§ The CHAIRMAN
The first three Amendments I select, to be taken together, are the first three on page 1810—In page 5, line 15, to leave out the word "or"; after the word "works," to insert the words "or roads"; and to leave out from the word "works" to the end of the paragraph, and to insert instead thereof the words "except those executed by the expenditure of public money "—and along with them the sixth Amendment on page 1811, in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne)—in page 5, line 39, at the end to insert the words:(v) any part of the land value of the unit which—
- (a) is directly attributable to works executed or expenditure of a capital nature (including any expenses of advertisement) incurred bona fide by or on behalf of or solely in the interests of any person interested in the land for the purpose of improving the value of the land as building land or for the purpose of any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture; or
- (b) is directly attributable to the appropriation of any land or to the gift of any land by any person interested in the land for the purpose of streets, roads, paths, squares, gardens, or other open spaces for the use of the public; or
- (c) is directly attributable to the expenditure of money on the redemption of any tithe, land tax, or any fixed charge, or on the enfranchisement of copyhold
1078 land or customary freeholds, or on effecting the release of any covenant or agreement restricting the use of land which may be taken into account in ascertaining the land value of the land, or to any other matter which is personal to the owner, occupier, or other person interested for the time being in the land.Where any works executed or expenditure incurred for the purpose of improving the value of the land for agriculture have actually improved the value of the land as building land or for the purpose of any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture, the works or expenditure shall for the purposes of this provision be treated as having been executed or incurred also for the latter purposes.and the fifth Amendment, in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for Alder-shot (Viscount Wolmer), on page 1815—In page 7, line 39, at the end, to insert the words:(6) When the owner of a land unit satisfies the Commissioners that the value thereof at the valuation date is due in whole or in part to the expenditure of money by the owner upon the development, or upon the preservation of the amenities, thereof during the immediately preceding period of thirty years, the taxable value of the land unit shall be the value thereof as ascertained under the preceding Sub-sections of this section reduced by an amount equal to the value created by such expenditure.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
On a point of Order. Do I understand that you are taking with the first Amendment three selected Amendments and that the Vote will be taken on all those Amendments; 1079 further, whether it is not a new departure to select three Amendments and leave out all intervening Amendments from our Debates? Will it be possible in the circumstances to debate other Amendments to the Clause in this first Debate?
§ The CHAIRMAN
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I have selected the first three Amendments on page 1810 and the other two Amendments to which I have referred because they all go together. They will be discussed together, but that does not mean that I am taking no Amendments in between.
§ Captain BOURNE
I beg to move, in page 5, line 15, to leave out the word "or."
This does not seem to be a very big Amendment, but if it is read in conjunction, not only with the next two Amendments which follow, but with the Amendments to which the Chairman has called attention, it will be seen that this Amendment raises the entire question of the taxation of improvements due to the owner and not due to the community. In the 1909–10 Finance Act, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) found it necessary, in the course of the Debates, to put into Clause 25 of that Act words which are almost identical with those which appear in my name on the Order Paper at the bottom of page 1811. There is a slight difference in the wording, and the difference is due to the fact that agricultural land is treated rather differently in that Act and in this Bill. In this case the cultivation value has to be made out and it has to be subtracted from the land value. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs dealt with agricultural value solely. He made allowances, and deducted them from the value of the land ascertained, deducted works put in for agricultural purposes. That is why the wording of my Amendment does not follow exactly the wording in the Finance Act of 1909–10, but substantially the exemptions proposed to be given are the same.
§ These Amendments which raise a point of wide interest, deserve the careful consideration of the Government. We were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposed this tax for the first time in Committee of Ways and Means, that its object was to take back some 1080 portion of the value of land which is due to the community. I suppose that there is a value, due to the community, which is to some extent inherent in all things. After all, we are citizens of a wealthy and heavily populated country which, by the mere fact of its existence, enables all of us, in our various capacities, to command perhaps a higher money value for our services than we would command if we belonged to a poor and sparsely populated country. In the course of the Debate on the Financial Resolutions, one of my right hon. Friends in front of me asked the Solicitor-General how much of his value was due to the community. Undoubtedly a certain amount of the hon. and learned Gentleman's value is due to the community. Hon. Members opposite who carry on useful work on behalf of the trade unions—for which they receive, I am sure, a well-deserved remuneration—undoubtedly owe a part of their value in that respect to the mere existence of the community. If they were for example, in Latvia, where, I understand, trade unions are unknown, there would be no demand for their services and consequently no value attaching to their services in that respect.
§ In that way I suggest that all values are to some extent due to the mere existence of the community, and I submit that already the community takes back its fair share for the values which it has created in that way, in the form of Income Tax, Super-tax, Death Duties and other taxation with which the citizen is inflicted. There is a common value which no member of a civilised community can help having attached to him and which the community does, in point of fact, take back to some extent through the ordinary channels of taxation. It may be argued that a special value can attach to land due to the direct action of the community, over and above the general value, which is due to the mere existence of the community, and which is not peculiar to land, but attaches to all other things. The instance generally given in support of this argument is the expenditure of money from the rates or from the Road Fund in the creation of improvements, in the extension of public services, such as waterworks, which are financed to some extent, though not very largely, out of the rates. I would point out however in that connection that there is generally a condition as to the charges 1081 for such services attached by the House of Commons to the grant of powers to a local authority for the construction of such works.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer dedended this tax on the ground that where the value is due to the action of the community, in the expenditure of the community's money, the community is entitled to some return for the creation of that value, and the object of these Amendments is to deal with a case where the value has been created, not by the expenditure of money on the part of the community, but by direct expenditure on the part of the owner. I suggest that a great many of the values with which it is proposed to deal are due to the expenditure of money by landowners in the development of their land, and that it is inequitable that a tax should be levied on that expenditure, any more than upon any other kind of expenditure which develops and improves industry or otherwise adds to the productiveness of the community.
§ There are many works which have to be carried out if a piece of land is to be developed for building purposes. If the Creator gave the land to the people, he certainly did not give it in a form which is convenient for building in most cases. The surface has to be levelled, and in many cases—a thing which this Bill ignores altogether—special provision has to be made to prevent flooding. In certain case, a great deal of expenditure has to be incurred to protect the land from the encroachments of the sea, and very often special rates of various kinds have to be paid by the owner of the land. I do not think that in those cases it can be argued that the site value is due entirely, or to any large extent, to any action taken by the community. It is due to the action of the owners of the land who have undertaken necessary work in order to protect and improve their property, and who are paying perhaps various drainage and sea defence rates, which are complicated and vary in incidence and amount between different parts of the country. Not only is it generally necessary to level the land, in order to develop it for building, but it is usually necessary also to construct roads to put in sewers and to carry out other works before the land can be used for building purposes.1082
§ If a tax is to be levied, on what is supposed to be the increment) value of a site due to the action of the community, I fail to see why we should not remove from that tax the improvements which are directly due to the initiative of the owner. That is not expenditure which is in any sense due to the community. It is entirely due to the enterprise and foresight of the person who has developed the land. Further, this expenditure is very often incurred by the owner with no result. An owner may have reason to think that a town will develop in a certain direction, and that certain land will be suitable for building development. He may spend money in constructing roads, putting down sewers, providing a water supply and so forth, making the land ready to be used for building. It may then turn out that, for some unforeseen reason, the development of the town does not take place in the expected direction as rapidly as was anticipated and the owner is left with what he thought was going to be an eligible building site, on his hands. He may have expended a great deal of money on it, but owing to trade depression or for some other cause he is unable to make use of the land.
§ I will give an instance of what I mean. I refer to an estate in South Wales, the name of which I do not propose to mention. The owner of that estate during the past 13 years expended over £62,000 in the construction of roads and sewers and in developing the land for building purposes. Of this expenditure, £19,500 is still lying idle owing to the land not having been built upon fully, and it is upon the result of that unprofitable expenditure that, it appears, the present tax is to be levied. I may also mention that the owner of this estate, with the sole object of contributing to the relief of unemployment, expended £7,000 in laying out land for building in advance of requirements. Is he to be taxed upon that £7,000 which undoubtedly has improved the site value? The improvement is not in any way due to the community, but is entirely due to his enterprise and public spirit. Is he to have no allowance for that £62,000 which he has spent in developing the land which otherwise would not be suitable for building and, which, if taken over in its naked state by a local authority, 1083 would have required the expenditure of £62,000 by that local authority before it could have been used for building? That owner has done something to save money for the community. Is he to be taxed because he has managed his estate prudently and profitably while a man who has neglected his estate is to escape the tax altogether or pay a much smaller amount merely because of his neglect?
§ We have often heard from this Government about the necessity for the rationalisation of industry and the need for people looking ahead in the management of their affairs. They have now an opportunity of applying that principle to the development of land. But do we find the Government giving encouragement to the person who expends money on the prudent and reasonable development of his land? On the contrary, as I understand this tax—and I think as everybody who has studied it understands it—the more a man has spent in developing his property, the higher will be its value and therefore the greater the amount of the tax which will have to be paid upon it. Is that carrying out the principle of encouraging people to make the best use of what belongs to them? Instead of carrying out that principle upon which the Government have prided themselves, they have apparently in these proposals taken the opposite view, because, inevitably, the effect of this tax, as I have shown, if applied in this way, will be to penalise the progressive person.
Unless these Amendments are accepted, it seems to me that a tax will be placed upon capital which has been expended wisely and for the benefit of the community, while the man who has not expended money but has left his land vacant and undeveloped will get off with less taxation, because his land, if put upon the market, would command a lower value than that of the developed land. No one will give the same price for completely undeveloped land as for land which has roads and sewers and water supply and all the rest. The Government plan is really departing from the idea of putting a tax upon site value and is putting a tax upon the improvements which people have made in their own
property and I cannot see on what ground the proposal can be defended. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs when he brought in his 1909 Budget, accepted the principle that what was due to the enterprise and expenditure of the owner should be exempt and I believe that the principle is accepted more or less by the disciples of Henry George. I would not like to say how strongly it is held by them but I know from discussions which I have had with the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) that he at any rate gives it sympathetic consideration. The Government have chosen now for the first time to depart from it altogether. Of course if we accept the view put forward by the hon. Member for Burslem the real object of the tax is vindictive. It is a tax to punish all landowners for being landowners. According to his view and, apparently, the view of the Government, the holding of land is iniquitous. If that be their view then I can quite understand the Government penalising the man who makes the best use of his land on the good old principle:
I'll larn ye to be a toad.
§ But if there is any idea of justice in the application of the tax surely the principle of these Amendments should be conceded. The tax in its incidence is directed to a small class of people but if a tax of this class is to be imposed deliberately to penalise the man who looks after his property, and to charge him more than the man who neglects his property, then I fail to see one single redeeming feature in the Government's proposal.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
We are in some difficulty in dealing with this Amendment because the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) was solely devoted to an Amendment which appears later on the Order Paper. When we come to vote we shall vote I presume on the first Amendment which he has moved but we are evidently discussing the subsequent Amendment. I think that is regrettable, because I think that the discussion of that Amendment should come after the discussion on the exclusion of minerals and sporting rights.
I think that the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford, who has so ably advocated the true gospel of Henry George 1085 so far as improvements are concerned, might have supported us perhaps by allowing the inclusion in the valuation of minerals and sporting rights. However, as the Debate is taking place now, I think those of us who feel as I do can merely register our regret that minerals and sporting rights are excluded by a Labour Government from the valuation, and devote ourselves entirely to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is more "single tax" even than the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) or myself. I always suspect the Greeks when they bring gifts, even though they come from Oxford University.
We know that the purists would, in an ideal world, in a world populated by ideal valuers, take every word that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said for gospel, for the right and just thing to do, and exclude these things. I am entirely with him. Anything done by man should be, theoretically, excluded from the basis of your valuation and taxation, but we live in a world of human beings, and I ask the Members of the Committee just to run through with me the list of those items which the unhappy valuer is to exclude from the valuation of the land. We are paying for it to the tune of £400,000, I believe, this year, and it would be millions if these items were taken into account. He is to reckon out the value as ifthe sale price had been computed without taking into account. … any part of the land value of the unit which … is directly attributable to works executed or expenditure of a capital nature incurred … or is directly attributable to the appropriation of any land or to the gift of any land by any person interested in the land for the purpose of streets, roads, paths, squares, gardens, or other open spaces for the use of the public.That will take some calculating. All the past is to be raked over for presentations by landlords to the public of the lands they have originally appropriated. It gets better and better as the Clause goes on. I have forgotten to mention already the expenses of advertisement, and then the things that we have to insist upon the valuer excluding from the value of the land are to include:the expenditure of money on the redemption of any tithe, land tax, or any fixed charge.1086 Many people have redeemed tithe in recent years, and many people have redeemed tithe, acting through their ancestors, many hundreds of years ago. Land tax also, whenever redeemed, has to be taken into account, and it goes on:or on the enfranchisement of copyhold land or customary freeholds.It is an inquiry into the value of any plot of land taken, not two, but 20 years before these things happened. [Interruption.] We must be practical. We live in this world, and although we might be willing to welcome the assistance we get from hon. Members opposite in basing our tax upon a true land value, yet we suspect them when we find that they are so anxious to exclude these things and yet not anxious, curiously enough, to exclude buildings, factories, and other improvements. Why oppose the principle which excludes buildings and other improvements, and yet be such sticklers for financial and moral rectitude as to ask us to exclude those things which cannot be valued properly by any human value?
The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), when he made his speech on the Budget Resolution, warned the Chancellor of the Exchequer precisely against this sort of Amendment. When the valuation of 1909 was passing through this House, exactly similar Amendments were moved in a similar spirit by hon. Members opposite. Their arguments on the pure grounds of Henry Georgeism were as cogent then as they are to-day in the hands of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of those days was so moved by their eloquence that again and again he accepted their Amendments. The result was a valuation which it was impossible to make, which had to run the gauntlet of the law courts in countless cases, which was often unenforceable; and it was precisely because of that that now Somerset House and the Government draftsmen, having learned their lesson, have made them bring forward a valuation which was practical. The valuation, however much I may deplore the exclusion of agricultural land, minerals, and sporting rights, is a practical valuation to-day, so far as these particular items are concerned, and I beg the Government not to give way on this Amendment.
1087 I do not think, as a matter of fact, the Government require any advice on this question. It has been drilled into them too often that concessions of this sort will ruin the power of the valuer to make the valuation. But I think it is necessary to direct caution in this respect towards my hon. Friends on the Liberal benches. It is so specious to exclude these things. We all want—I myself just as much as they—to cut out from the valuation everything that has been done by man, but, believe me, it is not practicable. The right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) was in the House in those days. He remembers all the arguments which were brought forward then for excluding every one of these improvements—land drainage and unexhausted improvements of every sort. They were accepted in those days because then we were young and perhaps more gullible than we are to-day, but our acceptance of those Amendments in those days made the valuation impossible to carry out, and it added enormously to the cost.
Indeed, they have only to read on the Amendment Paper, at the bottom of page 1811, the 20 lines or so of the things which the valuer is to exempt from the value of land and is to take into account in modifying the sale price of the land to see how hopeless at would be to arrive at anything in the nature of a valuation at all. There is drainage, the gift of land in past times, the redemption of tithe hundreds of years ago, the redemption of Land Tax, any restriction upon the use of land adjoining, and other things. Why, if the valuer had to take them all into account, it would be absolutely impossible to get the valuation done in two years.
I come to this final point. We here are not experts. This is essentially a matter which must be dealt with by experts. The valuation of land to-day is not a thing at which the mere man in the street or in the House of Commons will be much good. This Bill, as drafted, has for more than two years run the gauntlet of a most intense examination by the people who have to do the work. They know perfectly well what the Government are after, what hon. Members opposite are after, and, I may add, what the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford and those who 1088 are supporting the Amendment are after. They know what can be done, having approached as near as human nature will allow to a decent, honest valuation of land values as apart from improvements upon the land created by man.
If this valuation goes through, as soon as it is made clear that it is not to be an additional tax, not to be a double tax upon property, but a substitutional tax, we shall, as far as is humanly possible, relieve buildings and improvements from taxation. We cannot go any further. I should like to go with the hon. and gallant Member the whole of the Way, but I know that it is impossible. Let us therefore take what we can get. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am sorry that I inadvertently used that anti-ducal thrust. Let us seek the best valuation possible and use it to do what can be done, hoping that at a future time we may possibly modify the valuation so as to exclude from any form of taxation, whether penal or otherwise, all those other improvements made by man which it is our desire to encourage in future and to see more of.
I felt entirely with the hon. and gallant Member when he was pleading to encourage people to go in for more land reclamation, for more laying out of property, and all the rest of it. He is quite right. The object of this tax, substituted for other taxation on property, is to encourage people to develop their holdings by relieving them of the burdens falling upon them at the present time. He knows, none better, what the effect of the present rates is. He knows, for instance, that at the present time, if a progressive shopkeeper puts in a plate-glass front or adds a workshop at the rear of his premises, improving the state of the town, giving employment in the place, the only result is that the rate collector calls on him and says to him: "You villain. You have been improving your property; you have been allowing people to work." He puts his assessment up, and punishes him for improving his property.
The hon. and gallant Member and I know quite well that that is a deterrent to the development of property, that it-checks production and checks employment. He and I know quite well that by excluding all those improvements made by man, whether shop fronts, or additional storeys, or something in the back yard, we shall be doing something to improve 1089 trade. Well, let us get on with it. Let us do what this Bill allows us to do. Let us exclude buildings, at any rate, and perhaps in future we may be able to exclude other forms of improvements on or under the land as well. But let us do this first, conscious that in doing that we are at any rate doing something to benefit trade, to increase employment, to increase the development of property, and to allow men to get on with their own business by making good instead of being punished for doing so by the penal taxation which exists to-day.
Sir HILTON YOUNG
It is extraordinary the power that there is in a phrase or a word. Just because the Government have dubbed this 7.0 p.m. tax a land tax, they have persuaded the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken to abandon, by the magic of the word "land," his life-long convictions, because it appears to escape his attention that what he has been addressing to the Committee is a quite convincing argument against the practicability of the scheme of taxation of land values, to which he has devoted so much of the enthusiasm of a life-time. His argument leads to this refreshing proposition, that you are going to encourage an industry, which is one of the most vital to the country at the present time, by confiscating one-twelfth of the property of those engaged in the industry. This scheme has no relation whatever to the reasonable scheme for the taxation of land values. The right hon. Gentleman is in the position of a man standing half-way up a hill, and wants to go to the top of it. It is pointed out to him that it is very difficult to make the ascent to the summit, and so he says, "We must be practical. Instead of going to the top of the hill, let us go to the bottom." He then goes in precisely the opposite direction from that in which he wishes to go. In the same way, the right hon. Gentleman asks the Government for bread and they give him a stone, and he says, "Let us be practical; if we cannot get bread, let us take a stone." He has asked for a scheme for the taxation of site values, and yet he accepts a scheme which has no relation to it.
The particular feature of the tax, which we desire to remove by this Amendment, has no more relation to the true taxation of site values than has such a generalised 1090 tax as the Schedule A Income Tax. The Schedule A Income Tax has one particular advantage, that it spreads the burden of taxation over the whole of property in the land, whereas this tax which we are now considering has, in the feature which we desire to remove, this particularly bad effect, that it concentrates the burden of taxation upon a part of the investment of the land which is that part which is most useful from the point of view of the community, that is, the private capital which is put into the development of the land. Is not that perfectly clear? There are three parts in the value of any property in land. There is the value of the land, the value of the private capital used for the development of the land, and the value of the building. Of those three parts, which is the part that it is most in the interest of the community to protect? It is surely that part which consists in the private capital put in for the development of the land. The social interests of the community are wrapped up in that part of the investment; they require that the State should do all it can to encourage people to use as much capital as they can, not simply for piling up buildings on cheap sites, but for developing land for the proper growth of the town and the community. That is precisely that part of the value which this tax most accentuates.
It is a most extraordinary thing that, at this time of day, when we are arguing about these matters, it should really be necessary in this great tribunal to have to defend the most elementary propositions of common sense as regards taxation. Nevertheless, it is necessary. The most elementary of all those propositions in connection with the taxation of land is that if you confine your taxation to the mere value of the site—it is the old argument for site values so cavalierly abandoned by the right hon. Gentleman to-day—a man cannot remove his site and, at any rate, it stays in the market. He cannot go off with it. But, if we increase the valuation on the second part of the value, the part in which the community is so interested, the use of private capital for the site, on which amenities so much depend, then you tax something you can discourage, and you diminish the amount of capital employed in that way, and drive it off the land. Is it really necessary to call the attention 1091 of the Government, who are supposed to have some political education and some political common sense, to this point? Yet here are the Government putting in their protests and their policy a desire to encourage the reasonable development of town sites with proper regard for the amenities of the community, while their action under these provisions is directed to the converse object.
Let me take a single instance, the clearest instance of all, to illustrate the mischief of this particular feature of the tax. Take a developing area just outside a town, through which there has been driven a new arterial road. Those who are engaged in the development of that area have a choice before them of spending the money upon making side roads so as to produce a reasoned and ordered development of the sort which is known to be an amenity for the community, or, alternatively, ribbon development, the erection of the houses in a string along the road. That is what we know to be the great eyesore and the great inconvenience of the growth of our modern cities.
Sir HILTON YOUNG
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is content, as we know, with a very low measure of perfection, and I have already pointed out that he is content with a scheme which is not the scheme of his own life-long work, but a scheme directly contrary to it. That example makes me less surprised when I find him content with something much less good in town planning. I have a higher aspiration, and will not be content with anything less than the very best, and that is development by cross-roads and not ribbon development. If this Clause goes through without the addition of the Amendment, you prohibit any sort of development except ribbon development. What a preposterous state of affairs—pressing through the Town and Country Planning Bill upstairs, a Bill which affects to be the successor of the modest Measure in which I feel historically interested, which with the unanimous applause of the House and of the Minister of Health was an endeavour to prevent ribbon development, 1092 a policy which I understood to be adopted by the Government. £ wonder if the Government do or do not understand what they are about in this particular business, if they are really capable of putting two and two together, or if their minds are now in that shattered and shaken condition in which they are quite incapable of seeing the relevance of the land tax proposals to the Town Planning Bill. I prefer to think they are so much stunned by recent events that they are incapable of any intelligent co-ordination.
Suppose, in the condition to which I have referred, the developer looking at his financial prospects and seeing that reasonable, ordered development is penalised to the extent of one-twelfth of the money spent upon it, what does he do? He takes advantage of the cheap development, and puts his houses along the main road. Under those conditions one is filled with a sense of grave alarm as to the prospects of the whole struggle for amenity. It is impossible to maintain the struggle on one front while the rear is being turned by these proposals. Even at this eleventh hour, "Hope springs eternal." Is it necessary to despair of the support of this Amendment by those who in past years have been the champions in science and in theory of land value taxation? I confess myself still a believer in it on a more reasonable basis than the present basis, but I see no prospect of maintaining that theory unless we can induce the House of Commons, under such conditions as these, to understand the difference between a site value tax and a general tax upon the land. Nothing fills me with more depression than the abandonment of principle by the right hon. Gentleman. Can we expect no hope from the Government on this question? We know very well, under the conditions which we are arguing this subject, that it is unnecessary for them to reply. It is unnecessary for the supporters of the Government to be present in the Committee. It makes no difference to the outcome of this discussion if no reply is vouchsafed us, but this is the kernel and key of the land tax. This is the most flagrant flouting of the interests of the community and, unless we can obtain some assurance upon it, all the hopes that are cherished by the party 1093 below the Gangway for the reform of land taxation fall to the ground.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
The Government have, naturally, always realised that this particular problem is one of the most difficult in the problem of land taxation. I must ask the Committee to bear with me for a short time while I try to explain the attitude we have taken up in the Bill, and the difficulties we see in the substantial Amendment that has been proposed. I am dealing with the larger Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), which is the passage lifted from the 1909–10 Act. May I, first of all, try to explain shortly the position as it is? There are really three matters with which it is necessary to deal under Clause 8 Sub-section (1, a). Those are the roads, the agricultural works, and what I may call the drainage works. Those are the three classes of works which, to some extent, are retained in the unit. Now most of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman have really been addressed to the problem of roads and to the problem that arises in the development of land in the vicinity of towns by private developers who do it by driving through roads and putting in services in order to open up what is commonly called the back land, and therefore to give to the back land a value comparable to the frontage land, which already has that value by the existence of the public road there. The term "road" is defined in Clause 27 of the Bill. In that definition an attempt has been made to cut out from the incidence of the tax development roads which are put in by builders. The definition excludes private roads; that is, roads which the occupier alone is entitled to use. In an area outside a town the builder will put in his roads, and during the period that he is working there these roads will not form any part of the land value. They will be completely exempted as being private roads, and therefore will not come within the definition of roads.
§ Sir DONALD MACLEAN
Does that mean that private roads remain entirely outside the Bill unless and until they are taken over by the public authority?
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Not quite. I will explain the position. It depends on the right of user. If a 1094 developer is developing in the ordinary way from the main road, as he develops down the side road and as he lets off or sells the land units along the road, it opens up the right of user and the road will become a road within the meaning of the definition. Therefore, it is not until the builder either lets or sells in the course of his development that any part of the road will come into the land value.
§ Captain BOURNE
I want to get the hon. and learned Gentleman's point quite clear. The roads will, in point of fact, come in as they are developed, irrespective of whether they are maintainable by the inhabitants at large or not?
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
The hon. and gallant Member is perfectly correct. The road, as soon as it can be used or as soon as more than one person is entitled to use it, will come in as part of the value. Sewers and drains in the road will be in a different position altogether. Immediately these are connected up to the houses and carry sewage they become the property of the local authority, and therefore they cease to be part of the land unit at all and will never come into the value as works. I am assuming that we are dealing with one of the units of occupation, for until some portion of the land is occupied by someone who is going into a house, there will be no unit of occupation except the large one which the builder has. He will continue to be the occupier of that part which he has not sold or let off as houses.
I would like to ask one question which vitally affects my constituency and the part of England where I live. There are a number of green lanes which are rights of way. How are they affected by this Clause? Are they roads within the meaning of the Clause?
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Certainly, because they are not limited to a single user by a single person.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Certainly. I am trying to explain what is in the Bill; I have not come to any question of justifying it or not justifying it. 1095 We have now got to the land unit which is in the occupation of some householder who has purchased it. There will be included in that land unit a portion of the road, probably to the middle of the road, which belongs to that land unit and no more, and there will not be included in that the drains nor the electric light cables, and so on, which will be the property of either the local authority or the company concerned. There will, of course, be included all the other surrounding units in the state in which they are at the moment. That is to say, a bit of road which is in a unit will be connected with the whole main road system of the country, and as that particular site is accessible from London by, say, the Great West Road, some portion of the value will no doubt be attributable to the Great West Road. The mere fact that people can motor there from London has an effect, of course, on the value, and it is impossible, so far as we can see, to dissociate the particular little piece of road which is in front of a particular house on a unit from the whole road system of the, country, because it only derives any value which it has by reason of its being part of the road system of the country.
When the purchaser of the house gets hold of the land unit, it will be quite immaterial to him who built the road. It does not matter to him whether it is on a road made by a public authority or a road developed five, 25 or 50 years ago by private enterprise. When you get to the case of the actual man who has developed, there may conceivably be a period of time when he will be chargeable for a portion of the road, and for the period of time of his possession only he will be chargeable with some of the improvement value. That is as far as I can make clear the position so far as roads are concerned. I will come to the question of works executed for agricultural purposes. First of all, these will have no effect on agricultural land at all because they will be both in the cultivation value and in the land value, and therefore, when you subtract one from the other, the value of them disappears entirely. It is only therefore as regards non-agricultural land that works executed for agricultural purposes will have any effect whatever.
§ Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND
The Solicitor-General says that the value of these works will be in both the land value and the cultivation value, so that, as one is subtracted from the other, they will make no difference. Does he mean that the same figure for cultivation value will persist through the different valuation periods, or does he mean that it will only be the same thing so far as one small period of five years is concerned, but that afterwards that value will be wiped out?
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
I am only dealing with it while it is agricultural land. I have not got to the stage when it ceases to be agricultural land. So long as it is agricultural land, the element of agricultural works is wiped out. When you get to the stage when it is being developed—whether in the first quinquennial or subsequent quinquennials does not matter—the reason for leaving in the agricultural works is that it is impossible in the valuation to go through the country and ascertain what agricultural work has been done in the land from time immemorial. For instance, no doubt at one time there were agricultural works under this very building in which we stand, and it would be obviously ridiculous to attempt in the valuation to go back and ascertain whether at some time throughout the length and breadth of London there had been agricultural drainage works or some type of agricultural work which would generally consist of ditching or draining. Therefore the position as regards agricultural works is that they will only affect land when it is developed or built on, and the value of it at that time from the point of view of development is probably in all cases extremely small, and certainly impossible to ascertain from a valuation point of view.
I now come to the third heading, which is buildings, and works necessary for the reclamation of land or protection from flooding or for maintaining the stability of the land. Again, of course, that will not be material as regards agricultural land, but, as regards non-agricultural land, the reason for putting this in is again in order to make the valuation a practical thing. The valuer has to put the value on something that he can see and visualise. If you were to take the case, for instance, where there is a seawall, 1097 it would be absolutely impossible from a valuation point of view to guess what might have happened to that land if there had never been a sea-wall. It would be an insoluble problem.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
It would not be so easy to imagine, because there would not necessarily have been an encroachment without the sea-wall. There might have been a bank thrown up and protection afforded naturally to the land. It is impossible to tell what would have been the actual effect.
§ Sir BASIL PETO
Will the Solicitor-General tell us what would be the object of building a sea-wall, or any other structure of that kind to keep out the sea, if there were no sea to keep out?
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
There is a principle by which people sometimes do things as a matter of precaution. You cannot necessarily tell what would result if the precaution were not taken. The second thing is with regard to maintaining the stability of the land. That refers to cases, which are fairly common in certain towns, where there are streets with land at different levels, and embankments have been put up, and walls sometimes, in order to support the land on one side of the street. It would be impossible as a matter of valuation to value the site as if the wall were not there, because the site would not be there if the wall were not there. It would merely be a fallen-down bank. The further fact is probably true as regards a great number of these works, that they have been executed many years ago, and it is wholly immaterial to the person who is at the present time the owner as to how that came about. These are the three points with regard to the three different classes of exemption which there are in the Bill from the pure site value of the land.
May I deal with the Amendment which it is proposed to incorporate in order to get over a difficulty which is admittedly there. The Amendment really proposes four things. As a purely verbal matter, it is impossible to read the Amendment, but that is obviously only a slip, because the value is set out in the Amendment as being the amount which the land 1098 would be expected to realise from a sale, and therefore the land value is made equivalent to the sale price. To exclude from the sale price a part of the land value would obviously be an impossible position. But that is only a small point, and it is obvious what is the intention of the Amendment. It aims to exclude a very large number of different matters, some of which are already excluded under the Bill and some of which are not. It was this, no doubt, that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) had in mind when he warned the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading that he ought not to be so foolish as he himself had been, and not to allow those exemptions which make the valuation an impossibility—that although it might be desirable in order to maintain the strict purity of the theory of land value, obviously, if the tax is to be imposed, it is absolutely essential to have a practical and a practicable scheme of valuation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentlemen opposite all agree with that proposition, because it will no doubt make the rest of the argument so much the more simple.
In the first paragraph it is proposed to eliminate the value which is directly attributableto works executed or expenditure of a capital nature.Practically all of these are already eliminated under the Bill. The Amendment also includes the expenses of advertisements incurred by or on behalf of the owner. I do not know how right hon. Gentlemen opposite think they can get a practical scheme of valuation if we are to exclude the benefit to a site derived from advertisements. Let me take one case, a Very common case nowadays. The owners of property in a seaside town contribute towards the expenditure of the town council upon an advertising campaign on the railways. How is a valuer to ascertain the amount of the site value in a back street of that seaside town which is attributable to that advertisement appearing, say, on all the stations of the Great Western Railway? If that is what right hon. Gentlemen opposite call a practical method of valuing land, I am afraid my ideas of what are practical in valuation must differ fundamentally from theirs. [HON. 1099 MEMBERS: "Directly!"] The introduction of the word "directly" makes it worse, because that would raise infinite arguments as to whether it was directly or indirectly attributable, and I am sure there are many hon. and learned Gentlemen on the benches opposite who could spend many hours—many profitable-hours—in arguing that extraordinarily difficult point. Paragraph (6) of the Amendment seeks to exclude the value:directly attributable to the appropriation of any land or to the gift of any land by any person interested in the land for the purpose of streets, roads, paths, squares, gardens or other open spaces for the use of the public.In my submission that proposal is based upon a complete fallacy. Supposing an owner has 10 acres of land which is ready or will be ready for development, and he determines that the best way in which he can add value to eight of the acres is by saying that two of them shall be worth nothing. He redistributes the value of the land as regards two acres, making them worth nothing by making them an open space. But he adds their value to the other eight acres. That is why he does it. To say that in those circumstances the price of the two acres is to be deducted from the price of the eight acres is, in my submission, a complete fallacy. He has already got the value of the two acres into the eight acres. One of the very ordinary provisions which there are nowadays in town planning schemes limits the number of houses to 10 or 12 to the acre. In arriving at that figure you take into account all the area of the roads and open spaces. You cannot put more than 10 or 12 houses on an acre, and if you cut out some portion as roads that does not make you less able to build 12 houses to the acre. You are still able to utilise the land to its fullest extent by cutting out the land for roads.
§ Mr. E. BROWN
May I put this point? Take Mornington Crescent. For many years one half of it was a delightful open space, which was of great value to half the Crescent. The owners of that space let it to Carrera's tobacco factory. Is the owner worse off now because he has let that off and we are deprived of a valuable open space and have instead that huge tobacco factory, a monstrosity, set down there?
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
I think that is an extraordinarily good instance of why we should not allow the owner of that land to get off land tax, which is the suggestion in the present Amendment.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
How does the Solicitor-General reconcile what he is saying now with the proviso on page 7, which reads:provided that the value of the land unit shall not be deemed to be increased by reason of any other land unit being subject to any encumbrance.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
With great respect, that proviso does not deal with this point at all. I am anxious to give the right hon. and gallant Member an explanation if he wants it, but I do not want to delay the Committee now, because it would mean going into a little detail to explain exactly what that is intended to cover; but it does not cover the point we are on now.
I will turn now to the third paragraph, which is a rather general one dealing with a large number of matters. First of all there is the exclusion of sums paid as fixed charges, the expenditure of money on redemption of fixed charges, tithe or land tax,or on the enfranchisement of copyhold land or customary freeholds, or on effecting the release of any covenant or agreement restricting the use of land.None of those matters is part of the land value; they are certain charges or interests which are not connected with the land value; and the extraordinary position would arise that you would go back into the history of a piece of land, find that in successive generations there had been successive charges placed on it and redeemed, and by adding up the redemption moneys you would bring about a negative value to the land. By taking into account successive charges, say successive mortgages and the cost of redeeming the mortgages, you would arrive at a figure which was much greater than the value of the land. That operation, although it might be extremely comforting to the owner, would not have any relation to the task of arriving at a figure for land value. Further, in that paragraph there is the phrase: 1101or to any other matter which is personal to the owner, occupier or other persons interested.I am afraid I do not appreciate what the hon. Member who moved the Amendment thinks comes into a valuation of land under the terms of the Bill which is personal to the occupier. I fear he would have some difficulty in giving me an instance of what is meant by that phrase. It is one of those ingenious phrases which was forced into the Act of 1909–10 in order to make valuation impossible. It is just that class of ingenious phrase which we have been warned very thoroughly to avoid, and we are going to accept the warning.
§ Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON
When it was "forced" into the Act the Government of that day had a majority of 200.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman when he speaks will explain what exactly is meant by a matter which is personal to the occupier, because I have tried to think what it might be and I have failed to appreciate it. I have gone at some length into criticisms of the proposed Amendment, but I do not want in any way to minimise what I have already said about there being a very real difficulty here, and that we do appreciate it, and that although we have tried to cover what we consider the relevant and fair cases it may be that some form of Amendment can be devised which would still make the valuation a practical and a practicable thing and would yet, perhaps, cover some cases of hardship which might still be left in the Bill; and if any hon. Members in any part of the House can suggest to us words which are genuinely intended to remedy any defect that there may be, and do not wreck the valuation, then we shall be perfectly prepared to consider them, and we shall be prepared, if we can do it, to put in something on Report stage which will cover any really hard cases which might occur under the present form of the Bill.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
The Solicitor-General has spoken to us with all that persuasiveness and argumentative skill which we are coming to expect from him when he rises in Debate. I wonder, however, what he would have thought if the case which he had to defend this afternoon had been a case which he had to 1102 argue in court, and what opinion in private he would have given to the solicitors advising him as to the justice and the strength of the view he had to support. All who listened to him will have admired his skill, but at the same time they cannot fail to come to the conclusion that the case he put forward for the Bill as it stands is completely unconvincing—whatever the Government may do afterwards, by way of some Amendment, in order to meet the difficulties which have been raised. As the Bill stands it really comes to this, that to make the tax fair presents great difficulties. Unless, therefore, they are prepared to try themselves to help with Amendments to meet admitted hardships, it seems that they are going to leave it unfair—and deliberately so, having admitted that there are hard cases which ought to be remedied—[Interruption.] There may be! "May be" from so cautious and redoubtable an advocate is at any rate a very considerable step in advance, and perhaps we may be able to take it a little further. Passing legislation in that form is an example of a case where one is prepared totake the Cash, and let the Credit go.Members on this side of the House view this Amendment as a measure of ordinary common sense and ordinary justice designed to make some allowance for improvements made in the property by an owner who wishes to develop it so that it may be put to public use. From the point of view of hon. Members below the Gangway we thought the Amendment would be acceptable to them as an expression of their own principles. I see one right hon. Gentleman present who voted for precisely these proposals when they were brought in some 20 years ago, and the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) did the same. He has receded since then, apparently, from the position he then took up. At any rate, he voted for the proposals then, and says that in principle he is still in favour of them.
We have never obtained from the Government a statement of the real purpose which they have in mind with regard to this Bill. What is it that they intend? Do they wish to make it a crime to own land which has to be developed? Apparently, it is now going to be a further crime to improve land, 1103 and owners are to be penalised for doing that. Do the Government want to facilitate land being put to its best uses from the point of view of the community? If it is the purpose of hon. Members to make these things crimes, then they will vote against this Amendment or any Amendment which makes allowance for improvements. If, on the other hand, they wish to facilitate land being put to its best use, then they will vote for this Amendment.
I will now take some of the cases to which the Solicitor-General has alluded. The Amendment makes reference to different kinds of improvements. One relates to roads, another is the question of the gift of land, and a third relates to the question of the clearing off of encumbrances. Another Clause deals with the execution of works. I am not going to trouble the Committee with a long academic argument, but I would like to give a few practical cases which have actually occurred within my own experience. An ounce of fact is worth a pound of theory. I will take cases which have actually occurred, and which are typical of what is happening all over the country, and they will illustrate the problem with which we have to deal. I shall refer to some of the points which the Solicitor-General has put, and, as the Solicitor-General has left the House, no doubt the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be prepared to deal with my points. First of all, I will deal with the question of the roads. Apart from any political prejudice, is it not ordinary common justice and common sense that, if the owner of land spends money upon making roads to develop his land for building purposes, he ought not to be penalised by having to pay a tax on money spent in this way in addition to any tax there may be on the value of the land before carrying out those improvements? I should think that is a proposition which would be agreed to by everybody. If this injustice is done, I ask the Committee to note some of the results to which that injustice may lead.
I will take a typical case. I suppose that every Member of the Committee is familiar with instances where you get a row of houses built, and where in front of them there is a road which is really not worth calling a road at all, and which, in wet weather, becomes a morass, or a 1104 series of great puddles. I know that only a small percentage of roads are in that state. I do not mean a main road with a few holes in it, but a road which has never been properly made up at all, and which has become a disgrace. I know of one case with which the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General are quite familiar. In another, there is an old farm road in front of some houses—they are miners' houses—and that road, in wet weather, is almost a morass in which the children and the people get very wet, and it is a disgrace to the whole neighbourhood. Does any hon. Member approve of the continuance of that state of affairs? I am sure no one would approve of it, but that is the kind of thing to which hon. Members opposite are driving us if they do not make some allowance for improvements made by the owners of the land. Suppose that an owner is going to make a good road to develop a bit of land. The more he spends on making the road good, the more he increases the value of the land; the more he increases the tax and adds to his own burdens. Therefore, this Clause, as it now stands, acts as an inducement to the continuance of shoddy and bad roads such as those I have mentioned. There is a further premium which you are placing on bad roads. An allowance is made for the cost of upkeep as distinct from construction. The greater the upkeep, the more you reduce the land value, with the result that the original owner has to pay less in taxes. In other words, the better the road the more an owner is penalised; the worse the road the easier he gets off. That is the direct result under a system which is unjust, because there is no allowance made for improvements.
Let me take another instance. I am not sure whether hon. Members who have not a practical acquaintance with this problem realise what a large proportion of building development is represented by the cost of the roads alone. I will give a definite case which is typical of many other cases throughout the country. It is a district where the land is not very dear or very cheap, but a normal, ordinary kind of suburban development. Half the whole value of the development is represented by the cost of roads alone, and, for every £1 spent in development, 10s. represents the cost of making the 1105 roads. All the other costs only come to about 6s. 6d. as distinct from the cost of roads, and the actual profit comes to 3s. on every £l of the development. In this instance, what will be the result of the tax? It is obvious that it will reduce the making of roads to a minimim. Any landowner who desires to develop the land has no other course left open to him but to reduce the cost of the road to a minimum. The result is that you leave the development to a ribbon development which nobody wants, and which we are trying to cure by the Town and Country Planning Bill; or, if you are not under a housing and town planning scheme, you cramp your houses as close as you can with the minimum of roads to the acre. That will be the result unless there is some sort of allowance made for improvements in the way of roads.
I will now pass to another phase of improvements to which the Solicitor-General has referred, and that is works of reclamation to prevent flooding, or to give some advantage by way of stability to the unit. I will give a case which has taken place quite recently. It is a practical instance of a neighbour of my own in Scotland. He and his father have gradually reclaimed 100 acres of mud flat from the foreshore of the Forth, and he will be penalised for doing so under this Bill. Before these two friends of mine started on that work of reclamation, that 100 acres of mud land was under water at high tide, and it was a dirty mud bank at low tide. I do not know what hon. Members think was the value of that land originally to the community. It is clear that God never gave it to the people. At high tide it was probably given to the fishes, and at low tide it was probably given to the gulls and the wild geese who went to peck upon it. That piece of land has been slowly reclaimed, and it has now buildings upon it and factories as well. Is it now proposed to tax the owners out of existence in regard to this piece of land which these two friends of mine have developed and to which nobody else has contributed at all? I ask hon. Members to note that it is not only one penny in the pound on the capital value, or an equivalent to an Income Tax of Is. 8d. in the £1. It must not be overlooked that hon. Members opposite contemplate taking a greater slice, so that in the end these 1106 two friends of mine will have spent all the money in taxation which they might easily have put into Government securities. Because they have been enterprising in reclaiming this land, they are now going to be penalised, and you are going to put this tax upon them in order to prevent others committing a crime as great as they have committed. That is a typical case.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I think it would be better if I read a passage from a letter which I have received from the friend of mine whose case I have quoted. He says:My father began to reclaim it 60 years ago, and I have continued to do it for 42 years. I have continued and greatly extended the reclamation work with great advantage to the whole community, so that nearly 100 acres of what half-a-century ago was useless tidal water with no industrial or agricultural value has now been converted into good land. The work of reclamation is still being extended by which absolutely new land is being added to the country for use. Most of this land is let for works now at a rent considerably in excess of the prairie value of the original muddy foreshore, but at a figure which represents only a very moderate rate of interest on the whole capital cost of maintenance.That is the description, and, as far as I know, an absolutely accurate description, of what has been going on. Again I would ask, do hon. Members opposite think it is really fair that that man should be taxed on the 8.0 p.m. improvement he has made; or are they going to take this as a case in which some allowance ought to be made? It is a striking case, but it is not by any means unique. That man created, out of a muddy flat like a foreshore, a value which did not previously exist, but others, like those who have created garden cities, have created building value in addition to agricultural value just as truly and surely. Welwyn Garden City and some of the other garden cities would never have come into existence in anything like their present form or at anything like the present time but for the great enterprise and courage of the people who invested their money at great risk in taking agricultural land, laying it out with roads, and planning a town on new lines. If some allowance is not to be made to them, 1107 does any hon. Member opposite, even the hon. Member for Burslem, think there would be any developments of this kind in the future, and is it desired to stifle them?
§ Mr. MacLAREN
As the night hon. Gentleman has asked me a direct question, may I say that, considering that the present rating system penalises any man who makes an improvement, I am amazed that we have any garden cities in this country.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I see; that is the logic of the hon. Member. He thinks that rating penalises improvements of this kind, although by some miracle some of them have been made, and therefore he proposes to put on a further tax to make quite sure that nothing of the kind will be done in the future. I must say that, of all arguments against adding to what the hon. Member himself thinks is an existing evil, the statement that he has just made is one of the most conclusive.
The Solicitor-General says it is impossible to make allowance for improvements of this kind, or for agricultural improvements, because they go so far back. Surely it is open to the Government, if they want a practical valuation, to meet this case by inserting a time limit. It is not necessary to go back to the time of Noah and the Flood, but it ought to be possible to have a time limit. We would certainly consider a time limit—[Interruption.] The Solicitor-General is not even taking a datum line from the present, so as to make allowance for future improvements, with regard to which there really cannot be any of the difficulties to which he has just referred. I thought we should have had support from all quarters of the Committee for the making of an allowance in the case of reclamation improvements, but in regard to garden cities, at any rate, we are on stronger ground in asking for help. I would ask the representatives of the Liberal party who are present what they would do in this matter. Here is the statement of principles made on the Budget of 1909–10, and those principles apply to-day just as much as they applied then. I quote the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George): 1108What have the Government done to meet the case of the garden cities? They have first of all included in the Bill the provision that all the money spent in preparing them for development should be deducted.To start with, therefore, they have made a deduction for improvements in the matter of roads. Now I come to the gift of lands:They have also got in this very Clause an amendment which provides that any part of the total value which is proved to the Commissioners to be directly attributable to the appropriation of any land, or to the gift of any land by any person interested in the land, for the purpose of streets, roads, parks, squares, gardens or other open spaces for the use of the public "—there, again, he exempted the gift of land for roads and open spaces; and he added:Under this provision, if a whole area in the middle of a town is left unbuilt upon as part of a plan to give air space and to provide lungs for the locality, there will be exemption from the duty.A lot of lungs the Government and those who support them will leave for any person in the locality under the provisions of this Bill. The Town and Country Planning Bill is a different question. Any part, however, that is played by this Bill will be one of depriving the community of any chance that they may have had of those lungs to which the hon. Member for Burslem, quite naturally, and we agree with him, attaches such value. The statement of principles further said—and this is the statement, which animated the Liberal party through the mouth of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in regard to the Budget of 1909–10—The growth in the value more especially of urban sites is due to no expenditure of capital or thought on the part of the ground owner, but is entirely owing to the energy of the community. Where, however, it is not due to that cause, and where it is due to any expenditure by the urban owner himself, full credit ought to be given to him in taxation, and full credit will be given to him in taxation.Let nobody imagine—I wonder if the Solicitor-General really did imagine—that that was extorted from the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was not. That was his statement in his Budget speech, and that was the principle he laid down from the very beginning. I ask, what is going to be done by this Government? Are they going to try to meet the hard cases of which the Solicitor-General admits there may be a number, and of which I am sure the 1109 President of the Board of Trade knows there is a large number? Are they going to try to meet those cases of hardship from the point of view of justice to the owner who spends money on developing his estate, or to the community? I ask hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, are they going to support an Amendment of this kind in order to see that proper allowance is made for improvements by the owner? That was the inherent principle stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in introducing his Budget. So far as I know, neither he nor any member of the Liberal party has ever departed from that principle since. That was the principle on which he relied when he made this statement:I think I am entitled to say, not merely that there is no trace of the mean and contemptible spirit of revenge with which we are charged, but that we are dealing honestly with them.If hon. Members below the Gangway will support the making of some allowance for improvements by owners, we shall know that they are true to the principles they have stated. If hon. Members opposite refuse to do so, then all I can say is that the spirit which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs then disclaimed— the mean and contemptible spirit of revenge "—will aptly and truly apply to the present Government, and also the fact that they are dealing dishonestly with this question and are dealing with it unjustly and to the detriment of the community.
§ Mr. MANDER
I am glad that the Government have expressed themselves as unable to accept this Amendment. Although I think there is a great deal in what has been said on this subject, I feel that the particular proposal which has been put down is quite impracticable, and would be fatal in a very large degree to the land values taxation scheme. No doubt by some Members it is so intended. That, however, does not mean that we do not feel that there may be cases in which certain steps ought to be taken. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) has quoted from speeches made by the Leader of this party in the past, and he asks, in effect why these words, taken from my right hon. Friend's speech on the Budget of 1909–10, cannot be accepted 1110 by us now. As has been pointed out by the Solicitor-General, my right hon. Friend warned the Government against accepting the many exceptions which he felt obliged to accept at that time, and that is a very good reason why these very extensive words should not be used. If the terms of this Amendment were really carried out, it would be necessary to go back to the creation of the world, to the very beginning of time, when the earth first began to solidify, and that, of course, it would be impossible for any valuer to do.
There may, however, be cases where some exception should be made, and I was glad to hear the Solicitor-General say that the Government would be prepared to consider suggestions from any part of the House for dealing with specific cases if suitable words could be found. The right hon. Member for Tamworth suggested a time limit, and that is one possibility. It might also be practicable to deal with the matter by saying that, in the case of a man who has himself spent time and money in developing his land, an exception might be made, but not in the case of the successors to" such a man—not in the case of people who had purchased the land with all the improvements ready made, but in the case of the original individual or company who carries out the development, and whom we all want to encourage in every possible way. I gather that the Government would be willing to consider cases of that kind, and personally I think that a strong case could be made out for some special condition.
Criticisms have been made from time to time during these Debates as to the hardship and injustice entailed on the unfortunate—or fortunate—possessors of land in selecting that particular commodity for taxation, and the question has been asked, why has land been chosen as against other things? I submit that the plain and simple answer is that for many years past it has been the known and settled policy of the Liberal party and of the Labour party to take the first available opportunity to go in for the taxation of land values, so that anybody who purchased or developed land did so with their eyes open; they had due notice, and therefore no hardship exists when those who promised that they would do certain 1111 things actually come to Parliament and attempt to do them.
§ Mr. OSWALD LEWIS
I desire to comment on two of the speeches that have been made this afternoon. The first is the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). It was to the effect that, so long as the Government could impose the tax and get the money, the justice of the scheme did not matter. I cannot congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his views, but I cannot help thinking that, when that speech is seen in print and studied, the Government will find, not for the first time, that he is rather an uncomfortable ally to have.
The other speech to which I wish to refer is that of the Solicitor-General. He pointed out that, in order to understand the way this Bill would affect owners who had constructed roads, it was necessary to look at more than one part of the Bill. That is undoubtedly true. It is necessary, as a matter of fact, to look at Clause 8 (1) which deals with roads on the particular land unit, Clause 8 (5) which deals with roads on adjoining land. Clause 27 which deals with the definition of the term "road," and Schedule 1 (c), which deals with liability to repair highways by reason of tenure. If we consider the combined effect of those four parts of the Bill, we shall come to the conclusion that, where the owner has constructed a road upon a given land unit or upon adjoining land which may not for the purposes of the Bill form part of that land unit, he will, in effect, pay tax upon that improvement.
The Solicitor-General made a great point of the fact that, while the road can only be used by the man who made it, it will not be taken into account for the purposes of taxation. He explained that the idea was that the man should drive, say, a side road from the main arterial road and that he should not be taxed upon the value of that road until other persons were entitled to use it. He went on to describe how a builder developing an estate in such a way would sell first the house next to the main road, then the house next to that, and so on, and that, as each house was sold, the portion of the road over which the purchaser had the right to go in order to 1112 get to the main road would be taken account of for the purpose of this tax. That is making rather a big assumption. Why should we assume that the plot of land next to the highway is going to be the first plot that the man who is developing the estate is able to get rid of? It may not follow that that is the case at all. Let us assume that there are 10 plots along the road at right-angles to the highway. It may be that it is the furthest from the highway which is the first disposed of, and, if that were the case, the Solicitor-General made it clear that the original owner who is developing the property would have to bring into account, for the purpose of this tax, the value of the whole road, because over the whole length of it another person beside himself would have the right to go. For that reason, it is broadly true to say that for, at any rate, a considerable period the man who has made that road as an improvement on his property would pay an annual tax upon the value that he had created entirely by his own enterprise and his own capital.
To my mind that is not all. In any case, the owner of the land unit who develops it by building that road will, in effect, be taxed upon the full value of that road when he sells his property. Consider what happens. A man developing an estate builds a side road leading away from the main highway. Let us assume that one of the plots is worth, with its house, somewhere about £1,200. It is common ground that the effect of this annual tax, if you capitalise it, is equivalent to somewhere about a twelfth of the value. Therefore, a man who was prepared to pay £1,300 for the house before the Bill was passed would now be prepared to pay £1,200 for it, because really that will be the same thing. He would pay the £1,200 to the man from whom he bought the house and he would pay the equivalent of the other £100 in taxation. Therefore, by paying £1,200 after the Bill passes, he would be in the same position as if he paid £1,300 before the Bill was passed. If that is a true view of the position, surely, when the building owner who has made the road sells the property, he will get a twelfth less than he would have got if this tax did not exist, calculating that twelfth on the value of the land, the buildings and the roads which form part of the 1113 new land value. Therefore, it seems to me that, when the building owner has built the houses and sells the plots, he will find that he gets a diminished value for what he sells, the difference between what he would have got and what he gets being accounted for by the tax. Therefore, he is, in effect, bearing the capitalised value of the tax at the time that he sells. If I have made myself clear, I should be obliged if the President of the Board of Trade will tell me, if there is a fallacy in the argument, where it lies.
§ This question of roads is vitally important in the development of property for housing purposes. You cannot do much until you build your road, and to the extent to which you are prepared to spend money on roads will very largely depend the kind of way in which you develop your property. Take the case of a property like the Welwyn Garden City where the houses are more scattered than is usual in a town of that size. Obviously, that means that in respect of each house there is a greater area of roads than there would be in more close development. I take it that we are all agreed that it is desirable to avoid, as far as we can, over close development of towns in future. We have suffered from it very much in the past. All the supporters of town-planning schemes are at one as to the desirability of allowing for a reasonable proportion of open space and of keeping houses a reasonable distance apart. All that means an extra area given up to roads, and therefore the question *of the roads is of absolutely vital importance. I hope that we shall receive from the Treasury Bench an answer to the question, whether, when the building owner sells a plot with the house built upon it, he in fact pays a capitalised value of the tax in the diminished price that he gets in consequence for his property.
§ Mr. ROSS
In approaching this matter in which we are starting more or less on a new idea in taxation, it is of the first importance that we should try to get every analogy which can usefully be applied and which is within the experience of British legislation. I would refer the Government to the experience which they can get from the old systems of Irish land tenure. There was this distinction between the land tenure in England and land tenure in Ireland which 1114 was vital and which brought about most of the troubles connected with Irish land—and as hon. Members will remember they were many—that in Ireland, as opposed to England, the tenant generally did his own improvements and that he had his rent raised when he had done those improvements. In England the system which was more usual, if it was not always the case, was for the landlord to do the improvements. The effect of such proceedings was most discouraging to anyone who wished to do anything to improve his holding. We shall have precisely the same effect produced by this Bill unless it is considerably amended and unless the landlord is excused and given relief for what he has done to his own building. We found at that time an entire difference of feeling among the tenants as regards land in Ireland and land in England. In England there was no seriously bitter feeling; in Ireland there was much bitter feeling.
If this Bill is passed unamended, you will have precisely the same feeling here, but it will be against the Government rather than against the landlord. A man will be taxed upon a principle which is wholly opposed to the public interest. Taxes against public interests are by no means unknown. It is always a temptation to a Government to tax something which is easily taxable. There are numerous instances in the history of this country. There was the window tax. Because windows could easily be counted and measured the Government of the day thought that they were a suitable subject to tax. In Greece under the Turks they even taxed trees. Trees are almost an improvement of land. You might almost consider that that is a direct analogy of what is proposed in the present Bill, and yet for convenience the Government of Greece, at that time the Turkish Government, because they found that trees were easily enumerated, because they could see how many trees there were upon any property, put a tax upon them.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico)
The Amendment under discussion now is not the taxation of land but the exemption of certain forma of improvement from taxation.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member appeared to be emphasising his objection to the taxation of land because it was easy and using as an illustration instances of the taxation of trees and windows. I again point out to the hon. Member that we are not discussing the taxation of land, but whether certain forms of improvement on the land should be exempted from the tax. The hon. Member must not lecture the Chair in this way.
§ Mr. ROSS
With great respect, Mr. Dunnico, I enjoy my lectures from the Chair, and I would be the last to enter into competition, because I know that I cannot do it. I can assure you, with the utmost respect, if you were sensitive in that respect and thought that I was lecturing the Chair, that it was my inept-ness, and that nothing was further from my desire than to lecture the Chair or to give any appearance of lecturing the Chair. I was, unfortunately, trying to give an illustration which suited the occasion, and, if my illustration was an unfortunate one and if you thought that I adopted an attitude which was not becoming, I sincerely apologise. I assure you that the last thing I had in mind was to lecture the Chair, which would be most unbecoming and unsuitable. I hope that I should be the last Member in this House to do such a thing. I will leave my trees in Greece and in Turkey and come back to the old point.
I was trying to emphasise the point that improvements as such should be encouraged and that any taxation which puts a burden upon improvements is, in its very essence, wrong. Landlords are a much abused class—landlords even in my own country have been criticised before now—and, if they effect improvements, they should not be taxed upon them. What should be taxed are not improvements, but things which definitely make the situation, either in the country as a whole or of a particular class, worse. If improvements are to be discouraged, there will be less improvement. We do not want to discourage improvements. Landlords, almost more than any other class, have been held up to obliquy, criticism, 1116 and even to abuse, and, if improvements are to be taxed and not exempted, surely you are clinching at the very outset any possibility of reforming a class which hon. Members opposite seem to think requires reforming. They ought to be encouraged. An improvement by a landlord definitely involves the betterment of the lot of the tenant. If it does not, it is not an improvement. Yet we have a proposal to put a tax upon an action which even hon. Members opposite could not in their more lucid moments refrain from calling good. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted, because, unless it is accepted, the Bill will involve a principle which is wholly unsound, and which will have the effect of worsening the attitude of landlords as a class to their tenants and making the position of tenants as a class more unfortunate than it is at present.
§ Viscount WOLMER
I want to give the right hon. Gentleman opposite a typical example of the way in which this part of the Bill will affect a great many landlords. I wish to quote what I believe is a common and ordinary case, and I do so because I have obtained the permission of the gentleman to whom it refers to give the Committee the facts and figures, including his name and the position of the property. I cannot go into the details as fully as I would wish, but if any hon. Member would like to see the further facts I should be very delighted to show them to him. The case refers to an area of ground in my constituency of 252 acres, belonging to Mr. Robert Seton. The land has been in his possession and that of his father for many years. In 1903 he decided to develop part of the estate as a golf course. Up to that time it had all been let as agricultural land. In 1903, Mr. Seton took over 184 acres out of the total estate and proceeded to develop it as the Bramshott Colf Course, on which I have no doubt hon. Members in various quarters of the House have played. In the course of a number of years he spent £10,200 in developing the land as a golf course. He did it, of course, as a commercial proposition.
The development has been of great benefit to the locality. In the first place, 20 men are regularly employed on these 184 acres, whereas only two or three were employed before. Therefore, it has increased the employment in the neighbourhood. 1117 As an amenity to the neighbourhood everybody has benefited from it, except the man who made the speculation. He has only got 3 per cent. on his money, including any money that he may have received by the sale of land on the rest of his property. Mr. Seton makes no complaint of that. It was a commercial risk that he took, a large risk. He had to take money out of trust funds in order to do it, and he invested the money in a very worthy object. When the Government valuer under this Bill comes to value the remainder of the land, it seems to me that he will be bound to say: "This land has a first-class golf links adjacent to it. Therefore, it has a building value and I am going to value it at a higher figure than I should have done if it had not got a golf links adjacent to it." Not only will this landowner have spent his money for a very inadequate return—having sold trust securities which brought in 4 per cent. and used the money for a purpose which has only brought in a return of 3 per cent.—but he will be taxed, in addition, on his remaining land because of the enterprise that he showed and the risk he took, which has been for the benefit of the neighbourhood and of the whole community.
I submit to hon. Members opposite that this is a perfectly fair and, I believe, not at all uncommon case. What the Government are doing, in effect, is to tax people on the enterprise that they have shown. They say that they are merely taxing them on the site value created by the community, but here is an example, and I do not think that it is an uncommon example, where a man has practically created the whole of the site value of his remaining land by the amount of money that he has spent on the development of these very good golf links. On what principle of equity can it be said that his taxation on his remaining land ought to be increased? This landowner cannot be accused of holding up land against the public. Since 1918, four neighbouring councils have been offered land for working class houses, but each have rejected it. No offer to develop the land has been received by the landlord, save for one small house, of one acre, in 1924. Three agricultural cottages were built on neighbouring land by the landlord's father. That is the only building development that has taken place on the 1118 land, simply because this gentleman has made what has turned out to be an unfortunate speculation, financially. He makes no ground of complaint there, but it is hard that hon. Members opposite should come down and tax his remaining property more heavily simply on account of the money he has spent in developing the golf links.
This man would have been very much better off if he had undertaken no such development. The golf course is rated, I think, at £394. If it had remained as agricultural land it would have been derated. Therefore, he has already been rated to that extent on account of the golf course. If he had kept his money in trustee securities and had not risked it on this enterprise, he would have been very much better off. What is the justice in taxing him heavily because he has added a theoretical value to his remaining property which he has been unable to realise?
§ Mr. KNIGHT
The Noble Lord has said that three neighbouring authorities had refused to buy a portion of land from this owner. Was it because of the price that he was asking for it?
§ Viscount WOLMER
He offered the land in 1918 to the local authorities for working class houses, and it was rejected.
§ Viscount WOLMER
I have not the actual price at which the land was offered, but I can assure hon. Members, from my knowledge of the neighbourhood, that it could not be an exorbitant sum, because it is all agricultural land. There is no town in the immediate vicinity. The price of building land in that neighbourhood would not, I imagine, be more than £100 or £200 an acre. The point is that the landlord has received no offer for the value except one, which I gather he accepted, and he may be taxed on a hypothetical value of £100 or £200 per acre on the remaining agricultural land which he is unable to realise, solely on account of the fact that he has sunk £10,000 in developing this property. That is a case which shows the injustice of this form of taxation, and the net result will be to discourage landlords from developing their land, risking their money and giving employment, because 1119 they know that the more they raise the value of their own property the higher they will be taxed by hon. Members opposite.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
May I reply to the point put by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis). He gave an instance of a house which cost £1,300 and said that the net result of the Land Tax would be to reduce the value on the sale of that house by £100. His figures are quite wrong because he has taken the Land Tax on the value of the house, not on the site value. It may be roughly taken in a case of that sort that the value of the house as to the site will be about four to one, so that if the hon. Member reduces his figure by one-fifth it is about £20.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
The answer is that it entirely depends on the state of the market. It depends on how many houses are available and how many people there are to buy. That is what fixes the price of houses and nothing else.
§ Sir BOYD MERRIMAN
I hope the Solicitor-General- is going to deal with the case put by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), but, before he does so, may I ask him this question? The grievance, as stated by my Noble Friend, is that the land around the Bramshott Golf Course, in the ownership of the man who made the golf course, was enhanced by the existence of the golf course on which he had spent money and that it is unfair that a Land Tax should be exactly on that enhanced value. But does the matter end there? I knew nothing of this particular case, but it occurred to me as my Noble Friend was speaking that there is this other feature, that this additional taxation will not be limited to the remaining acres adjacent to the golf courses, and in the same ownership, but will be levied upon the golf links themselves. Those who know the Bramshott 1120 Golf Links, as I do from one or two visits, will know that the two main features of that course, as on some other golf links in Surrey, are grass and heather. For the purposes of this valuation it is to be assumed that the club house and the caddy shed are removed from the land. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the bunkers!"] If they are structural bunkers; but there are plenty of bunkers on the Bramshott Golf Course which are not made structurally. Apart from a frivolous point of that sort, the feature of the Bramshott Golf Course, in common with other Surrey golf courses, is the excellent turf on the one hand, upon which you are expected to keep, and the excellent heather on the other into which, unfortunately, you sometimes wander. These two things are to be assumed to be remaining there. Is the valuer to come along and say: "I see a perfectly good golf course 180 acres in extent. I am going to levy a tax on the footing that it is a perfectly good golf course, and also levy a tax on the surrounding land on the footing that it has been enhanced by the presence of the golf course."
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
I will try to reply to the hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman), avoiding, of course, the bunkers. The real point seems to be that the gentleman who developed this unfortunate speculation of a golf course with trust funds expected that he would raise the value of the land around the golf course, but has failed to do so, because he is unable to obtain purchasers at £100 to £200 per acre. When the valuer comes along he will not put a high value upon it because all the results of the sale of land in the district will show him that it is not saleable at that price.
§ Viscount WOLMER
The Solicitor-General will agree, no doubt, that the value is bound to be higher than it was when it was heather?
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
I quite agree that probably it will be, but the point of the Noble Lord was that this land would have a high value put upon it, presumably about £200 per acre, but the fact is that the value would not be anything like as high. As regards the point that the golf links will be taxed, of course they will, and a value will be put 1121 upon them for whatever purpose they might be sold in the open market, one of which would be as a golf course. Apart from any question as to the taxation of playing fields, which is to be considered later in the Bill, they will be taxed. The position under the Amendment we are discussing would, as far as I can see, be exactly similar. There is no suggestion that the value of the golf course should be deducted under the Amendment, unless the Noble Lord thinks that a golf course comes into the category of an open space for the use of the public.
§ Viscount WOLMER
I ought to explain to the Solicitor-General that I was speaking by leave of the Chair to an Amendment of mine which specifically deals with this point, and which will be found on page 1815, but, owing to the procedure under which we are working, it-was impossible to discuss that Amendment. If the Solicitor-General is willing to redress the grievance of my constituent, he will have to pass my Amendment on page 1815.
would not accomplish what he desires. It says:
When the owner of a land unit satisfies the Commissioners that the value thereof at the valuation date is due in whole or in part to the expenditure of money by the owner upon the development, or upon the preservation of the amenities, thereof.
§ It does not refer to neighbouring land. The expenditure on the golf course is not on any land unit which surrounds the golf course.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
This deals with a land unit and the land unit which will be valued is not all the same. It will be different units in different occupation. The golf course, presumably, is occupied by the golf course.
§ Viscount WOLMER
The Solicitor-General admits the soundness of my object, and I shall be glad of his assistance to give effect to it by any Amendment he may be good enough to propose.
§ Question put, "That the word 'or' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 199.1125
|Division No. 292.]||AYES.||[8.54 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Cameron. A. G.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)|
|Adamson. W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Cape, Thomas||Groves, Thomas E.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Grundy, Thomas W.|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.||Chater, Daniel||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Clarke, J. S.||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)|
|Alpass, J. H.||Cluse, W. S.||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)|
|Angell, Sir Norman||Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Harbord, A.|
|Arnott, John||Compton, Joseph||Hardie, David (Rutherglen)|
|Attlee, Clement Richart||Cove, William G.||Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)|
|Ayles, Walter||Cripps, Sir Stafford||Harris, Percy A.|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Daggar, George||Hastings, Dr. Somerville|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Dallas, George||Haycock, A. W.|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Dalton, Hugh||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)|
|Barr, James||Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield|
|Batey, Joseph||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Herriotts, J.|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Hicks, Ernest George|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Dukes, C.||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)|
|Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Duncan, Charles||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Ede, James Chuter||Hoffman, P. C.|
|Benson, G.||Edge, Sir William||Hopkin, Daniel|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Edmunds, J. E.||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Hunter, Dr. Joseph|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Egan, W. H.||Isaacs, George|
|Bowen, J. W.||Elmley, Viscount||Jenkins, Sir William|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Foot, Isaac||John, William (Rhondda, West)|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)|
|Bromfield, William||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Bromley, J.||Gibbins, Joseph||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Brooke, W.||Gill, T. H.||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)|
|Brothers, M.||Gillett, George M.||Kelly, W. T.|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)||Glassey, A. E.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Gossling, A. G.||Kinley, J.|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Gould, F.||Kirkwood, D.|
|Buchanan, G.||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Knight, Holford|
|Burgess, F. G.||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm, (Edin., Cent.)||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Gray, Milner||Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Law, Albert (Bolton)|
|Caine, Hall-, Derwent||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Law, A. (Rossendale)|
|Lawrence, Susan||Naylor, T. E.||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Noel Baker, P. J.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Lawther, W. (Barnard Cattle)||Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)||Snewden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Leach, W.||Oldfield, J. R.||Snowden. Thomas (Accrington)|
|Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Sorensen, R.|
|Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Lees, J.||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Leonard, W.||Palin, John Henry||Strauss, G. R.|
|Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Paling, Wilfrid||Sullivan, J.|
|Lloyd, C. Ellis||Palmer, E. T.||Sufton, J. E.|
|Logan, David Gilbert||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Longbottom, A. W.||Perry, S. F.||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Longden, F.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Phillips, Dr. Marlon||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Lunn, William||Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Pole, Major D. G.||Toole, Joseph|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Potts, John S.||Tout, W. J.|
|MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Price, M. P.||Townend, A. E.|
|McElwee, A.||Quibell, D. F. K.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|McEntee, V. L.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Turner, Sir Ben|
|McKinlay, A.||Raynes, W. R.||Vaughan, David|
|MacLaren, Andrew||Richards, R||Viant, S. P.|
|Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Walkden, A. G.|
|Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Walker, J.|
|McShane, John James||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Wallace, H. W.|
|Malone, C. L Estrange (N'lhampton)||Ritson, J.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Roberts, Ht. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Manning, E. L.||Romeril, H. G.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Mansfield, W.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|March, S.||Rowson, Guy||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Marcus, M.||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Markham, S. F.||Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Marley, J.||Sanders, W. S.||West, F. R.|
|Marshall, Fred||Sandham, E.||Westwood, Joseph|
|Mathers, George||Sawyer, G. F.||White, H. G.|
|Maxton, James||Scurr, John||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Messer, Fred||Sexton, Sir James||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Middleton, G.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)|
|Mills, J. E.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Milner, Major J.||Sherwood, G. H.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Montague, Frederick||Shield, George William||Wilson. C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Shillaker, J. F.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Morley, Ralph||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)||Simmons, C. J.||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N)||Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)||Wise, E. F.|
|Mort, D. L.||Sinkinson, George||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Muff, G.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Muggeridge, H. T.||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES —|
|Murnin, Hugh||Smith. Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Charleton.|
|Nathan, Major H. L.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Buckingham, Sir H.||Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip|
|Albery. Irving James||Burton, Colonel H. W.||Dalkeith, Earl of|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)||Butler, R. A||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Davison, Sir W- H. (Kensington, S.)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfred W.||Campbell, E. T.||Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Carver, Major W. H.||Duckworth, G. A. V.|
|Astor, Viscountess||Castle Stewart, Earl of||Eden, Captain Anthony|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Elliot, Major Walter E.|
|Atkinson, C.||Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||England Colonel A.|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Erskine, Lord (Somerset. Weston-s.-M.)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Everard, W. Lindsay|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Cecil, fit. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||Falle, Sir Bertram G.|
|Balniel, Lord||Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton||Ferguson, Sir John|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Fermoy, Lord|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Fielden, E. B.|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon||Chapman, Sir S.||Fison, F. G. Clavering|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Christie, J. A.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Galbraith, J. F. W.|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Cohen, Major J. Brunel||Ganzoni, Sir John|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Colfox, Major William Philip||Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Colman, N. C. D.||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Colville, Major D. J.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Cooper, A. Duff||Gower, Sir Robert|
|Boyce, Leslie||Courtauld, Major J. S.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)|
|Bracken, B.||Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Cowan, D. M.||Greene, W. P. Crawford|
|Brass. Captain Sir William||Cranborne, Viscount||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John|
|Broadbent, Colonel J.||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Gritten, W. G. Howard|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Crookshank, Capt. H. C.||Gunston, Captain D. W|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Croom-Johnton, R. P.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.|
|Buchan, John||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)|
|Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Smith Carington, Neville W.|
|Hammersley, S. S.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)||Somerset, Thomas|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Haslam, Henry C.||Muirhead, A. J.||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||O'Connor, T. J.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)|
|Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Peake, Capt. Osbert||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)|
|Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Perkins, W. R. D.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F|
|Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Thompson, Luke|
|Hurd, Percy A.||Pilditch, Sir Philip||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Inskip, Sir Thomas||Power, Sir John Cecil||Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.|
|Iveagh, Countess of||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Purbrick, R.||Train, J.|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Ramsbotham, H.||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Kindersley, Major G. M.||Reid, David D, (County Down)||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Knox, Sir Alfred||Remer, John R.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Reynolds, Col. Sir James||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)||Ross, Ronald D.||Wilton, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Llewellin, Major J. J.||Salmon, Major I.||Withers, Sir John James|
|Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Lockwood, Captain J. H.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart||Womersley, W. J.|
|Long, Major Hon. Eric||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|McConnell, Sir Joseph||Savery, S. S.||Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)|
|Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Simms, Major-General J.|
|Margesson, Captain H. D.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Skelton, A. N.||Sir George Penny and Captain Wallace.|
|Meller, R. J.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hailam)|
|Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
There is an Amendment, consequential upon the Amendment which the Committee has just divided upon, and I understand that by agreement it is desired that it should be taken without discussion. Between that consequential Amendment and the Amendment on which we have just taken a Division, there is an Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastlo-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) which I propose to call.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 28 and 29.
I am much obliged to you, Mr. Dunnico, for allowing me to move this Amendment. These are the lines which exclude minerals from the purview of the tax. To me, personally, the omission of minerals from the taxation of land values is a most serious flaw in this otherwise excellent Bill. My constituency is largely a mining constituency; a large number of pits there have been closed down, and the majority of my mining constituents are out of work. I had hoped that the taxation of land values, including minerals, would do something for those men by opening up the ungotten minerals of North Staffordshire to their use. But it will do nothing of the kind if those minerals are excluded. The reason given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for 1126 the exclusion of minerals from the Bill was that the Government intended to nationalise minerals. I do not believe that in the present financial position of the country it is possible to nationalise minerals but even if they were nationalised, I conceive that it would be of enormous assistance to a just nationalisation of minerals if they could be valued first, so that the nation might know what it ought to pay for them. The absence of a valuation would make nationalisation more difficult and more expensive.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I am a little in doubt as to the exact meaning of this Amendment. Is not the effect of it to impose a charge?
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham)
On that point I am afraid, there can be no doubt, because it would lead, of course, to a valuation of minerals and therefore to an additional charge in that respect, and there would be the tax as well.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
May I submit that it is usual to allow greater latitude during the Committee stage than during the Report stage in these matters. I realise that in the Report stage it would be impossible to take an Amendment which increased the charge, but in the Committee stage one may often argue 1127 a question on the merits although the actual proposal put forward might result in larger taxation. I would also point out that, particularly in this Bill, it does not follow that because an item is valued, it is therefore taxed. There are items here which will be valued but will not involve taxation. I submit that it would be within the bounds of order to suggest that the valuation—which is all we are dealing with—should extend to minerals.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Unfortunately, the Resolution of Ways and Means is not conveniently near at the moment. Am I to understand that this matter is covered by that Resolution?
§ Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON
With great respect, may I submit that the effect of the Amendment would be to increase the amount of tax which the owner would have to pay, over and above what is set down in the Bill now.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
On the Resolution which was carried in Ways and Means, no distinction was drawn between surface values and mineral values. It was only when the Bill was introduced that that distinction was drawn. Therefore I submit that this Amendment comes within the Resolution carried in Ways and Means, and is in order now.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
If the Amendment is covered by the Ways and Means Resolution, as I understand it is, then the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may proceed. An Amendment which imposes a charge is not necessarily out of order if it is covered by the terms of the Money Resolution.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I promise the Committee to be as brief as possible. I know it is a hopeless fight and that it is impossible to have minerals included, but I wish to point out two things in connection with this exemption. In the first place, if minerals are exempted there will be no inducement upon owners of mines which have closed down to allow lessees to get the minerals on cheaper 1128 terms. Directly a pit closes, not only Schedule A, but also the rates cease to operate, and the exemption from Schedule A and from rates which follows the closing of a pit, is almost an incentive to the closing of pits. If, however, we had a tax on mineral values, whether the minerals were being worked or not, it would be a perpetual incentive to owners to allow those minerals to be got. They would allow the minerals to be got at cheaper royalties than are now charged, and people who wanted to get coal would be able to get it.
In my opinion, the reason why minerals have been ruled out, is because, under recent arrangements there is rationalisation in the coal industry and restriction of production intended to keep up price. You exempt minerals on the ground that increased production would be undesirable at the present time. I think it is desirable. I want more work and more coal and cheaper coal for industry. Exactly the same argument which is used in defence of the Bill as regards building, can be applied to the inclusion of minerals in the Bill. We want cheaper coal just as we want cheaper land. We want cheaper land for houses just as we want cheaper coal for our industries. Anything which would put an annual tax on mineral values would increase production and reduce price.
I pass on to the real and serious difference which the exclusion of minerals makes to the valuation. At present, in nine cases out of ten where land changes hands, what actually changes hands is the whole of the value of land plus minerals. It is very rarely that minerals are sold separately from the surface rights. Therefore, the valuers, necessarily, must be guided by transactions which have taken place in land and they are ruled out of taking nine-tenths of those transactions. The ordinary transaction is concerned with land and minerals combined. Here you are directing the valuers to exclude from their valuation, by a process of reasoning, the value of the minerals. I ask any hon. Member who is a landowner whether he can say what would be the value of his land if it were stripped of minerals? Every man knows what the value of his land is as it stands. No one knows better than the owner of the land what it is worth. But if you ask him to estimate the value of his land without the minerals in it, you are 1129 setting him, just as you are setting the valuers, a very difficult task.
§ Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN
Supposing he has not any minerals. There are no minerals in my land.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I am glad of that interruption. My land, in my own opinion, has not any minerals, and I think most landowners in this country are under the impression that their land has not any minerals, but, if you look at the definition of minerals in this Bill, you will see that every piece of land has mineral value. You will see that the definition of minerals includes:all minerals and substances in or under land of a kind ordinarily worked for removal by underground or by surface working.The insertion of those words "or by surface working" includes in minerals all sorts of subjects which we do not necessarily or normally consider to be minerals. It includes, for instance, gravel; it includes clay, sand, stone, lime, even earth; in fact, everything under the surface, according to this definition, is a mineral, and the valuers are asked to value the land without those minerals.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
Water had not occurred to me, but I do not think that any law court would call water a mineral. This definition of minerals, to my mind, makes the valuation of land under this Bill hopeless, because it is inconceivable that land should have a value if you deduct from it everything on which the surface is land. Some hon. Friends and I have put down an Amendment later on to alter that definition, but under the operation of the guillotine I fear that that Amendment may not be moved, and I wish to take the opportunity of this speech to get from the Government some assurance that there will be a modification of that definition of minerals which will enable the valuation to be made.
I hate giving personal experiences, but I think it is necessary here. My own property, where I live, is largely gravel. It is within three miles of a town, and it covers a great deal of wood-land. It is possible that under this Bill I might be taxed on my land value, 1130 though I think I could find a way out. Undoubtedly I am in a very strong position. If they ask me what the value of my land is, stripped of the gravel on which it stands—I work that gravel myself, I know its value, I can swear to its value, I can prove its value to the satisfaction of the valuer—and if I deduct that from my land value, I can show that the land value of my property is well below its cultivation value, in which case I escape, of course. I am afraid that in this matter I am not unique. Other owners of land may feel in the same way as I do. It is only just to get a land value which will accord with the definition prescribed in the Bill, and in that case everybody whose property is on valuable gravel or valuable sand—sand has a considerable market too—will be able to show that land value under this Bill is a negligible quantity and that the real value of that property is the sand, or gravel, or stone on which it stands.
I wish to speak also on this question from the point of view of the potting industry. The potting industry has, as its Taw material, clay. That cannot be news to any Member of this Committee. The clay, the china clay, and the china stone, comes from Cornwall. Almost the only country in the world which produces china clay and china stone is Cornwall. They have a monopoly. There is also, naturally, where you get a monopoly, a ring. The price of china clay and of china stone is everything that the consumer can pay—not a competitive price, but a monopoly price. Not the whole of the fields of china clay and china stone in Cornwall is worked, but a certain amount only—just as much as the industry can swallow. If china clay were excluded from this valuation, there would be no inducement, other than there is at present, for the owners of it to work their property. On the ether hand, if china clay were included in the valuation and excluded from the definition of minerals, we should find a normal incentive for the people who would have to pay their tax upon their clay value year after year to get somebody to develop that property. There would be an increased supply; the ring would find it more difficult to keep up prices; the potting trade would get a cheaper raw material: your cups and saucers would 1131 be cheaper on your tea-table; the export trade would develop, and more people would be employed in the potting industry.
That is an admirable example of what the taxation of land value, rightly applied, must amount to. Cannot you give us some hope for the potting trade and for employment on these lines? I do not want—it is useless unless the Opposition will support me—to press for the inclusion of mineral value in the Bill now, but it is not impossible to beg the Government to give to the word "minerals" a reasonable definition, which shall allow us to include in the tax, not coal or iron, not those materials that are normally got by underground working, not those materials that are included in all the Acts of Parliament that have been passed recently dealing with the mining industry, but at least to include in our definition sand, gravel, stone, those minerals that are got by overground working, by open working, as apart from underground working. I feel that in moving that part of the Amendment, at any rate, I must be making things easier for the valuers.
To value property is easy if the property to be valued changes hands from day to day, from month to month, or from year to year. Every time property-changes hands its value is registered at Somerset House, where valuers can keep a check on it. But if what you are to value is something which never changes hands, which is never registered at Somerset House, on which you can keep no check, if it is to be the value of land without the value of the gravel, and sand, and stone and earth on which the land stands, then you are asking the valuers to do something which is impossible. You are making your valuation under this Bill even as impossible or as difficult, expensive and lengthy as was the valuation under the 1909 Act, from which every reasonable person now wishes to get away. Therefore, I beg the Government to consider whether they could not make this concession, could not treat the definition of minerals as something which could be understood by the man in the street, as something which could be realised by the valuer, as something which could make the normal transactions in land a guide to the valuers who have to make the valuation.
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
I understand that it is the desire of the Committee to have only a brief discussion on this Amendment, and, accordingly, hon. Members will not complain if I reply very shortly indeed. The Committee is well aware that what the Bill proposes is the sale price without regard to the value of minerals or the value of mineral way-leaves, and it is perfectly clear that if anything else were attempted in the Bill, we should be in great difficulty in regard to the valuation. There is, of course, a great distinction in many cases between the ownership of surface minerals and the ownership of minerals below, and it does not end there. There are innumerable problems in connection with the working of minerals, un worked minerals and the rest. Consequently, if the Amendment of my right hon. Friend were accepted, it would be necessary to embark on a highly technical valuation for this purpose which would very seriously delay the valuation of land which is contemplated in the Bill. But that is not the end of the story. As matters stand at present, there is taxation on minerals, the Mineral Rights Duty——
§ Mr. GRAHAM
Certainly. It is at the rate of 1s. in the £ taken on the rental value or the royalties, and in the case of coal there is the Miners' Welfare Fund levy. These duties are on minerals at present. There is one point which, I think, my right hon. Friend overlooked, or, at all events, stated very briefly. While it is true that the minerals and the value of mineral wayleaves are excluded from the sale price taken in the Bill, when the valuer comes to value it, the minerals are present as support, that is, they are included for the purpose of support, but they have no other purpose as far as this valuation goes. We have already informed the House that we are committed to the public ownership of mineral royalties, and for these reasons I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Captain BOURNE
I beg to move, in page 5, line 39, at the end, to insert the words:(v) any part of the land value of the unit which—
- (a) is directly attributable to works executed or expenditure of a capital
1133 nature (including any expenses of advertisement) incurred bona fide by or on be-half of or solely in the interests of any person interested in the land for the purpose of improving the value of the land as building land or for the purpose of any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture; or
- (b) is directly attributable to the appropriation of any land or to the gift of any land by any person interested in the land for the purpose of streets, roads, paths, squares, gardens, or other open spaces for the use of the public; or
- (c) is directly attributable to the expenditure of money on the redemption of any tithe, land tax, or any fixed charge, or on the enfranchisement of copyhold land or customary freeholds, or on effecting the release of any covenant or agreement restricting the use of land which
may be taken into account in ascertaining the land value of the land, or to any other matter which is personal to the owner, occupier, or other person interested for the time being in the land.
Where any works executed or expenditure incurred for the purpose of improving the value of the land for agriculture have actually improved the value of the land as building land or for the purpose of any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture, the works or expenditure shall for the purposes of this provision be treated as having been executed or incurred also for the latter purposes.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 266.1137
|Division No. 293.]||AYES.||[9.29 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest|
|Albery, Irving James||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Llewellin, Major J. J.|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)||Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hon. Godfrey|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Dalkeith, Earl of||Lockwood, Captain J. H.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfred W.||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Long, Major Hon. Eric|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)|
|Astor, Viscountess||Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.||Maitlant, Brigadier-General E.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Duckworth, G. A. V.||Marjoribanks, Edward|
|Atkinson, C.||Eden, Captain Anthony||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Meller, R. J.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||England, Colonel A.||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)||Milne, Wardlaw, J. S.|
|Balniel, Lord||Everard, W. Lindsay||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Ferguson, Sir John||Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon||Fielden, E. B.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Fison, F. G. Clavering||Muirhead, A. J.|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearmaa||Galbraith, J. F. W.||O'Connor, T. J.|
|Bird, Ernest Ray||Ganzoni, Sir John||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton||Peake, Captain Osbert|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Perkins, W. R. D.|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W||Gower, Sir Robert||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Boyce, Leslie||Grace, John||Pilditch, Sir Philip|
|Bracken, B.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Purbrick, R.|
|Broadbent, Colonel J.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Reid, David D. (County Down)|
|Buchan, John||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Renter, John R.|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Reynolds, Col. Sir James|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)|
|Butler, R. A.||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Hammersley, S. S.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Campbell, E. T.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Ross, Ronald D.|
|Carver, Major w, H.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Haslam, Henry C.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.|
|Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Savery, S. S.|
|Chamberlain Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Slmms, Major-General J.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)|
|Christie, J. A.||Hurd, Percy A.||Skelton, A. N.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Inskip, Sir Thomas||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Cohen, Major J. Brunel||Iveagh, Countess of||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Somerset, Thomas|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Cowan, D. M.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C.||Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)||Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)|
|Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert||Womersley, W. J.|
|Thompson, Luke||Warrender, Sir Victor||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Thomson, Sir F.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles||Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)|
|Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.||Wells, Sydney R.||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Titchfield, Major the Marquees of||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Train, J.||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Turton, Robert Hugh||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George||Captain Margesson and Sir George penny.|
|Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon||Withers, Sir John James|
|Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Glassey, A. E.||MacNeill-Weir, L.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Gossling, A. G.||McShane, John James|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Gould, F.||M alone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Mander, Geoffrey le M.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Manning, E. L.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Gray, Milner||March, S.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Marcus, M.|
|Angell, Sir Norman||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Markham, S. F.|
|Arnott, John||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Marley, J.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Groves, Thomas E.||Marshall, Fred|
|Ayles, Walter||Grundy, Thomas W.||Mathers, George|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Maxtor, James|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Hall, J. H (Whitechapel)||Messer, Fred|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)||Middleton, G.|
|Barr, James||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Mills, J. E.|
|Batey, Joseph||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Milner, Major J.|
|Beckett, John (Camberweil, Peckham)||Harbord, A.||Montague, Frederick|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Hardie, David (Rutherglen)||Morgan, Dr. H. B.|
|Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)||Morley, Ralph|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Morris-Jenes, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)|
|Benson, G.||Haycock, A. W.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Mort, D. L.|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Herriotts, J.||Muff, G.|
|Bowen, J. W.||Hicks, Ernest George||Muggeridge, H. T.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Murnin, Hugh|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Nathan, Major H. L.|
|Bromfield, William||Hoffman, P. C.||Naylor, T. E.|
|Bromley, J.||Hopkin, Daniel||Noel Baker, P. J.|
|Brooke, W.||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)|
|Brothers, M.||Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Oldfield, J. R.|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)||Isaacs, George||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Jenkins, Sir William||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)|
|Buchanan, G.||Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Palin, John Henry|
|Burgess, F. G.||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Palmer, E. T.|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Perry, S. F.|
|Caine, Hall-, Derwent||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Cameron, A. G.||Kelly, W. T.||Phillips, Dr. Marlon|
|Cape, Thomas||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Picton-Turbervill, Edith|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Kinley, J.||Pole, Major D. G.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Kirkwood, D.||Potts, John S.|
|Chater, Daniel||Knight, Holford||Price, M. P.|
|Clarke, J. S.||Lansbury, Rt Hon. Georgs||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Cocks, Frederick Sevmour||Law, Albert (Bolton)||Raynes, W. R.|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Law, A. (Rossendale)||Richards, R.|
|Compton, Joseph||Lawrence, Susan||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Cove, William G.||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Daggar, George||Leach, W.||Ritson, J|
|Dallas, George||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Romeril, H. G.|
|Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)||Lees, J.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Leonard, W.||Rowson, Guy|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Dukes, C.||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)|
|Duncan, Charles||Logan, David Gilbert||Sanders, W. S.|
|Ede, James Chuter||Longbottom, A. W.||Sandham, E.|
|Edge, Sir William||Longden, F.||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Lovat-Fraser, J A.||Scurr, John|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Lunn, William||Sexton, Sir James|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Egan, W. H.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Elmley, viscount||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Foot, Isaac||McElwee, A.||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||McEntee, V. L.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)||Simmons, C. J.|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||McKinlay, A.||Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Mac Laren, Andrew||Sinkinson, George|
|Gill, T. H.||Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Gillett, George M.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)||Toole, Joseph||West, F. R.|
|Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Tout, W. J.||Westwood, Joseph|
|Smith, Tom (Pontefract)||Townend, A. E.||White, H. O.|
|Smith, W. R. (Norwich)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Turner, Sir Ben||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)||Viant, S. P.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Stamford, Thomas W.||Walkden, A. G.||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)|
|Stephen, Campbell||Walker, J.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Strauss, G. R.||Wallace, H. W.||Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)|
|Sullivan, J.||Watkins, F. C.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Sutton, J. E.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)||Wilson, R. J. Narrow)|
|Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah||Wise, E. F.|
|Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)||Wellock, Wilfred||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Tillett, Ben||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Tinker, John Joseph||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Mr. Paling and Mr. Thurtle.|
§ Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE
I beg to move, in page 6, line 8, to leave out paragraph (d).
It is clearly the intention of the Government in framing the Bill in this way that the holder of the land who is the tithe payer shall pay his tax on a value which includes the value of the tithe or tithe rentcharge, but I should like to draw the attention of the learned Solicitor-General to a point which I think must have escaped his notice and the notice of everybody else concerned in the framing of the Bill. Although in Clause 27 of the Bill there is a definition of agricultural land, there is no definition of land in this Bill, and consequently, to get the legal interpretation of land, one has to look to the definition in the Intepretation Act of 1889, where we find that the expression "land" includes messuages, tenements, and hereditaments. Tithe is a hereditament. I expect that the Solicitor-General will say that because tithe is an incorporeal hereditament, this does not apply to it. I would remind him, if he has that answer in his mind, that in the Finance Act of 1909–10, it was thought necessary specifically to exclude incorporeal hereditaments in order to prevent tithe and tithe rentcharge being included in the definition of land which in that Act also had to be defined as in the Interpretation Act of 1889. In Section 41 of the 1910 Act are these words:The expression 'land' does not include incorporeal hereditaments issuing or granted out of the land.If it were necessary to exclude tithe there, we may assume, I think rightly, that the absence of any definition of land in this Bill conveys to us that the full definition of land in the interpretation Act must be taken, in which case tithe and tithe rentcharge are hereditaments included as land. If this be so, the 1138 liability for this tax will fall in respect of the same hereditament upon both the tithe payer, who is the owner of the land, and the tithe owner who is the owner of the incorporeal hereditament arising out of the land. Such a monstrous proposition goes beyond even the injustices which are included by the Government in this part of their Finance Bill. I do not want to labour this point; it is sufficient for my purpose to have expressed the opinion that, while it is grossly unjust to include a hereditament which the landowner does not own within the value upon which he is assessed, it is monstrous to add to that a liability for tax upon the true owner of that hereditament as well.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
The hon. and gallant Member is not quite right in saying that there is no definition of land in this Bill. There is a definition of land units, which is the subject of taxation in Sub-section (3) of Clause 8:Subject as hereinafter provider, every piece of land in separate occupation at the valuation date shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, be a land unit.I do not think that by any stretch of imagination you could call tithe a piece of land. Therefore, it would not form a land unit for purposes of valuation or tax. That answers the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point as regards the double charge on the tithe both in the case of the payer and the receiver. As regards the other points, I do not think that he raises any question that the right method of dealing with tithe when you are arriving at land values is that you must, of course, exclude it. It is one of the interests in the land, but it is not part of the land value itself, and therefore it would not be right to take it into account at all. I hope that that explains the position to the hon. and gallant Member.
§ Viscount WOLMER
I do not propose to follow the Solicitor-General or my hon. and gallant Friend in the strictly legal argument, which no doubt will have to be further considered in subsequent stages of this Bill. I want to refer to what is one of the most important issues raised by this paragraph, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman alluded in his concluding sentence. I would like to draw attention to the grave injustice the Government are doing in asking tithe payers to pay this land tax on the tithe, which does not belong to them but which they have to pay to somebody else. I hope I shall have the support of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Kedward) and other hon. Members in the Division Lobby at any rate on this point. I suppose the Government are aware that at this moment of acute agricultural depression, which the Government are doing absolutely nothing to relieve, tithe is pressing with great hardship on certain landowners, particularly owner-occupiers. In some cases, I am assured, the tithe amounts to as much as £l an acre, and even more, which is a great deal more than the rent which the occupiers used to pay for their land. It is perfectly true that when these men bought their land they knew there was a tithe on it, and, accordingly, they paid less for it; but they bought the land in happier circumstances, and the point I wish to make is that they are finding it exceedingly difficult to pay tithe at all. It is an obligation on their land, just like a mortgage, I admit, but they do, in fact, find it exceedingly difficult to meet that charge at this time.
I would draw the attention of the Solicitor-General to the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture to this subject. On 26th February of this year the National Farmers' Union sent a deputation to the Minister of Agriculture to ask for his assistance in the great difficulty which owner-occupiers find in meeting their obligations in respect of tithe. The Minister of Agriculture refused point blank to do anything to help the deputation and this is the reason he gave:As you know, tithe is a very ancient charge, and it falls not on the occupier but on the owner of the land. The owner, when ho bought the land, did so with the knowledge that there was that annual charge upon it, and that by so much its value was diminished.1140 I believe that to be a perfectly sound point, but the Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot tell the National Farmers' Union that the value of their land has been diminished by the tithe, and that therefore they are not really the payers of tithe at all, and yet tax them as if the tithe belonged to them. It seems to me monstrously unjust that because a man has to pay a heavy tithe every year to the owner of the tithe therefore we should tax him as if he were the owner of the tithe, which he is not. If we are to tax anybody at all, obviously the person to pay the tax is the tithe owner and not the tithe payer; but the effect of this Sub-section is to put yet another charge on to the shoulders of agriculture. At every step in their legislation the Government proceed without thought as to how it is going to affect the farmers of this country, and they are piling tax upon tax and charge upon charge without doing anything to help the struggling farmers in this period of depression.
§ Mr. KEDWARD
I cannot help thinking that the Government have not given that consideration to this subject which it deserves, and I feel sure that when they reflect on the terrific burden people are carrying in the shape of tithe-rent charge they will hesitate before they make that burden, already too great, still greater. There are many people who are finding it difficult, owing to agricultural depression, to meet this charge and if an additional charge is laid upon them it will drive many of them into bankruptcy and ruin. In the arable districts people have not the money to pay tithe and are being distrained upon, or threatened with distraint, and I feel sure that when the Government realise the extent of this hardship they will be willing to meet us on this point.
I know one area of land not far from one or our cities which it has been very difficult to let as an agricultural holding. The owner has just let it for a matter of £100 a year. The tithe rent charge upon it is £85 10s. 7d. and the owner has to do repairs. Now we are going to put this extra burden upon that land. I feel sure the Government will give the relief for which this Amendment asks if they have the best interests of agriculture at heart. In a Debate on the Adjournment the other day the Minister of Agriculture 1141 gave a promise that he would look carefully into this matter. He is now considering whether it is possible in any way to give some measure of support to the demands of the tithe payers. While he is seeking to find means of relief which will not be easy, I cannot think the Treasury will impose a heavier burden upon this class of agriculturists. I ask the Government with all earnestness and seriousness, and knowing the desperate state to which these people are reduced, to reconsider this point.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
I hesitate to intervene again, but I would like to reply to the two last speakers. I think there really is a misunderstanding. This does not apply to agricultural land at all——[Interruption.] The Noble Lord says that I am wrong, but I think he will agree with me when I have explained that it appears on both sides of the equation by which we arrive at the amount on which agricultural land is taxed. It is both in the land value and in the cultivation value, and, therefore, it will not make any effect on the difference between those two figures, which is what the tax is calculated upon. It is only where land is not agricultural land that any element of the tithe will come in at all. I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate what the position is now that he realises that that is the effect. I quite understand that when one is reading the Bill it looks as if it applied generally, but it cannot come into the amount of the valuation which is liable to tax in the case of agricultural land because the same sum appears both in the plus and the minus elements and therefore cancels itself out. The amount of land which will be affected will be very small indeed, because something like 95 per cent. of tithe is derived from agricultural land and not other land.
§ Sir T. INSKIP
The Solicitor-General has no doubt stated quite accurately the position with regard to agricultural land. But that statement ought not to delude the Committee into thinking that the Solicitor-General has offered a single word in defence of the proposals in the Bill as it stands. Let us keep our minds on the point, and not be led aside because of the perfectly clear statement which has been made with regard 1142 to agricultural land. The question is whether it is equitable and right that a burden upon the land, which has a bearing on its value, should be included in valuing the land. Consider for a moment the theory which has been advanced to justify this Bill. The theory is that the landlords have grasped the monopoly value of the land, that they have seized it for their own purposes, and employed it to exact rent from poor and needy people who do not share the monopoly of the land. That is the argument which has been advanced from the Government benches and from the back benches opposite. Tithe rent-charge is the old principle that the landlord mustrender… unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.It was a recognition by the law in the early development of the constitution under which we live that the landlord should not be entitled to hold the whole value of this monopoly in land, but that he must render one-tenth part of that to religion, which even in the twentieth century we ought to recognise as deserving of some support. I respectfully challenge the Solicitor-General, or anybody on the Government bench, to contradict my statement that tithe is a surrender—it may be a forcible surrender, some were voluntary and others were forcible surrenders—by the landlord of part of the monopoly value to which hon. Members say the landlord was never entitled. It is really a monstrous thing that the Government, who purport by this Bill to encourage the effort to wrest from the landlord part of the monopoly which he enjoys should actually tax him upon the one-tenth part which 400 or 500 years ago he surrendered.
I notice the obvious anxiety which is displayed upon the benches opposite by all those who attempt to understand this question. [Interruption.] I say by way of a sincere compliment to hon. Members opposite that it is easy for anyone who wishes to shut his ears and his mind to what is contained in this Bill to laugh at my criticism. If one considers the element of this question, I think there is an unanswerable case for omitting from the calculation of the value of the land that part surrendered by the landlord and no longer possessed by him. Therefore, 1143 we ask that the one-tenth which has been surrendered shall be left 10.0 p.m. out. Although we are very bitterly opposed to the Government's proposals, I hope the Government will show themselves capable of making a generous recognition of an argument which they appear to have overlooked. The Solicitor-General says that what is proposed by the Government cannot affect very much land, but that is not an argument of which the Solicitor-General can be very proud. The Solicitor-General has told us that this injustice affects only 5 per cent. of the total land involved, and that it is negligible. If there is an injustice, it should be removed whether it applies to 5 per cent. or 95 per cent. We have now the advantage of having the Prime Minister present. If this is so small a matter involving such a small amount of land, is not that all the more reason why the Government should yield to the plea which has been put forward, because, if this paragraph is left out, it will not affect the principle of the Bill, and it will not destroy the objects of this Measure. We cannot be charged, by moving this Amendment, with trying to destroy the whole scheme. We are pleading for what is obviously a just and equitable Amendment of the Bill, and I hope the Prime Minister will advise his supporters to accept it.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I do not think that there is any injustice at all involved in the proposal contained in the Bill. Hon. Members will recollect the case of a farmer in the Eastern Counties who was sold up for his tithe, and where the neighbours bought up his property for £6 and prevented the tithe collector from getting the tithe. This shows that the tithe payer is in a very hard position owing entirely to the action of the late Government. Therefore, it is useless for hon. Members to blame this Government for what was done by the previous Government.
§ Viscount WOLMER
On a point of Order, Mr. Dunnico, I should like to know whether other hon. Members will be in order to replying to the arguments now being used by the right hon. and gallant Member for New Castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood).
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I think there is a great deal in what the Solicitor-General has said. We have included ill the value of the land the value of the tithe on the land, and it is not 10 per cent., but a great deal more than 10 per cent. of the value of the land. We know that agricultural land did not have the cultivation value deducted, but we are imposing upon the landowner a tax upon that value which is properly the property of the Church. Having had the injustice of that so clearly pointed out, I hope we shall have the support of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite for an Amendment to Clause 15 standing in my name, which removes the injustice which has been complained of. It is well known that under this Bill the leaseholder has a right of recovery from the landowner or the feuar of that portion of the land value which is paid to the superior. In my Amendment I propose that the landlord should have the right to recover from the Church that part which is rightly payable by the Church. Somebody owns this land, and the Church owns the greater part of it. In the case of the farmer I have mentioned, who was sold up, the tithe was £200 a year on a farm of 700 acres. The whole of that value does not belong to the occupier, but to the Church, but will the Church pay? My other Amendments to this Bill are in the names of myself and friends, but this is too blasphemous an Amendment to get any name attached to it beside my own. I think, however, that it is quite right that the Church should pay its due. It is one of the biggest landowners of this country through the ownership of tithes, which constitute one of the heaviest burdens upon owner-occupiers in this country. I can tell the Government that nothing would be more popular than allowing the owner to transfer to the Church that part of the Land Value Tax which is properly its due, and I hope that, when we reach my Amendment, we may find some people who are not terrified of the Church and not afraid to secure justice even at her expense.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
In view of the argument put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip)—an argument which, quite frankly, had certainly not appealed to me before, because I had not looked at the matter in that light—the Government, while it is impossible for them actually to 1145 accept this Amendment, are prepared to reconsider it very carefully and try to deal with the matter on the Report stage.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Sir B. MERRIMAN
I beg to move, in page 7, line 35, at the end, to insert the words:or by reason of any assumption that the land to be valued is the only land or one of a small number of pieces of land vacant or available for development in the immediate neighbourhood.In moving this Amendment, and the following Amendment, which also stands in my name—in page 7, line 35, at the end, to insert the words:Provided also that the land unit shall not be valued as if vacant possession were obtainable on the valuation date in any case where there is in existence on the valuation date any statutory restriction which prevents the obtaining of vacant possession of the land unit or of any part there of.I desire to call attention to the fact that both of these Amendments deal with a point which illustrates the departure from the principle which the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down in his speech on the 5th May, when he said that the land was to be valued substantially in the state in which land in fact forms the subject of purchase and sale in the market. The first of these Amendments is designed to exclude the possibility of there being added to the value of the land, by reason of the form in which the valuation is laid down, anything in the nature of an artificial monopoly value; and the second Amendment is designed to exclude the possibility of a man being assumed to have vacant possession of land—as the Statute says he is to be assumed to have it—when another Statute says that he is not to have vacant possession. These are the two points in regard to which, as I submit, the valuation laid down in the Bill most definitely departs from the principle that the land is supposed to be in the position in which land usually passes.
With regard to the question of monopoly value, putting it quite generally, the land is to be assumed to be stripped of all buildings, whereas, on the other hand, the adjacent land is to be assumed to be in exactly the position in which it is now. That is telling the valuer that he has got to put a monopoly value on each single site in a street or place where there is competition for building sites. 1146 I am going to show that, in dealing with this matter before, the Solicitor-General, with less than his usual clarity, has failed to apprehend the point that we were trying to put. This is not a case of comparing agricultural land with agricultural land. If it were, then you would be comparing like with like. This is a case of comparing land with buildings on it, but which is assumed to have no building on it, with adjacent land which is still assumed to have buildings on it. That is to compare like with unlike. The Solicitor-General shakes his head. Let me put this to him, and, if this be not what the Clause involves, let something be done to correct it.
Take the Strand. You are, with regard to each single unit—that is to say, the land in the possession of any given owner—to assume that that land is stripped of buildings, even that the site has not been excavated; but you are to assume that all the adjacent laud is in the condition in which it now is, with the buildings on it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said so in his speech, and he meant that. Suppose, for example, that the Savoy Hotel is the unit in question. If the Savoy Hotel is pulled down and every other building in the Strand stands, what is the value of that unit? How is the valuer to set about it except on the assumption that there is a demand for vacant sites in the Strand and that that is the only one? He has to make that assumption, not only with regard to the Savoy Hotel, but with regard to every other adjacent unit; in other words, when he comes to value the place next door, he has to assume that the Savoy Hotel is there. If the Clause does not mean that, I hope the Solicitor-General will tell us in what respect it does not mean that, and will, at any rate, undertake to make it clear that it shall not mean that.
When he dealt with this matter yesterday, he—I say it with the greatest respect—misapprehended the point put against him in the discussion on the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). The Solicitor-General then said this:But the main argument of the hon. and gallant Member depended upon a point of valuation. His argument was that under the Bill all other land in the vicinity is to 1147 be assumed to be devoted to the purpose to which it is devoted, in perpetuity "—May I say in passing that there is no point in regard to perpetuity at all; it is devoted at the time of the valuation:and that therefore the valuer would have to look upon this one piece of land as being the sole eligible piece of land in the market, and it would thereby attain a high and special value. I agree that if that was so in the Bill the effect would be as he states. But it is not what was in the Bill. What the Bill states is that the valuation of a land unit shall be made upon the basis that all land not comprised in the unit, and everything therein and thereon, was in its actual condition at the valuation date.That is quite right. He went on:That does not mean that the purpose for which it was being then used shall be assumed to be its purpose for ever. It merely means that if you go along a road and see on either side of the land unit agricultural land, you value that land unit as being one in the middle of agricultural land. It does not mean that you assume that there is something to prevent the other agricultural land from being sold for building purposes if the owners desire. Therefore, the whole of the argument which is based upon that artificial value which the hon. and gallant Member suggested might he given to land in my submission is entirely fallacious."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 9th June, 1931; cols. 954–5, Vol. 253.]May I point out what I think is the fallacy in that? The Solicitor-General concentrates on agricultural land. It is true that, if you go down a road, and the road is surrounded on both sides by agricultural land, and you select any given unit, it does not matter that you have to apply this test there, because in fact you do not divest the unit artificially of buildings. But the moment you begin to take a unit in a place where there are existing buildings and declare that that unit alone is to be divested of buildings you introduce a fallacy in the valuation and you are at once comparing like with unlike. At last the old Finance Bill, which originated these sorts of taxes, avoided that fallacy, because, while saying that the land itself was to be stripped of its buildings, it did not lay down that the surrounding land was to be assumed still to have buildings upon it. I think the Solicitor-General must reconsider what he said yesterday and realise that there is a point of substance in this which has to be dealt with.
The other thing can be stated in a sentence. The whole supposition of this 1148 valuation is that you can get vacant possession immediately. You are supposed to be having a value put upon the land on the assumption that vacant possession is to be obtained. We are all familiar with all sorts of hypotheses in connection with the rating and valuation of land. Hypothetically, at any rate, in connection with rating of land, a good many curious assumptions have to be swallowed. But never has Parliament been asked to put upon the Statute Book a, more curious assumption than that you can value land upon the assumption that you can at any moment get vacant possession while at the same moment there is, with regard to that land, on the Statute Book another Statute which says you cannot obtain vacant possession without getting rid of the Bent Restrictions Act. There is in this Bill no Clause for deducting from this hypothetical value the cost of getting rid of restriction, again departing from the principle that was laid down in the old Act where, before you got at the site value, you had to take into account any cost that was involved in getting rid of restriction. I think it is an absolute anomaly and absurdity to say that you are to assume vacant possession when the Rent Restrictions Act or any other Statute says you cannot possibly have it.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised an extraordinarily interesting point, and it is a little difficult to explain the view that I take upon it. The position of which he complains is that, to take his illustration of the Strand, when a valuer comes to the Strand he will assume that the particular unit which he is valuing is a cleared site, whereas the other units are not cleared sites. The thing that gives the element of high value to sites in the Strand is the fact that there are very few vacant sites in the Strand. Immediately you make the assumption which the hon. and learned Gentleman invites us to make, that there are no buildings in the neighbourhood, you at once come down to no value at all. You cannot assume that there are no buildings in a town if you want to get the accurate land value of sites in the town. What really determines the height of the land values in particular towns, and in particular districts of towns, is the scarcity of sites there. The real position 1149 as regards the Strand is that, if you want to get a site in the Strand at present, you have to buy a house and pull it down. That is the only way you can get it. If most sites were empty, and there was no building there, you could walk along the Strand to-morrow and take up a site practically for nothing. That, really, is the explanation of the position so far as this valuation point is concerned. The form of the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman really points to the difficulty being an imaginary, and not a real one. What he says is, that it shall not be increased in valueby reason of any assumption that the land to be valued is the only land or one of a small number of pieces of land vacant or available for development in the immediate neighbourhood.He has to determine the number. What is "a small number of pieces of land" in the Strand?
It may in fact be the only one. The hon. and learned Member says it will not be the only one. I do not know why he says that. If he wants another site in the Strand, he can buy one there. It will be assumed to be for sale if one likes to buy it.
§ Mr. O'CONNOR
The assumption is that there is a building on it. For the purpose of making a valuation it is treated as if there were no building on it. In that case it may very well be, on that assumption, the only one theoretically on which there is any value.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
That raises quite a different point. It raises the point that it is the only site without a building on it; not that it is the only site, which is a completely different point with regard to land values. It does not mean that you cannot get a place in the Strand in which to build an hotel if you want to do so. It may mean that in order to get that place in the Strand you have to buy a number of shops and pull them down, which is quite a different point altogether. Immediately you put a false assumption of this sort upon a valuer who is valuing a piece of land, you are at once tending to destroy higher land value, because you are forcing 1150 him to make an assumption which is not, in fact, true. You are forcing him to assume that in a particular district there are a number of vacant sites when there are not a number of vacant sites, and it is the lack of vacant sites which raises the land value in the district. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates the point which I am putting.
I will take the point with regard to the cost of getting rid of restrictions, and also the question of the statutory restrictions which are binding on the land. As regards the latter point, I think that the hon. and learned Member was probably referring mainly to the Bent. Restrictions Act. That, of course, is an Act which does not deal with restrictions on land at all; it deals with restrictions on buildings on land. There is no difference whatever between a rent restricted house and a house let under lease. There is no suggestion here that you are to assume that every lease over 21 years does not exist. The lease of a rent restricted house is not in a different position. You have simply a lease running, not for a certain term of years, as you will have in any case under the Bill, but for the uncertain term of the duration of the Rent Restrictions Act. The question of the lease is exactly the same thing in the two cases. Where there is any case in which you want to make a leaseholder under a short term to pay some of the land tax, it is a different point. On the question of the restriction of the landlord's power to use the land, there is no difference, whether the tenant is there by virtue of the Rent Restrictions Act or by virtue of an agreement for a lease for 21 years.
§ Sir B. MERRIMAN
In a row of houses, exactly alike as a row of peas, there is great difference between one which happens to have got rid of the Bent Restriction Act and is on a weekly tenancy and one which is tied up indefinitely under the Bent Restriction Acts.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
There is certainly a difference in the length of the lease, but no difference in the character of the whole lease. Let me add a third case to the two given by the hon. and learned Member. It is the case of property which is let for 21 years. There 1151 is not the slightest difference between the three. It may be that the Rent Restrictions lease will fall in before or after the 21 years lease, but they are both leases and they are both for terms, one for a term that is certain and the other for a term that is uncertain.
§ Sir DENNIS HERBERT
Is there not another difference? The lease is created by the lessor of his own free will, whereas a Rent Restrictions tenancy is imposed by Act of Parliament.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
The hon. Member will appreciate the point that I am making, that it really does not matter whether the lease is created by an agreement, by a formal document, or by a Statute. The incidences of the tenure of the tenant are exactly the same so far as concerns the landlord getting him out.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
It is a matter of money, I agree. The difference may be the difference in the amount of rent that is paid, but it has nothing to do with the possibility of the landlord getting him out. Under the 21 years lease and under the Rent Restrictions lease the position will be precisely the same. As regards the Statutory restrictions on the site, those are dealt with in the First Schedule. There is a provision in paragraph (g) of that Schedule by which where there are Statutory restrictions imposed which have become operative upon the site those are taken into consideration as an encumbrance and therefore they are not part of the land value.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
Will the Solicitor-General say why in paragraph (g) there is a difference made between an agreement and a lease? I refer to the words in brackets.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Yes. An agreement is not to be a lease to which the unit is subject. That is to
§ say, you are not taking into account the specific leases dealing with that unit. When we come to the First Schedule I will try to explain the matter more fully. For the reasons that I have stated, we are unable to accept the two Amendments.
I think the position in which we find ourselves at this moment shows very clearly and forcefully the extraordinary limitation of our Debate. A most important subject has been raised and one which is admittedly extraordinarily difficult. The Solicitor-General has made a reply which to many of us seems entirely inadequate, but it is obvious that we cannot discuss it now. The Solicitor-General must admit that on the first case made by my hon. and learned Friend there is an artificial monopoly value attached to the site which has to be considered as vacant, although it is not vacant. The Solicitor-General argues that it is not the only vacant site but that there are other sites, on which there are buildings, and that those sites can be bought and the buildings pulled down and others erected in their place. It is pretence that there is not any difference in value between the vacant site as compared with the site which is not vacant. It is only a question of degree as between a site with buildings upon it and where there are no sites at all, but the same character applies to both, namely, that you have an artificial value created by the artificial conditions that you are laying down as to the way in which the valuer is to make the valuation.
§ It being Half-past Ten of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 4th June, to put forthwith the Question upon the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 284.1153
|Division No. 294.]||AYES.||[10.31 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.||Atkinson, C.||Bellairs, Commander Canyon|
|Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles||Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Betterton, Sir Henry B.|
|Albery, Irving James||Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandernan (Liverp'l., W.)||Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Bird, Ernest Roy|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfred W.||Balniel, Lord||Boothby, R. J. G.|
|Astor, Viscountess||Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Beaumont, M. W.||Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Boyce, Leslie||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Pilditch, Sir Philip|
|Bracken, B.||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Purbrick, R.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Broadbent, Colonel J.||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Reid, David D. (County Down)|
|Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Remer, John R.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.|
|Buchan, John||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Reynolds, Col. Sir James|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Richardton, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Hammersley, S. S.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Butler, R. A.||Hartington, Marquess of||Ross, Ronald D.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Harvey, Major S. E. (Davon, Totnes)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Campbell, E. T.||Haslam, Henry C.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Cattle Stewart, Earl of||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Savory, S. S.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Simms, Major-General J.|
|Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton||Hurd, Percy A.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Inskip, Sir Thomas||Skelton, A. N.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N, (Edgbaston)||Iveagh, Countess of||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Christie, J. A.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Cohen, Major J. Brunel||Knox, Sir Alfred||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Cowan, D. M.||Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)||Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. (Lindley, Gainsbro)||Lockwood, Captain J. H.||Thompson, Luke|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Long, Major Hon. Eric||Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Train, J.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Marjoribanks, Edward||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Meller, R. J.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|England, Colonel A.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston s-M.)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Ferguson, Sir John||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Fielden, E. B.||Muirhead, A. J.||Withers, Sir John James|
|Fison, F. G. Clavering||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Womorsley, W. J.|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||O'Connor, T. J.||Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Peake, Capt. Osbert||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Penny, Sir George||Major Sir George Hennessy and|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Sir Frederick Thomson and|
|Grace, John||Perkins, W. R. D.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Batey, Joseph||Brothers, M.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Beckett, John (Camberwell, peckham)||Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Brown, Ernest (Leith)|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.||Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)|
|Alpass, J. H.||Benson, G.||Buchanan, G.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Burgess, F. G.|
|Angell, Sir Norman||Birkett, W. Norman||Burgin, Dr. E. L.|
|Arnott, John||Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Bowen, J. W.||Caine, Hall-, Derwent|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Cameron, A. G.|
|Ayles, Walter||Broad, Francis Alfred||Cape, Thomas|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Brockway, A. Fenner||Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Bromfield, William||Chater, Daniel|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Bromley, J.||Church, Major A. G.|
|Barr, James||Brooke, W.||Clarke, J. S.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Law, Albert (Bolton)||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Law, A. (Rossendale)||Ritson, J.|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Lawrence, Susan||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Compton, Joseph||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Romeril, H. G.|
|Cove, William G.||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Leach, W.||Rowson, Guy|
|Daggar, George||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Dallas, George||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lees, J.||Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)|
|Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Leonard, W.||Sanders, W. S.|
|Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Sandham, E.|
|Day, Harry||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Logan, David Gilbert||Scurr, John|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Longbottom, A. W.||Sexton, Sir James|
|Dukes, C.||Longden, F.||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Duncan, Charles||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Ede, James Chuter||Lunn, William||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Edge, Sir William||Macdonald, Gordon (Inca)||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Edmunds, J. E.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Shield, George William|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Shillaker, J. F|
|Egan, W. H.||McElwee, A.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Elmley, Viscount||McEntee, V. L.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)||Sinkinson, George|
|Foot, Isaac||McKinlay, A.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Freeman, Peter||MacLaren, Andrew||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)||Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||McShane, John James||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Gill, T. H.||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Gillett, George M.||Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Glassey, A. E.||Manning, E. L.||Sorensen, R.|
|Gossling, A. G.||Mansfield, W.||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Gould, F.||March, S.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)||Marcus, M.||Strauss, G. R.|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Markham, S. F.||Sullivan, J.|
|Gray, Milner||Marley, J.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Marshall, Fred||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)||Mathers, George||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Matters, L. W.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Groves, Thomas E||Maxton, James||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Messer, Fred||Tillett, Ben|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Middleton, G.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Millar, J. D.||Toole, Joseph|
|Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)||Mills, J. E.||Tout, W. J.|
|Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Milner, Major J.||Townend, A. E.|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Montague, Frederick||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Harbord, A.||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Turner, Sir Ben|
|Hardie, David (Rutherglen)||Morley, Ralph||Vaughan, David|
|Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)||Viant, S. P.|
|Harris, Percy A.||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Walkden, A. G.|
|Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Mort, D. L.||Walker, J.|
|Haycock, A. W.||Muff, G.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Muggeridge, H. T.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Murnin, Hugh||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Herriotts, J.||Nathan, Major H. L.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col D. (Rhondda)|
|Hicks, Ernest George||Naylor, T. E.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Hirst, G. H. (York W. H. Wentworth)||Noel Baker, P. J.||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Hoffman, P. C.||Oldfield, J. R.||West, F. R.|
|Hopkin, Daniel||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Westwood, Joseph|
|Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||White, H. G.|
|Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Isaacs, George||Palin, John Henry.||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Jenkins, Sir William||Paling, Wilfrid||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|John, William (Rhondda, West)||Palmer, E. T.||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)|
|Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Perry, S. F.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Phillips, Dr. Marlon||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)||Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Pole, Major D. G.||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Kelly, W. T.||Potts, John S.||Wise, E. F.|
|Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Price, M. P.||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Ouibell, D. J. K.||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Kinley, J.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Kirkwood, D.||Raynes, W. R.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Knight, Holford||Richards, R.||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Charleton.|
|Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."1158
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 216.1161
|Division No. 295.]||AYES.||[10.40 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Glassey, A. E.||Mander, Geoffrey le M.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Gossling, A. G.||Manning, E. L.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Gould, F.||Mansfield, W.|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||March, S.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Marcus, M.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Gray, Milner||Markham, S. F.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Marley, J.|
|Angell, Sir Norman||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Marshall, Fred|
|Arnott, John||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Mathers, George|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Groves, Thomas E||Matters, L. W.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Grundy, Thomas W.||Maxton, James|
|Ayles, Walter||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Messer, Fred|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Middleton, G.|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)||Millar, J. D.|
|Barnes, Altred John||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Mills, J. E.|
|Barr, James||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Milner, Major J.|
|Batey, Joseph||Harbord, A.||Montague, Frederick|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Hardie, David (Rutherglen)||Morgan, Dr. H. B.|
|Bonn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)||Morley, Ralph|
|Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Harris, Percy A.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Benson, G.||Haycock, A. W.||Mort, D. L.|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Muff, G.|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Muggeridge, H. T.|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Harriotts, J.||Murnin, Hugh|
|Bowen, J. W.||Hicks, Ernest George||Nathan, Major H. L.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hirst, G. H, (York W. R. Wentworth)||Naylor, T. E.|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Noel Baker, P. J.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Hoffman, P. C.||Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)|
|Bromfield, William||Hopkin, Daniel||Oldfield, J. R.|
|Bromley, J.||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)|
|Brooke, W.||Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)|
|Brothers, M.||Isaacs, George||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)||Jenkins, Sir William||Palin, John Henry|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Paling, Wilfrid|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Palmer, E. T.|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Buchanan, G.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Perry, S. F.|
|Burgess, F. G.||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)||Phillips, Dr. Marion|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Picton-Turbervill, Edith|
|Caine, Hall-, Derwent||Kelly, W. T||Pole, Major D. G.|
|Cameron, A. G.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Potts, John S.|
|Cape, Thomas||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Price, M. P.|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Kinley, J.||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Chater, Daniel||Kirkwood, D.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Church, Major A. G.||Knight, Holford||Raynes, W. R.|
|Clarke, J. S.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Richards, R.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Law, Albert (Bolton)||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Law, A. (Rossendale)||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Lawrence, Susan||Ritson, J.|
|Compton, Joseph||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Cove, William G.||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Romeril, H. G.|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Leach, W.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Daggar, George||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Rowson, Guy|
|Dallas, George||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lees, J||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Leonard, W.||Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)|
|Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Sanders, W. S.|
|Day, Harry||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Sandham, E.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Logan, David Gilbert||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Longbottom, A. W.||Scurr, John|
|Dukes, C.||Longden, F.||Sexton, Sir James|
|Duncan, Charles||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Ede, James Chuter||Lunn, William||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Edge, Sir William||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Edmunds, J. E.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Shield, George William|
|Egan, W. H.||McElwee, A.||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Elmley, Viscount||McEntee, V. L.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Foot, Isaac||McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)||Simmons, C. J.|
|Freeman, Peter||McKinlay, A.||Sinkinson, George|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||MacLaren, Andrew||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Gill, T. H.||McShane, John James||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Gillett, George M.||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)||Turner, Sir Ben||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Sorensen, R.||Vaughan, David||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)|
|Stamford, Thomas W.||Viant, S. P.||Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Stephen, Campbell||Walkden, A. G.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Strams, G. R.||Walker, J.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Sullivan, J.||Wallace, H. W.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Sutton, J. E.||Watkins, F. C.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)||Wise, E. F.|
|Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)||Wellock, Wilfred||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Thurtle, Ernest||Welsh, James (Paisley)||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Tillett, Ben||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Tinker, John Joseph||West, F. R.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Toole, Joseph||Westwood, Joseph.||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.|
|Tout, W. J.||White, H. G.||Charleton.|
|Townend, A. E.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.||Dalkeith, Earl of||Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)|
|Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)|
|Albery, Irving Jamas||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Makins, Brigadier-General E.|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)||Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.||Margesson, Captain H. D.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Duckworth, G. A. V.||Marjoribanks, Edward|
|Astor, Viscountess||Eden, Captain Anthony||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Meller, R. J.|
|Atkinson, C.||England, Colonel A.||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston S. M.)||Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Everard, W. Lindsay||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Ferguson, Sir John||Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)|
|Balniel, Lord||Fielden, E. B.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Fison, F. G. Clavering||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Muirhead, A. J.|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Ganzoni, Sir John||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||O'Connor, T. J.|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Gower, Sir Robert||Peake, Capt. Osbert|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Grace, John||Penny, Sir George|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Boyce, Leslie||G rattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Perkins, W. R. D.|
|Bracken, B.||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Pilditch, Sir Philip|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Broadbent, Colonel J.||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Purbrick, R.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Reid, David D. (County Down)|
|Buchan, John||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Remer, John R.|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.|
|Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Hammersley, S. S.||Reynolds, Col. Sir James|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)|
|Butler, R. A.||Hartington, Marquess of||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Campbell, E. T.||Haslam, Henry C.||Ross, Ronald D.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Cayzer, Sir C (Chester, City)||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Sandeman, Sir N- Stewart|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Savery, S. S.|
|Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Hurd, Percy A.||Simms, Major-General J.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Inskip, Sir Thomas||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Iveagh, Countess of||Skelton, A. N.|
|Christie, J. A.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Cohen, Major J. Brunel||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Knox, Sir Alfred||Smithers, Waldron|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Lamb, Sir J. O.||Somerset, Thomas|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)||Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C.||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Lockwood, Captain J. H.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Long, Major Hon. Eric||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Thompson, Luke||Warrender, Sir Victor||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles||Womersley, W. J.|
|Titchfield, Major the Marquess of||Wells, Sydney R.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Train, J.||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)||Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)|
|Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Turton, Robert Hugh||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert||Withers, Sir John James||Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Wallace.|
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the. Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
All hon. Members on this side, at any rate, will be equally surprised and resentful that the Government have thought fit to move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. In view of the Puling which was given two nights ago, we know now that it is perfectly possible for us to go on discussing the next Clause in this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If this Motion had not been moved, that is precisely what we should have done. We should have been discussing now the first Amendment to Clause 9. I am bound to say that the proceedings of the last two days have filled us with very great apprehension as to the possibility of getting any reasonable discussion upon the Clauses of this Bill. When we found the other night that there was no limit to the time to which we could go in debating one of the very important pair of Clauses allotted to the two days, we hoped at least to have finished Clause 7 last night, but not only was the time taken up by speeches from hon. Members opposite, which really had very little relevance to the Clause, but rather than suffer the inconvenience which some hon. Members opposite thought they might have to suffer if they sat beyond a certain hour of the evening, the Government themselves moved to report Progress before we had finished the discussion upon the last Amendment which we proposed to take on Clause 7.
The result of that was that on Clause 8—apart from Clause 7, the most important Clause in the Bill, the one which raises the largest number of controversial points, and the one which affects the largest number of people—our whole discussion has been confined to the few hours between a little after 6 o'clock and half-past 10. Really, that is not a reasonable way in which to conduct discussions upon a Bill of this kind. I believe that we have had to sacrifice 1162 something like 24 of the Amendments which he had put down to Clause 8 to-day. I am very grateful to you, Sir Robert, for having allowed us to indicate to you those Amendments upon which we desire especially to have an opportunity of saying something, but it has been necessary to ask our hon. Friends almost in every case to curtail their speeches to a very much greater extent than they desired, and to do less than justice to the points which they were endeavouring to make, in order that we might have an opportunity of raising other points on Amendments which were to come later. I had to be stopped in the middle of the only speech I have made upon this Clause, and of course it is quite obvious that the very short time that we are to be given on Report will be totally inadequate for the discussion of the points that have been stifled in our Debates.
What about to-morrow? To-morrow we have five Clauses to discuss. I do not pretend that any of them have quite the importance of the two which we have been discussing during the last two days, but they are important Clauses, and one of them, Clause 11, deals with the whole subject of appeals, and is therefore of vital important to all those whose interests are affected by the Bill or who will be subject to the charges imposed by the Bill. I took the trouble to see how many Amendments hon. Members desire to have discussed on Clause 11, and I find that from my hon. Friends behind alone there are upwards of 50 Amendments—[Laughter]. What does it matter to hon. Members opposite if these things are not discussed I They have their friends below the Gangway, and things can go hang so long as they can get home. May I point out that the Government did not think it proper to move to report Progress until 11.30 last night, and I suggest that it is not decent on their part to insist upon the letter of the Guillotine Resolution to-night, when they know perfectly well that by sitting up no longer than they chose to sit last night, they could give us the opportunity 1163 of discussing some part of the business allotted for to-morrow and so give us a little more chance to-morrow. I shall oppose this proposal, and I hope my hon. Friends will go into the Lobby with me to make their protest against what is a monstrous action.
§ Mr. E. BROWN
I have no intention of repeating anything I have said against the Guillotine and this forced closure on taxation, but I want to point out one important point. There are a number of Amendments on the Order Paper to all the Clauses which have nothing whatever to do with politics. They are business Amendments put down on behalf of all kinds of organisations, some of whose sponsors are in favour of the tax. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who is Member for Central Edinburgh, knows that I have to-day put down a very important Amendment on behalf of the Edinburgh Corporation——[Laughter]. Hon. Members sneer, but the Socialist Members for Edinburgh will not sneer. This is only one of the 16 Amendments which I have put down on behalf of the corporation, and, after our experience to-day, I venture to say that there is no fair-minded Member in any part of the House but who is bound to agree with the arguments we addressed against the Guillotine on taxation, and I once more register my protest against a premature closure of this kind.
I am sure that every independent back-bench Member of the House of Commons who has any respect whatever for the dignity of the 11.0 p.m. House is grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) for having uttered his emphatic protest. I wonder what the people outside will say when they look round and find out who are the protectors of the liberty of the subject? [Interruption.] Hon Member opposite may laugh and sneer, but in the past this House of Commons has protected the right of free debate. We, and I do not
§ say "we" as Members of the Conservative party, but we Members of the House of Commons, of every party have, in the past, always endeavoured to give free play to free discussion in order that the rights and liberties of the people might be properly protected. What have we got to-night? A subject which affects a very large proportion of the whole population is not only guillotined, but when an opportunity arises, even within the limits of the Guillotine, for a little more Debate, a Motion to report Progress is moved by the Government. If it is the idea of right hon. and hon. Members opposite that Socialism is to be planted on this country——
§ The CHAIRMAN
The Question is that I do report Progress, and we must confine ourselves to that point.
I am not unmindful of the Question before the House, and I do not think I am straying very far from it in putting before the House the opposition we have to that Motion. I will content myself with this one observation. In the past the people of this country fought against Kings in order to preserve in their own hands control of the finances of the country; to-day the Conservative Members of this House have to fight a Socialist party in order to maintain for the people the right to control the finances. There is one thing we can claim, and that is that in spite of the opposition put up against us by Members on the Government benches and by the two Front Benches below the gangway, on this side we, as a Conservative party, will go on fighting in order to maintain the liberty of the subject and free debate in connection with the finances of the country.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy)
rose in his place, and claimed to move,
§ "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 211.1167
|Division No. 296.]||AYES.||[11.4 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Ammon, Charles George||Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Angell, Sir Norman||Barnes, Alfred John|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Arnott, John||Barr, James|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.||Attlee, Clement Richard||Batey, Joseph|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Ayles, Walter||Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)|
|Alpass, J. H.||Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood|
|Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Isaacs, George||Price, M. P.|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Jenkins, Sir William||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Benson, G.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Rathbone, Eleanor|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Raynes, W. R.|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Richards, R.|
|Bowen, J. W.||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Kelly, W. T.||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Ritson, J.|
|Bromfield, William||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Bromley, J.||Kinley, J.||Romeril, H. G.|
|Brooke, W.||Kirkwood, D.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Brothers, M.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Rowson, Guy|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Law, Albert (Bolton)||Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Law, A. (Rossendale)||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)|
|Buchanan, G.||Lawrence, Susan||Sanders, W. S.|
|Burgess, F. G.||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Scurr, John|
|Caine, Hall-, Derwent||Leach, W.||Sexton, Sir James|
|Cameron, A. G.||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Cape, Thomas||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Lees, J.||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Chater, Daniel||Leonard, W.||Shield, George William|
|Church, Major A. G.||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Clarke, J. S.||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Logan, David Gilbert||Simmons, C. J.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Longbottom, A. W.||Sinkinson, George|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Longden, F.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Compton, Joseph||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Cove, William G.||Lunn, William||Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Daggar, George||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Dallas, George||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Dalton, Hugh||McElwee, A.||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)||McEntee, V. L.||Sorensen, R.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||McKinlay, A.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Dukes, C.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Strauss, G. R.|
|Duncan, Charles||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Sullivan, J.|
|Ede, James Chuter||McShane, John James||Sutton, J. E.|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Elmley, Viscount||Manning, E. L.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Mansfield, W.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Foot, Isaac||Marcus, M.||Tillett, Ben|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Markham, S. F.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Marley, J.||Toole, Joseph|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Marshall, Fred||Tout, W. J.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Mathers, George||Townend, A. E.|
|Gill, T. H.||Matters, L. W.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Gillett, George M.||Maxton, James||Vaughan, David|
|Glassey, A. E.||Messer, Fred||Viant, S. P.|
|Gossling, A. G.||Middleton, G.||Walkden, A. G.|
|Gould, F.||Mills, J. E.||Walker, J.|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Milner, Major J.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Montague, Frederick||Watkins, F. C.|
|Gray, Milner||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Morley, Ralph||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Groves, Thomas E.||Mort, D. L.||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Muff, G.||West, F. R.|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Muggeridge, H. T.||Westwood, Joseph|
|Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Murnin, Hugh||White, H. G.|
|Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)||Nathan, Major H. L.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Naylor, T. E.||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Noel Baker, P. J.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Harbord, A.||Noel-Buxton. Baroness (Norfolk, N.)||Williams, E. J (Ogmore)|
|Hardie, David (Rutherglen)||Oldfield, J. R.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Haycock, A. W.||Palin, John Henry||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Paling, Wilfrid||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Palmer, E. T.||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Herriotts, J.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Wise, E. F.|
|Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Perry, S. F.||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Hoffman, P. C.||Phillips, Dr. Marlon|
|Hopkin, Daniel||Picton-Turbervill, Edith||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Pole, Major D. G.||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Charleton.|
|Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Potts, John S|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)|
|Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles||England, Colonel A.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)|
|Albery, Irving James||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)||O'Connor, T. J.|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)||Everard, W. Lindsay||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Ferguson, Sir John||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Astor, Viscountess||Fison, F. G. Clavering||Peake, Capt. Osbert|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Penny, Sir George|
|Atkinson, C.||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Ganzoni, Sir John||Perkins, W. R. D.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Balniel, Lord||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Purbrick, R.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Gower, Sir Robert||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Grace, John||Reid, David D. (County Down)|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Remer, John R.|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Reynolds, Col. Sir James|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Boyce, Leslie||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.|
|Bracken, B.||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Savery, S. S.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Hammersley, S. S.||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Harris, Percy A.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)|
|Broadbent, Colonel J.||Hartington, Marquess of||Skelton, A. N.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Haslam, Henry C.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Buchan, John||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Somerset, Thomas|
|Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Butler, R. A.||Hurd, Percy A.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Inskip, Sir Thomas||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Iveagh, Countess of||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Knox, Sir Alfred||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Thompson, Luke|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Thomson, Mitchell., Rt. Hon. Sir W.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Christie, J. A.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Train, J.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Lockwood, Captain J. H.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Long, Major Hon. Eric||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Marjoribanks, Edward||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C.||Meller, R. J.||Weimer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Womersley, W. J.|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Millar, J. D.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Milne, Wardlaw, J. S.||Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Muirhead, A. J.||Margesson.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."1168
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 264; Noes, 209.1171
|Division No. 297.]||AYES.||[11.16 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Arnott, John|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Alpass, J. H.||Attlee, Clement Richard|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Ammon, Charles George||Ayles, Walter|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.||Angell, Sir Norman||Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Hicks, Ernest George||Phillips, Dr. Marion|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Picton-Turbervill, Edith|
|Barr, James||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Pole, Major D. G.|
|Batey, Joseph||Hoffman, P. C.||Potts, John S.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Hopkin, Daniel||Price, M. P.|
|Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Benson, G.||Isaacs, George||Rathbone, Eleanor|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Jenkins, Sir William||Raynes, W. R.|
|Birkett, W. Norman||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Richards, R.|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Bowen, J. W.||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Ritson, J.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Romeril, H. G.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Kelly, W. T.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Bromfield, William||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Rowson, Guy|
|Bromley, J.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Brooke, W.||Kinley, J.||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Brothers, M.||Kirkwood, D.||Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Sanders, W. S.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Law, Albert (Bolton)||Scurr, John|
|Buchanan, G.||Law, A. (Rossendale)||Sexton, Sir James|
|Burgess, F. G.||Lawrence, Susan||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Caine, Hall-, Derwent||Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Cameron, A. G.||Leach, W.||Shield, George William|
|Cape, Thomas||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Chater, Daniel||Lees, J.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Church, Major A. G.||Leonard, W.||Sinkinson, George|
|Clarke, J. S.||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R||Logan, David Gilbert||Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour.||Longbottom, A. W.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Compton, Joseph||Longden, F.||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Cove, William G.||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Lunn, William||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Daggar, George||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Sorensen, R.|
|Dallas, George||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Dalton, Hugh||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)||McElwee, A.||Strauss, G. R.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||McEntee, V. L.||Sullivan, J.|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)||Sutton, J. E.|
|Dukes, C||McKinlay, A.||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Duncan, Charles||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Ede, James Chuter||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Edmunds, J. E.||McShane, John James||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton)||Tillett, Ben|
|Egan, W. H.||Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Elmley, Viscount||Manning, E. L.||Toole, Joseph|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Mansfield, W.||Tout, W. J.|
|Foot, Isaac||Marcus, M.||Townend, A. E.|
|Freeman, Peter||Markham, S. F.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Marley, J.||Vaughan, David|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Marshall, Fred||Viant, S. P.|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Mathers, George||Walkden, A. G.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Matters, L. W.||Walker, J.|
|Gill, T. H.||Maxton, James||Wallace, M. W.|
|Gillett, George M.||Messer, Fred||Watkins, F. C.|
|Glassey, A. E.||Middleton, G.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Gossling, A. G.||Mills, J. E.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Gould, F.||Milner, Major J.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Montague, Frederick||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Gray, Milner||Morley, Ralph||West, F. R.|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)||Westwood, Joseph|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||White, H. G.|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Mort, D. L.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Groves, Thomas E.||Muff, G.||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Muggeridge, H. T.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Murnin, Hugh||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)|
|Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Nathan, Major H. L.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)||Naylor, T. E.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Noel Baker, P. J.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Noel Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Harbord, A.||Oldfield, J. R.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Hardie, David (Rutherglen)||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Wise, E. F.|
|Harris, Percy A.||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Palin, John Henry||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Haycock, A. W.||Paling, Wilfrid|
|Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Perry, S. F.||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Charleton.|
|Herriotts, J.||Pethick-Lawrenee, F. W.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Eden, Captain Anthony||Muirhead, A. J.|
|Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Albery, Irving James||England, Colonel A.||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s M.)||O'Connor, T. J.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Everard, W. Lindsay||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Astor, Viscountess||Ferguson, Sir John||Peake, Capt. Osbert|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Fison, F. G. Clavering||Penny, Sir George|
|Atkinson, C.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Perkins, W. R. D.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Ganzoni, Sir John||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Balniel, Lord||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Purbrick, R.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Gower, Sir Robert||Reid, David D. (County Down)|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon||Grace, John||Remer, John R.|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Reynolds, Col. Sir James|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Salmon, Major I.|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Boyce, Leslie||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.|
|Bracken, B.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Savery, S. S.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Hammersley, S. S.||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)|
|Broadbent, Colonel J.||Hartington, Marquess of||Skelton, A. N.|
|Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Haslam, Henry C.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Buchan, John||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Somerset, Thomas|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Butler, R. A.||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Hurd, Percy A.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Inskip, Sir Thomas||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Iveagh, Countess of||Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Steel-Maitland. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Stewart, W. J. (Belfast Couth)|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton||Knox, Sir Alfred||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Thompson, Luke|
|Chapman, Sir S||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Christie, J. A.||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Train, J.|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyan|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Lockwood, Captain J. H.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Long, Major Hon. Eric||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C.||Marjoribanks, Edward||Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Meller, R. J.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Millar, J. D.||Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)|
|Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.||Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)||Captain Margesson and Captain Wallace.|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)|
§ Committee accordingly report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
§ The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.