pose of the Business to be concluded at Eleven of the clock this day.
1273§ Question put, "That this be the Schedule of the Bill."
1274§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 175.
1275| Division No. 91.] | AYES. | [11.10 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Fitzgibbon, John | Mason, David M. (Coventry) |
| Adamson, William | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Addison, Dr. C. | France, G. A. | Meagher, Michael |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Furness, Stephen W. | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Gelder, Sir W. A. | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Gibson, Sir James P. | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) | Gill, A. H. | Millar, James Duncan |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Molloy, M. |
| Anderson, A. M. | Goldstone, Frank | Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz |
| Armitage, R. | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Greig, Colonel J. W. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Mooney, J. J. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Morgan, George Hay |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Morrell, Philip |
| Barnes, George N. | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Muldoon, John |
| Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick) | Hackett, J. | Munro, R. |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.) | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. |
| Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Hancock, J. G. | Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. |
| Barton, W. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Neilson, Francis |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Nolan, Joseph |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Harmsworth, R L. | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Nugent, Sir Walter R. |
| Bentham, G. J | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Harwood, George | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Boland, John Pius | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | O'Donnell, Thomas |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Ogden, Fred |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Haworth, Arthur A. | O'Grady, James |
| Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Brigg, Sir John | Hayward, Evan | O'Malley, William |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Neill. Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Higham, John Sharp | O'Shee, James John |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hinds, John | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Palmer, Godfrey |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) | Holt, Richard Durning | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Hudson, Walte | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Hughes, S. L | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) |
| Chancellor, H. G. | Hunter, W. (Govan) | Pointer, Joseph |
| Chapple, Dr. W. A. | Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel | Pollard, Sir George H. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburghshire) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Johnson, W. | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Clynes, John R. | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Collins, G. P. (Greenock) | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Primrose, Hon. Neil James |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Jowett, F. W. | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Joyce, Michael | Radford, G. H. |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Keating, M. | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Crooks, William | Kellaway, Frederick George | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Crumley, Patrick | King, J. (Somerset, N.) | Raphael, Sir Herbert H. |
| Davies, E. William (Eifion) | Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lansbury, George | Reddy, M. |
| Dawes, J. A. | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Delany, William | Levy, Sir Maurice | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Lewis, John Herbert | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Dickinson, W. H. | Low, Sir F. (Norwich) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Dillon, John | Lundon, T. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lyell, Charles Henry | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lynch, A. A. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Robinson, Sydney |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | MacGhee, Richard | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Maclean, Donald | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Elverston, H. | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Roche, John (Galway, E.) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Essex, Richard Walter | M'Callum, John M. | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Falconer, J. | M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) | Rowlands, James |
| Farrell, James Patrick | M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Fenwick, Charles | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Samuel, J. (Stockton) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Manfield, Harry | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Markham, Arthur Basil | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Field, William | Marks, G. Croydon | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. | Wadsworth, J. | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Sheehy, David | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Simon, Sir John Allsebrook | Walters, John Tudor | Wiles, Thomas |
| Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) | Williams, P. (Middlesbrough) |
| Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) | Wardle, George J. | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Summers, James Woolley | Waring, Walter | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Sutherland, J. E. | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Sutton, John E. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Watt, Henry A. | Winfrey, Richard |
| Tennant, Harold John | Webb, H. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| Thomas, James Henry (Derby) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. | Young, W. (Perthshire, E.) |
| Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) | |
| Trevelyan, Charles Philips | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander | White, Patrick (Meath, North) | |
| Verney, Sir Henry | Whitehouse, John Howard | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Gastrell, Major W. H. | Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Gibbs, G. A. | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) |
| Archer-Shee, Major M. | Goldman, C. S. | Perkins, Walter F. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Goldsmith, Frank | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Ashley, W. W | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pole-Carew, Sir R. |
| Astor, Waldorf | Grant, J. A. | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Baird, J. L. | Greene, W. R. | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) | Gretton, John | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Guinness, Hon. W. E. | Quilter, William Eley C. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Haddock, George Bahr | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.) | Hambro, Angus Valdemar | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hamersley, A. St. George | Rawson, Colonel R. H. |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Harris, Henry Percy | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Rice, Hon. W. F. |
| Barnston, Harry | Hill, Sir Clement L. | Rolleston, Sir John |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilton) | Hills, J. W. | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase | Hoare, S. J. G. | Royds, Edmund |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Hohler, G. Fitzroy | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby |
| Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich) | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- | Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Bigland, Alfred | Horner, Andrew Long | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith- | Houston, Robert Paterson | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid) | Hume-Williams, W. E. | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Boyton, J. | Hunt, Rowland | Spear, John Ward |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath) | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Ingleby, Holcombe | Starkey, John R. |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.) | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Butcher, J. G. | Knight, Captain E. A. | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.) |
| Campion, W. R. | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Switt, Rigby |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Larmor, Sir J | Sykes, Alan John |
| Cassel, Felix | Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End) | Terrell, H. (Gloucester) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Lewisham, Viscount | Touche, George Alexander |
| Cator, John | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Cave, George | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale) | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Mackinder, H J. | Weigall, Capt. A. G. |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Macmaster, Donald | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Craig, Norman (Kent) | Malcolm, Ian | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Croft, H. P. | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | Winterton, Earl |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Morrison-Bell, Major a. C. (Honiton) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Dalziel, D. (Brixton) | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Mount, William Arthur | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Dixon, C. H. | Neville, Reginald J. N. | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Newdegate, F. A. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Du Cros, Arthur Philip | Newman, John R. P. | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Eyres-Monsell, B. M. | Newton, Harry Kottingham | Yerburgh, Robert |
| Fell, Arthur | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Younger, George |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. | |
| Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | |
| Forster, Henry William | Paget, Almeric Hugh | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Dr. Hillier and Mr. Stanier. |
| Foster, Philip Staveley | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | |
| Frewen, Moreton | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
Bill read the third time, and passed.
§ Whereupon the Chairman, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 27th March, 1276 left the Chair to report the Bill to the House.
1277§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Wednesday).