CLAUSE 14.—(Assessment and recovery of tax.)

HC Deb 15 June 1931 vol 253 cc1453-576

Mr. CADOGAN

I beg to move, in page 14, line 36, to leave out the words "comprising agricultural land."

I do not propose to occupy the attention of the Committee very long with this Amendment; and owing to the exigencies of the form in which we are transacting business I could not if I would.

The purpose and effect of the Amendment are sufficiently obvious not to need elaboration on my part. Hitherto the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, albeit with a disarming smile on his countenance, has offered relentless and indiscriminate resistance to any of the suggested Amendments put forward to improve these Clauses, on the intriguing plea that this tax will be quite unworkable and quite impracticable unless it inflicts the grossest injury on a large section of the community. I do not know what other hon. Members think, but I should say that was an overwhelming argument in favour of our case against this Measure; but surely that consideration does not apply to the Amendment I am now moving, which should commend itself to the favourable consideration of the Government. Under modern conditions it is difficult to define exactly what is "agricultural land" and what is "cultivation value." The Government have solved the difficulty in an arbitrary fashion by limiting the concession as to deducting the cultivation value to units comprising agricultural land as defined in Clause 27 of the Bill. No land other than agricultural land within the meaning of the Act will be allowed to have its cultivation value deducted from the land value for the purpose of the tax.

I cannot help thinking that on more mature consideration the Government will acknowledge that my suggestion is a more equitable one, namely, that the owner of any land which can be proved to have any cultivation value should be allowed to deduct its cultivation value from the amount of the land value for the purpose of the tax. It is quite obvious that sites in the middle of great cities have no cultivation value. For example, there is the site upon which I stand, and upon which you, Sir Robert, and other hon. Members now sit, although I regret to say there is an ever growing volume of opinion that if the site of the Palace of Westminster were cleared of its associations and buildings and reverted to the condition in which it was when the monks of Thorney took it over in fee simple, when, presumably, it had some cultivation value, it might be more profitably utilised than at present, and at any rate would be of less detriment to the community. But as one passes from the centre of a town to its circumference one gradually approaches those units of land which, although they cannot be said to be agricultural land according to the definition Clause, certainly possess a cultivation value. The assessors should certainly be allowed some discrimination in cases such as these. The Solicitor-General has never ceased insisting upon the fact that the assessors, although I have no doubt whatever that to start with a great number of them will be completely ignorant of land and land valuation, will be individuals endowed with some modicum of common sense and sweet reasonableness and, therefore, should encounter no particular difficulty if my Amendment is adopted.

One of the ill effects which we fear from the operation of this tax is its detriment to the amenities of large towns and to the health of the inhabitants. For instance, unless my Amendment is adopted no owner of the type of unit which it is designed to include will be disposed either to create or to maintain open spaces. Buildings will be more than ever crowded together. Those large open spaces which are now the lungs of the town dwellers will become congested with bricks and mortar, and the aspect of suburban areas will be altered for the worse. Further, large gardens—I am not talking of market gardens—will inevitably disappear altogether; not only large gardens, but any gardens, exceeding a capital value of £120. Gardens do not come with the definition of agricultural land, although I should have thought that even in the eyes of an amateur assessor or of a Government draftsman a garden would possess some cultivation value. I press this Amendment upon the favourable consideration of the Government. It will impart to the Bill some of those essential features which it obviously lacks—common sense, equity and judgment; and, finally, it should appeal to the Government because it may have the effect of ingratiating some of those electors who have been antagonised by this Bill.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS

I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to another aspect of this Amendment, and it is that I think it will do no harm whatever to the Government Bill if it is accepted. It will, in fact, take out words that are entirely unnecessary. Clause 9, Sub-section (1, c), provides: The amount of the cultivation value of any agricultural land comprised therein. Consequently, the cultivation value applies only where there is agricultural land, and therefore these words appear to be entirely unnecessary. If they are taken out the Clause will read: for the purpose of the charge of the tax, the land value of any land unit shall be reduced by the amount, if any, of the cultivation value thereof. If it is not agricultural land under Clause 9 there will be no cultivation value and therefore it certainly appears that these words are unnecessary.

Mr. BEAUMONT

I hope the Solicitor-General and the Government will favourably consider this Amendment. This is not a proposal which would do any serious harm to the Bill, if indeed anything could do the Bill, as it stands, very much harm. The Solicitor-General will bear in mind that on Tuesdays and Thursdays my hon. Friends and myself have been doing our best to forward a Bill dealing with town planning, and in the course of the procedure on that Bill the Solicitor-General and other members of the Government have accepted many good suggestions for the preservation of open spaces in towns and urban areas. An Amendment of the sort we are now discussing is very necessary in order to do something to alleviate the hardship which the Land Value Tax will impose upon such areas. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) made a very powerful speech in regard to the proposed land tax in which he drew particular attention to Temple Gardens and open spaces in Gray's Inn, but the Solicitor-General, with his charming smile and flinty heart, refused to assist him to exempt those open spaces. We contend that those open spaces have very little agricultural value indeed within the meaning of the Act, but if that value were granted in the form of relief from taxation, it would be of some assistance in keeping that land which was given as they were told by the Creator to the people in the state in which the Creator presumably intended it to be.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps)

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts) that the words do not make much difference as regards the operation of this Clause. It has already been pointed out that Clause 9 provides for the amount of the cultivation value of any agricultural land. On the other hand, I think it is obviously wise to leave these words in in order to make it quite clear that this cultivation value is in the case of agricultural land only. The Amendment does not raise that question at all. The question whether it is desirable to make a deduction in every case has already been decided. I think the Committee will agree that it would not simplify the Bill in any way to take out those words, and it might lead to some misunderstanding as to the exact meaning of the Bill.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I think the Solicitor-General has altogether misunderstood the importance of this Amendment, and the value that we attach to it. It is really a matter which has a very serious bearing upon the whole aspect of our big towns in the future. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Ecclesall was correct in saying that, as Clauses 8 and 9 stand, the cultivation value only is to be ascertained, I am afraid it was an oversight on our part not to move Amendments when we were discussing those Clauses, and, if we are successful in imposing our will on the Government, we shall certainly, on the Report stage, move to amend Clauses 8 and 9 so as to give a substantive value to the Amendment we are now considering.

May I give the Committee my own experience on this point? It is particularly brought home to me that an Amendment of this kind is really essential if this Bill is not to do great harm to the amenities of suburban areas in our large towns. I happen to live in a suburb of Birmingham which I have the honour to represent, called Edgbaston. In Edgbaston there is a large estate which a good many years ago was laid out by Lord Calthorpe on town planning lines. The estate was laid out for the wealthier section of the community as it existed at that time and, generally speaking, it is laid out on the plan of having every house surrounded by a large garden. This has produced a very delightful part of the town about a mile from the centre, but it has also provided a sort of lung which has been of immense value to the population who live in the poorer parts of the town nearer the centre, and if that land were to foe subjected to the tax as proposed under this Bill it would be impossible for that estate to keep up that part in the condition in which it is now. The inevitable result must be that, as the leases fall in, the owner 4.0 p.m. would have to relay out the whole property on different lines, exclude these great gardens which, with their big spreading trees, have been the admiration of all visitors to the town, and reconstruct on lines such as those to be seen in other places. In particular, I have seen them in Canada, where the large houses have such tiny gardens attached to them that they add nothing to the general amenity of the surroundings. Nothing depressed me more when I was in places like Montreal and Toronto than the striking difference between the Canadian practice and the practice in this country, namely, that whereas large houses in proximity to the centres of our big cities are almost invariably surrounded by large gardens, there they are of the smallest possible extent. I believe that to be due entirely to the land taxes in that country, and, unless something is done to relieve estates of that kind from the operation of this tax, I foresee a precisely similar result growing over here. Therefore, in the interests of amenity generally—and when I say "amenity" I am not merely talking of the people living in those places, but the whole populations in towns which benefit by it—this Amendment contains a principle of substantial importance, and while I still hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman may see his way to give further consideration to the subject, if he does not, we shall feel it necessary to divide, at any rate, to show the importance we attach to the principle embodied in the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I did not deal with the question on its merits, because I thought the Amendment was moved under a misunderstanding. With regard to the point put about large gardens in the suburbs of Edgbaston, I do suggest that if that is a point which requires to be met, this will not be the way to meet it, or it will meet it extraordinarily inadequately. The cultivation value of these gardens would be, probably, quite negligible, and would not seriously affect the situation at all. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but if he recalls the criterion regarding cultivation value as the agricultural purpose for which at the time the land is used, that would make it, first of all, very difficult to value, because it would not be used for agricultural purposes at all. Secondly, if you could value it, I think that the figure would be a small one. But that is not the point I want to put. There are, as a matter of fact, two ways by which the situation to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is already dealt with in the Bill. First of all, if, as he says, there is a series of interlocking agreements with regard to the use of this land, as is very often the case in big building estates where not more than one house is to be built to the acre, then that will be taken into account as an incumbrance under the First Schedule to the Bill, and, therefore, the land will be valued as land upon which only one house per acre can be built.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

It is not statutory.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

It is not merely binding on the lessor or lessee, but binding on the land, and where there are any interests of adjoining landowners, that would certainly almost apply to a case such as the right hon. Gentleman put. Secondly, under the Town and Country Planning Bill, if the land is planned with so many houses to the acre, as probably would be the case, again, that would be a statutory incumbrance which would be taken into account by virtue of the First Schedule; or, again, under the new form of Clause 26 of the Town and Country Planning Bill, an Amendment to which has been put down to-day by the Minister, the owner would be able to give an undertaking to any town planning authority as regards the user of his land that he would not in perpetuity build more houses on that land. He would then be protected by having his land valued only for a single house of that type upon it. In my submission; those methods are satisfactory and proper methods of dealing with this problem, whereas the suggestion

that all land in the country should be valued for cultivation values, including the whole of London and every unit in London, is one which could have only one result, and that would be to enormously increase the labour, and thereby do just what we have so often been warned against—make this valuation impracticable.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 232.

Division No. 303.]	AYES.	[4.6 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	March, S.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Marley. J.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Groves, Thomas E.	Marshall, Fred
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.	Grundy, Thomas W.	Mathers, George
Alpass, J. H.	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Matters, L. W.
Ammon, Charles George	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Messer, Fred
Arnott, John	Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)	Middleton, G.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)	Mills, J. E.
Ayles, Walter	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)	Milner, Major J.
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Hardie, David (Rutherglen)	Montague. Frederick
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)	Morley, Ralph
Barr, James	Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Hayes, John Henry	Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Mort, D. L.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)	Muggeridge, H. T.
Benson, G.	Herriotts, J.	Murnin, Hugh
Blindell, James	Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)	Nathan, Major H. L.
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	Hopkin, Daniel	Noel Baker, P. J.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Brockway, A. Fenner	Hunter, Dr. Joseph	Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Brooke, W.	Isaacs, George	Palin, John Henry
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Palmer, E. T.
Burgess, F. G.	Jenkins, Sir William	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)	Jones, Llewellyn-, F.	Perry, S. F.
Cameron, A. G.	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)	Phillips, Dr. Marion
Chater, Daniel	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Church, Major A. G.	Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Pole, Major D. G.
Cluse, W. S.	Kelly, W. T.	Potts, John S.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Pybus, Percy John
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Quibell, D. J. K.
Cove, William G.	Kinley, J.	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Lang, Gordon	Raynes, W. R.
Daggar, George	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Dallas, George	Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Dalton, Hugh	Law, A. (Rossendale)	Romerll, H. G.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lawrence, Susan	Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Day, Harry	Leach, W.	Rowson, Guy
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Dudgeon, Major C. R.	Lees, J.	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Duncan, Charles	Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Ede, James Chuter	Lindley, Fred W.	Sanders, W. S.
Edmunds, J. E.	Lloyd, C. Ellis	Sandham, E.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Logan, David Gilbert	Sawyer, G. F.
Edwards. E. (Morpeth)	Longbottom, A. W.	Scott, James
Egan, W. H.	Longden, F.	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Elmley, Viscount	Lovat-Fraser. J. A.	Sherwood, G. H.
Evans, Herbert (Gateshead)	Lunn, William	Shield, George William
Freeman, Peter	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Shillaker, J. F.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	McElwee, A.	Simmons, C. J.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)	McEntee, V. L.	Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)	McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Gill, T. H.	MacLaren, Andrew	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Gillett, George M.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Glassey, A. E.	MacNeill-Weir, L.	Smith. Rennie (Penistone)
Gossling, A. G.	McShane, John James	Smith. Tom (Pontefract)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)	Malene, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Gray, Milner	Manning, E. L.	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)	Mansfield, W.	Saremen, R.
Stamford, Thomas W.	Viant, S. P.	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Stephen, Campbell	Walker, J.	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Strauss, G. R.	Wallace, H. W.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Thomas. Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)	Wellock, Wilfred	Wise, E. F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)	Welsh, James (Paisley)	Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Thurtle, Ernest	West, F. R.	Young, F. S. (Islington, North)
Tillett, Ben	Westwood, Joseph
Tinker, John Joseph	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Williams, David (Swansea, East)	Mr. Paling and Mr. Charleton.
Vaughan, David
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Macquisten, F. A.
Albery, Irving James	Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Dawson, Sir Philip	Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)	Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Marjoribanks, Edward
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Dixey, A. C.	Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Duckworth, G. A. V.	Meller, R. J.
Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Dugdale, Capt. T. L.	Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Astor, Viscountess	Eden, Captain Anthony	Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Atholl, Duchess of	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Atkinson, C.	Elliot, Major Walter E.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston, S. M.)	Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)	Everard, W. Lindsay	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)	Ferguson, Sir John	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Balniel, Lord	Fermoy, Lord	Muirhead, A. J.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Fielden, E. B.	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Beaumont M. W.	Fison, F. G. Clavering	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon	Ford, Sir P. J.	O'Connor, T. J.
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)	Galbraith, J. F. W.	O'Neill, Sir H.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Ganzonl, Sir John	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Bird, Ernest Roy	Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton	Peake, Capt, Osbert
Boothby, R. J. G.	Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)	Penny, Sir George
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Perkins, W. R. D.
Bracken, B.	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Brass, Captain Sir William	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Pilditch, Sir Philip
Briscoe, Richard George	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Power, Sir John Cecil
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	Pownall, Sir Assheton
Buchan, John	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Gritten, W. G. Howard	Purbrick, R.
Buckingham, Sir H.	Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Ramsbotham, H.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Reid, David D. (County Down)
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Remer, John R.
Butler, R. A.	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Reynolds. Col. Sir James
Campbell, E. T.	Hanbury, C.	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Carver, Major W. H.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Castle Stewart. Earl of	Hartington, Marquess of	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Haslam, Henry C.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.	Salmon, Major I.
Cecil. Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton	Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth. Putney)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Chapman, Sir S.	Hore-Bellsha, Leslie	Savery, S. S.
Christie, J. A.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer	Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Clydesdale, Marquess of	Hurd, Percy A.	Skelton, A. N.
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Smith. Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George	Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel	Inskip, Sir Thomas	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Colfox, Major William Philip	Iveagh, Countess of	Smithers, Waldron
Colman, N. C. D.	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Colville, Major D. J.	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Conway, Sir W. Martin	Knox, Sir Alfred	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Cooper, A. Duff	Lamb, Sir J. Q.	Stanley, Hon. O (Westmorland)
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Lambert. Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.	Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
Cranborne, Viscount	Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)	Thomas. Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.	Llewellin, Major J. J.	Thompson, Luke
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey	Thomson, Sir F.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)	Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)	Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Lockwood, Captain J. H.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Dalkeith, Earl of	Long, Major Hon. Eric	Todd, Capt. A. J.
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey	Lymington, Viscount	Train, J.
Davidson. Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)	McConnell, Sir Joseph	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Davies, Dr. Vernon	Macdonald, Capt, P. D. (I. of W.)	Turton, Robert Hugh

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Ward, Lieut. Col. Sir A. Lambert	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George	Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)
Warrender, Sir Victor	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Waterhouse, Captain Charles	Withers, Sir John James
Wayland, Sir William A.	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Wells, Sydney R.	Womersley, W. J.	Captain Margesson and Captain
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)		Sir George Bowyer.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN

I find that, under the Guillotine Resolution, I am precluded from moving to report Progress or any similar Motion, but I take this opportunity to put the question to the Government as to what they propose to do after this somewhat inauspicious start of the week—whether they propose to accept the decision of the House and proceed with the business, or whether they themselves will make a Motion to report Progress, from which I am debarred, and which otherwise, of course, I should move.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald)

I am informed that the Amendment which has been moved is a drafting Amendment, having no bearing upon the substance of the Bill. In those circumstances, we propose to accept the drafting Amendment, and we will examine it—[HON. MBMBERS: "And swallow it!"]—and see whether it is properly described in that way or not. There will be another opportunity of considering it, and we now propose to proceed with the business.

HON. MEMBERS

Resign!

Sir BOYD MERRIMAN

I beg to move, in page 15, line 2, at the end, to insert the words: Provided that no assessment shall be made on the personal representatives of any person, being one of several persons who were, on the first day of January in the year of charge, joint owners of the relevant estate in a land unit, unless such person was the survivor of the joint owners. I move this Amendment in order to give the Committee an opportunity of dividing on a point of substance, which is not a drafting Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

rose——

HON. MEMBERS

Divide!

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

It would obviously be very unsuitable that the Committee should divide upon this Amendment without understanding in the least what they are talking or dividing about. [An HON. MEMBER: "We know!"] One hon. Member says "We know," but I think that probably, in view of the questions raised by the Amendment, it is only a very few persons who are aware of what exactly this Amendment would do. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved it will agree with me that, however one looks upon it, it cannot be described as a point of any substance. It is a question of great legal technicality, and it may be questionable whether it is better to deal with this particular point in the way suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman, or whether it would be better not so to deal with it. Whichever way it is done, it will have no material effect upon the land tax whatsoever. The two Amendments which have been put together deal with quite different points, and I am sure that the Committee would desire to understand the exact distinction between them. The first Amendment deals with the question whether the executor of a trustee-owner, whether sole trustee or not, should or should not be assessable unless and until he has assumed the liabilities, not only of the testator, but of the trusteeship. That may raise a very interesting principle of Chancery law, but that is about all that it does. The position, under the Bill as it stands at present, is this: The special case with which this Amendment purports to deal is referred to in Sub-section (4) of Clause 14, in these words: The tax assessed shall, if assessed on or before the first day of June next after the end of the year of charge, be payable to the Commissioners on the first day of July next following and if assessed on some date later than the said, first day of June, be so payable on the expiration of one month from the date of the assessment. Sub-section (3) is as follows: The tax chargeable on any person for any financial year shall be assessed by the Commissioners on him or on his personal representatives, and an assessment expressed to be made on any person (whether alone or jointly with others) shall, in the event of his death before the date of assessment, have effect as an assessment on his personal representatives. The Committee will see, therefore, that the period of time with which this Amendment purports to deal is the time between the death of an owner and the acceptance of the trusteeship under a will or other similar document by some successor to that owner. The Committee will appreciate that during that intervening period it is obviously necessary to have someone to assess to tax. Under the proposal put forward by my hon. and learned Friend, there is no one who would be taxable during the period between the trusteeship arising and the acceptance by the trustee of his duties as trustee of the testator, and it is a little difficult to appreciate exactly the meaning of the Amendment. If the Committee will bear with me, I will go through the words of the Amendment. They will see the difficulty as regards the second half of the Amendment. It is on the Paper, but I am afraid that, in order to make the point which I wish to make—[Interruption]—I understand that it is agreed on the opposite benches that this Amendment does not operate properly. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) means, of course I am prepared to sit down and say no more about it. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) says it will operate if I sit down. My opinion is that it will not operate, because, if this Amendment be introduced, you will have a period of time in which there will be no owner and no one to be assessed in respect of a particular land unit. I am sure that Members of the Committee will not desire to stop me reading the Amendment if it will assist them in their understanding it. It says: Provided that no assessment shall be made on the personal representatives of a deceased owner who was a trustee of the estate"— that is to say, this Amendment only deals with a man who has been owner by virtue of the fact that he was a trustee of an estate— by reference to which the ownership of the unit is determined"— [Interruption.] It is in page 15, line 2. [Interruption.] I am so sorry; I thought that the hon. Member thought that I was referring to the wrong matter. It goes on: unless and until they shall be entitled to act and have acted in the trust"— so that there must be a period of time between the time when the deceased owner trustee dies and the time when the trust is accepted by his executors. The Amendment proceeds: and in any such case the assessment shall be on 'the trustee' of the unit by that description. It is this passage of the Amendment which I find it extremely difficult to understand, because at that moment the original trustee is dead, and clearly the hon. and learned Gentleman does not mean to assess him. On the other hand, his successor, who would be his executor, is not to be assessed, under the first portion of the Amendment, until such time as he accepts the trusteeship. Therefore, it is impossible for any assessment to be made on the trustee of the unit, because there is not such a person in existence. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he looks at it, will appreciate that there is a hiatus of some sort in this Amendment, because there is no provision for calling anyone, for the purpose of assessment in this intervening period, a trustee; and yet the Commissioners are told that they have to assess a person and call him "'the trustee' of the unit." In these circumstances, I think it is clear that this Amendment as it stands is one which really would make no sense, and, however the hon. and learned Member desires to deal with the position, it is not quite clear, because, clearly, there must be someone during this period who is to be assessed. Clearly it cannot be the dead man, and clearly, on the hon. and learned Member's suggestion, it cannot be the executor who becomes the trustee. As far as one is able to see, there is no one else who could be assessed. It is inevitable that during that period, if you have to make your assessment, owing to the time which is stated in Sub-section (4), you must have someone nominally whom you can assess, and I should be glad to hear from the hon. and learned Gentleman who it is that he proposes to assess during this intervening period between the death of the trustee-owner and the acceptance of the trust by the executor of that owner.

I will come, if I may, to the second Amendment, which really raises rather a different point. The second Amendment which it is proposed to insert, also at the same point, following, presumably, upon the first Amendment, is one that deals with assessments on the personal representatives of a person who was one of several who, on the 1st January in the year of charge, were joint owners of the estate in the land unit. It provides that no assessment should be made on such person unless such person is a survivor of the joint owners. As regards the position there raised, it is one of admitted difficulty, and I quite appreciate that it may be necessary to add some words to the Sub-section. I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing our attention to this case of the adjustment of rights as between joint owners. I do not think the precise words of the Amendment are quite appropriate to bringing about what is obviously his intention, but there is clearly some real point to be met, and, where you have one or more persons who are jointly assessable surviving, there should be some sort of provision on these lines. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept my undertaking, I shall be very glad to consider the exact form of words to deal with what is clearly a perfectly genuine case. It is one of the matters that have been overlooked. As regards the first Amendment, for the very definite reason that it leaves the assessment entirely in the air, without anyone at all to assess, we cannot accept it, but we shall be glad on Report to put in something in the sense of the second Amendment.

Sir B. MERRIMAN

The Solicitor-General ha" been referring to the second Amendment as the first. In regard to that, after what he has said, we will not press it to a Division, but I am not satisfied, speaking for myself, with the explanation that has been given in answer to the second.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON

These Amendments are in the names of the most distinguished legal luminaries of the party opposite. After all that has been said as to the need of adequate discussion of these matters, we have a formal Motion by one of these selfsame legal luminaries and, later on, a second speech in which he says he is not satisfied with the explanation that has been made, giving no ground whatever for his failure to be satisfied. That is not a very reasonable way to treat the House of Commons, and it is not exactly supporting the argument that adequate discussion of these matters is not allowed. I do not know whether, suddenly, the importance of the law is put into a secondary place compared with the railway time tables. Possibly, instead of explaining to the Committee the real legal objection which the party has to these Amendments, the Whips assisting the legal luminaries are looking up the time tables to see when further Members are likely to arrive. When the time tables are all right, I have no doubt the law will be let loose. We are very anxious for legal guidance on these issues. I have no doubt hon. Members opposite want no legal guidance, but clearly the issue is an extremely technical one and we are informed that it is of sufficient importance to necessitate the hon. and learned Gentleman going to a Division unless he can be satisfied. We have had an explanation from the Solicitor-General which seems to me entirely adequate and it seems to be most unfair in the special situation which hon. Members have been creating for their advantage—— [Interruption.] I do not know that I am complaining as much as the hon. Member is complaining, but there is a very real ground for a fuller statement to be made than that which has been vouchsafed.

I should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if it is reasonable for the party opposite to insist that there shall be instructions given to place the assessment of the tax upon an individual who is actually not in existence. There are several Members of the Bar opposite who speak to us at very great length upon these issues when it seems to suit their purpose. Here they are challenged with a perfectly reasonable objection that, if there is to be an effective system of taxation, you should at least see that the party assessing the tax can define the person upon whom the tax is placed, and it is surely reasonable that hon. Members opposite should meet us at least by a modification of their Amendment. I understand that the complaints that have been made in the past by the party opposite in the matter of taxation have been that taxes have been imposed by us in such a way that those who were taxed could not clearly visualise the amount that they were taxed, and that very often the authorities responsible for imposing the tax were not clearly enough instructed by the terms of the legislation for which this House is responsible. At any rate, this Amendment has been proved beyond all question to be one which would give no light and leading to the assessment authorities.

What ground is there for insisting on the taxing of a trustee at a period when he may not be actually in existence? Who does the hon. and learned Gentleman suppose shall pay the tax? Does he propose that they shall go round collecting it out of thin air? Is this a new method of calling down manna from the skies? What has the hon. and learned Gentleman in his legal mind to get us out of the difficulty that he proposes to impose upon the nation? He sits solidly there, nodding his head wisely, I have no doubt with a vast fund of knowledge upon which to draw in order to assist us in our difficulties. He has never in the past shown any bashful-ness where the interests of his party seem likely to be affected, to pour out without limit his great fund of knowledge. Here he comes with an Amendment which has no ground for it, which will create nothing but disorder for those who are responsible for imposing the taxation and all the time, although we point out to him the stupidity of the proposal, he has not a single word of explanation to justify the Amendment. It seems to me that I must give up the hon. and learned Gentleman. I look round the benches opposite in my desire to get this legal guidance. I see, for example, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks). I see the hon. Member is leaving the House. That is a feather in my cap. I have never managed that before. Surely the party opposite see something in the strength of our arguments when, immediately the matter is put to the test, one highly learned Member sits dumb and silent, unable to meet the arguments and questions put to him, and others feel that the case is so hopeless that, when their turn comes, they depart in despair. Perhaps the hon. Member has also gone to look at the railway time tables now that the job is done.

Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES-MONSELL

On a point of Order. Several times recently hon. Members have been called to order for not keeping strictly to the question before the House. I am wondering when the hon. Member who is now in possession of the Committee is going to speak to the Amendment.

Mr. STEPHEN

I should like to ask if the hon. Member who is addressing the Committee is not very strictly relevant to the discussion and to the explanation of the Amendment given by the Solicitor-General.

The CHAIRMAN

I must rule that the hon. Member is as much entitled to ask for an explanation of the Amendment put down by the Opposition as a Member of the Opposition is to ask for an explanation of an Amendment or a Clause put down by the Government. I am not responsible for the roundabout way in which it is done.

Mr. HUDSON

I am obliged to you, Sir Robert. I admit that the processes which I have to adopt in order to extract——

Mr. WISE

May I ask which Amendment we are discussing? I recall that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said that he was satisfied with the explanation given by the learned Solicitor-General that one of the Amendments on the Paper was entirely unworkable and had no meaning, but I do not recall that he has withdrawn that Amendment. Are we discussing both of those Amendments, or one of them or neither of them?

The CHAIRMAN

The Amendment before the Committee is to insert words in Clause 14, page 15, line 2, and when I called upon the hon. and learned Gentleman to move the Amendment, I said that the fourth Amendment on the Paper would be discussed along with it, and the two Amendments are supposed to be under discussion at the moment.

Mr. WISE

The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that the order had got inverted; that the first had got in front of the second and the third in front of the first. I do not know which Amendment has been withdrawn and which Amendment we are now discussing.

The CHAIRMAN

No Amendment has been withdrawn as far as I know.

Mr. STEPHEN

I understand from you, Sir Robert, that we are discussing the Amendment at the top of the page and that afterwards we shall come to the second Amendment which has been mentioned. The hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment said that the second Amendment should have come first, and the first second. I desire to ask you, Sir, upon a point of Order, whether that being the case there is not some way in which we shall be able to take the Amendment which the hon. and learned Member desires to be first instead of the one first moved?

The CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member will look at the Order Paper, he will notice that both Amendments come in at the same place. I am not responsible for their order on the Paper.

Mr. WISE

May I ask if the learned ex-Solicitor-General, the Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman), will explain to the Committee the particular Amendment we are now discussing?

The CHAIRMAN

Mr. Hudson.

Mr. HUDSON

When I was interrupted by the many points of Order, I was, after all, pursuing a proper course, and I am grateful to you, Sir Robert, for your support. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will continue their cheers.

Mr. MacLAREN

I take the cheering which is going on as a reflection upon you, Sir, and I want to put a point of Order. [Interruption.] There is a point of Order involved, and I have been watching it all the time. Three Amendments are on the Order Paper. One of those Amendments means nothing, and it has been withdrawn. I want to know from you, Sir Robert, the point of substance which the Committee are now discussing, seeing that there are three Amendments to be inserted at the same place. One Amendment contradicts two of the Amendments and it has been withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN

I do not know of any Amendment which has been withdrawn. I think that it is appreciated that the second Amendment on the Paper, on page 1950, and the fourth should be discussed together.

Mr. MacLAREN

Owing to the noise in the Committee perhaps I did not hear. The hon. and learned Gentleman specifically said that he would not press the first Amendment. If he is not going to press I want to know for guidance, through you, whether we are precluded from discussing it, or if it is an Amendment that is so badly drawn that it contradicts the other two, and they are not going to press it, are we in order in discussing it? If we discuss it, are we not bound to get out of order in discussing the two Amendments which follow?

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was not going to press his Amendment. He has not yet withdrawn it.

Lord HUGH CECIL

On that point of Order. Are not hon. Members opposite wilfully obstructing the business of the House? [Interruption.]

Mr. HUDSON

Is it not perfectly in order for any hon. Member of this House to ask those who have made no speech in explanation of an important technical and legal Amendment for reasons, and to press for reasons, when it becomes clear by their attitude that no attempt is to be made to give an explanation to the Committee? Is it not perfectly in order by the Rules of the House for an hon. Member to press for such an explanation, and is not that exactly what I have been doing?

The CHAIRMAN

Hon. Members have been raising points of Order, and I have endeavoured to explain to the Committee the present position. I do not think there is any necessity to ask for an explanation. It is perfectly clear that the second Amendment on the Paper is the one that has been called, and that the fourth Amendment is being discussed along with it. In the discussion, the hon. Member is entitled to ask for an explanation of the Amendment.

Mr. BENSON

Is it a proper Parliamentary expression to charge hon. Members on this side of the Committee with wilfully obstructing.

HON. MEMBERS

So you are.

Lord H. CECIL

I asked, a perfectly Parliamentary question.

The CHAIRMAN

I have been trying to define the words specified. I always understood that hon. Members were not entitled to charge each other with wilful obstruction.

HON. MEMBERS

Withdraw!

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Are we not entitled to have an answer to the question which my right hon. Friend addressed to you, Sir?

The CHAIRMAN

Certain hon. Gentlemen raised points of Order, and I explained the position to the Committee. I said that it was unnecessary to raise any further points of Order in this matter.

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL

On a point or Order. [Interruption.]

Mr. McGOVERN

I would like to ask for your assurance, Sir Robert, that the right hon. Gentleman on the opposite bench who has raised this question on a point of Order is a Member of this House, because I have never before seen him here.

The CHAIRMAN

Mr. Hudson.

Mr. McGOVERN

On a point of Order. I have asked a definite question, because I have been here a year, and I have never seen the right hon. Gentleman before.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must not press his point of Order.

Mr. McGOVERN

Well, he must have come out of his dug-out.

Mr. HUDSON

I am sure that the party opposite completely sympathise with me in arguing out the case which I am putting for their consideration.

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL

On a point of Order. Are not the Opposition working under a very strict Guillotine, with very little opportunity for debating fully the subjects which we wish to debate? It appears to us that there is wilful obstruction for some reason or other, and curiously enough from the Independent Labour party, whom, I hope, the Government thank for coming to their rescue in time to-day. Is this wilful obstruction to be allowed to continue? [Interruption.] Will you see that fair play is given to His Majesty's Opposition, and that we are given adequate time to discuss the subjects which we wish to discuss?

The CHAIRMAN

I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, that I cannot be responsible for fixing a time limit to end the discussion of these Amendments. I would ask hon. Members, now that they have had an explanation as to the business before the Committee, not to raise any more of those points.

Mr. MARLEY

On a point of Order, a different point of Order. [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member is asking a question, I will listen to him.

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL

rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. MARLEY

On a point of Order. I want to ask you whether, in the point of Order put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, there was not a very serious reflection upon your chairmanship? In point of fact, he said that the Opposition was not being treated fairly. That is an implication upon our Chair-man, and we on this side of the Committee resent it very much.

The CHAIRMAN

I sometimes hear reflections upon my conduct of the Committee from both sides. I do not always take them seriously. In trying to assist the Committee, I have given the information for which I have been asked.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS

On a point of Order.

The CHAIRMAN

Is the hon. Member raising a different point of Order?

Mr. GRIFFITHS

My point of Order is, that if you think that an imputation or a reflection has been made upon you as Chairman, surely it is a reflection upon the people sitting on this side of the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN

I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that it appeared to them that there was wilful obstruction. Those were the words, I think.

Mr. WISE

In order to make the discussion possible——[Interruption.]

Mr. STEPHEN

On a point of Order. I would submit that, while the ex-Patronage Secretary, the right hon. Member for Evesham (Sir B. Eyres Monsell) said that it appeared to them that there was wilful obstruction, he particularised to the extent of referring to wilful obstruction on the part of the Independent Labour party in this House. Consequently, I submit that the hon. Member is referring to myself and others, and I would ask that the statement be withdrawn. I wish to make it plain, in seeking for the withdrawal of the statement, that it may be that I am somewhat to blame. Perhaps I am not as quick in the uptake as some hon. Members, but I am still a little confused, owing to the words of the former Solicitor-General, because I took it that the Government were accepting——

The CHAIRMAN

That point does not arise. I am not aware that the Government have accepted anything, neither am I aware that any Amendment has been withdrawn. Therefore, there is no need to discuss that point any further.

Mr. STEPHEN

I was seeking to show that there was nothing in the way of obstruction by myself, and I am asking that the definite charge made by the hon. Member opposite of wilful obstruction on the part of either myself or the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise), seeing that we are the Members of the Independent Labour party who have raised points of Order, should be withdrawn in the usual way.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND

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, 232; Noes, 246.

Division No. 304.]	AYES.	[5.3 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Colman, N. C. D.	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Albery, Irving James	Colville, Major D. J.	Haslam, Henry C.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Conway, Sir W. Martin	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd. Henley)
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)	Cooper, A. Duff	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Courtauld, Major J. S.	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.	Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Astor, Viscountess	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Atholl, Duchess of	Crookshank, Capt. H. C.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Atkinson, C.	Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.	Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)	Hurd, Percy A.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)	Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Dalkeith, Earl of	Hutchison, Maj. Gen. Sir R.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)	Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey	Inksip, Sir Thomas
Balniel, Lord	Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)	Iveagh, Countess of
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Davies, Dr. Vernon	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Beaumont M. W.	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Kindersley, Major G. M.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon	Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Knox, Sir Alfred
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Dawson, Sir Philip	Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)	Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Bird, Ernest Roy	Duckworth, G. A. V.	Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Boothby, R. J. G.	Dugdale, Capt. T. L.	Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.	Eden, Captain Anthony	Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Bracken, B.	Elliot, Major Walter E.	Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Brass, Captain Sir William	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Llewellin, Major J. J.
Briscoe, Richard George	Everard, W. Lindsay	Locker Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Broadbent, Colonel J.	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Ferguson, Sir John	Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Fermoy, Lord	Long, Major Hon. Eric
Buchan, John	Fielden, E. B.	Lymington, Viscount
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Fison, F. G. Clavering	McConnell, Sir Joseph
Buckingham, Sir H.	Ford, Sir P. J.	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Macquisten, F. A.
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Galbraith, J. F. W.	Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Butler, R. A.	Ganzonl, Sir John	Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton	Margesson, Captain H. D.
Campbell, E. T.	Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)	Marjoribanks, Edward
Carver, Major W. H.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Castle Stewart, Earl of	Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Meller, R. J.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Gower, Sir Robert	Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton	Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm-, W.)	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Gritten, W. G. Howard	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Chapman, Sir S	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Muirhead, A. J.
Christie, J. A.	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	O'Connor, T. J.
Clydesdale, Marquess of	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hammersley, S. S.	O'Neill, Sir H.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George	Hanbury, C.	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Cohen, Major J. Brunel	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Peake, Capt, Osbert
Colfox, Major William Philip	Hartington, Marquess of	Penny, Sir George
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Savery, S. S.	Todd, Capt. A. J.
Perkins, W. R. D.	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome	Train, J.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Pilditch, Sir Philip	Skelton, A. N.	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Power, Sir John Cecil	Smith, Louis w. (Sheffield, Hallam)	Warrender, Sir Victor
Pownall, Sir Assheton	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben	Smith-Carington, Neville W.	Wayland, Sir William A.
Purbrick, R.	Smithers, Waldron	Wells, Sydney R.
Ramsbotham, H.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Reid, David D. (County Down)	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Remer, John R.	Southby, Commander A. R. J.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Reynolds, Col. Sir James	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)	Withers, Sir John James
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)	Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur	Womersley, W. J.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell	Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)	Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Salmon. Major I.	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Thompson, Luke	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)	Thomson, Sir F.	Captain Sir George Bowyer and
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart	Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.	Captain Wallace.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	Law, A. (Rossendale)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)	Lawrence, Susan
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Leach, W.
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.	George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)	Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Alpass, J. H.	Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)	Lees, J.
Ammon, Charles George	Gill, T. H.	Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Angell. Sir Norman	Gillett, George M.	Lindley, Fred W.
Arnott, John	Glassey, A. E.	Lloyd, C. Ellis
Attlee, Clement Richard	Gossling, A. G.	Logan, David Gilbert
Ayles, Walter	Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)	Longbottom, A. W.
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Gray, Milner	Longden, F.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)	Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Barnes, Alfred John	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Lunn, William
Barr, James	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Bonn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Groves, Thomas E.	McElwee, A.
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	Grundy, Thomas W.	McEntee, V. L.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettlestton)
Benson, G.	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	MacLaren, Andrew
Blindell, James	Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)	MacNeill-Weir, L.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)	McShane, John James
Broad, Francis Alfred	Hardie, David (Rutherglen)	Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Brockway, A. Fenner	Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)	Manning, E. L.
Bromfield, William	Harris, Percy A.	Mansfield, W.
Brooke, W.	Hastings, Dr. Somerville	March, S.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Haycock, A. W.	Marley, J.
Burgess, F. G.	Hayes, John Henry	Marshall, Fred
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Mathers, George
Caine, Hall-, Derwent	Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)	Matters, L. W.
Cameron, A. G.	Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)	Messer, Fred
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Herriotts, J.	Middleton, G.
Charleton, H. C.	Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)	Millar. J. D.
Chater, Daniel	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Mills, J. E.
Church, Major A. G.	Hoffman, P. C.	Milner, Major J.
Cluse, W. S.	Hopkin, Daniel	Montague, Frederick
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Hore-Bellsha, Leslie	Morley, Ralph
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Compton, Joseph	Hunter, Dr. Joseph	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Cove, William G.	Isaacs, George	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Jenkins, Sir William	Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Daggar, George	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Mort, D. L.
Dallas, George	Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Muggeridge, H. T.
Dalton, Hugh	Jones, Llewellyn-, F.	Murnin, Hugh
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Nathan, Major H. L.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)	Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)	Noel Baker, P. J.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Day, Harry	Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Oldfield, J. R.
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.	Kelly, W. T.	Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Duncan, Charles	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Ede, James Chuter	Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Palln, John Henry
Edmunds, J. E.	Kinley, J.	Palmer, E. T.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)	Knight, Holford	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Egan, W. H.	Lang, Gordon	Perry, S. F.
Elmley, Viscount	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Evans, Herbert (Gateshead)	Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)	Phillips, Dr. Marion
Freeman, Peter	Law, Albert (Bolton)	Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Pole, Major D. G.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)	Viant, S. P.
Potts, John S.	Simmons, C. J.	Walkden, A. G.
Pybus, Percy John	Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)	Walker, J.
Quibell, D. J. K.	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)	Wallace, H. W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)	Watkins, F. C.
Raynes, W. R.	Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)	Wellock, Wilfred
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)	Welsh, James (Paisley)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)	West, F. R.
Romerll, H. G.	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip	Westwood, Joseph
Rosbotham, D. S. T.	Sorensen, R.	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Rowson, Guy	Stamford, Thomas W.	Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)	Stephen, Campbell	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Salter, Dr. Alfred	Strauss, G. R.	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)	Sutton, J. E.	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)	Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Sanders, W. S.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)	Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Sandham, E.	Thorne. W. (West Ham, Plaistow)	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Sawyer, G. F.	Thurtle, Ernest	Winterton, G. E. (Leicester. Loughb'gh)
Scott, James	Tillett, Ben	Wise, E. F.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H	Tinker, John Joseph	Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis	Toole, Joseph	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Sherwood, G. H.	Tout, W. J.
Shield, George William	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Shillaker, J. F.	Vaughan, David	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

The CHAIRMAN

Mr. James Hudson.

Mr. HUDSON

rose——

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL

You will get a job now, old boy.

HON. MEMBERS

Withdraw!

Mr. McSHANE

On a point of Order. I wish to draw attention to the fact that the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) has passed what, in essence, is a reflection upon the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson). He called out, as the hon. Member was about to speak, a sentence which implied that the hon. Member was speaking for a particular purpose.

Sir F. HALL

I said it.

Mr. McSHANE

He called out: "You will get a job now." I say that that is a reflection on the character of the hon. Member——[Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN

Hon. Members on both sides must allow me to hear the point of Order which the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) is putting.

Mr. McSHANE

I want to ask you whether that is not a clear imputation upon the character of the hon. Member. [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN

I did not hear the observation of the hon. and gallant Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "He admits it."] But I think they are words of which we need take no notice.

Mr. LEES

On a point of Order. [Interruption.] May I call your attention to this important fact, that the Noble Lord opposite raised a point of Order with regard to an hon. Member on this side who was supposed to have made a remark. Mr. Speaker did not hear the remark, but the Noble Lord had his way in that respect.

Mr. SANDHAM

And I was asked to leave the House.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

Are we to understand that if you had heard the remark it would have been considered an insult to suggest to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Hudson) that he desired to become a Member of the Government?

Mr. HUDSON

Hon. Members have said a good many things at my expense during this Debate and perhaps I may say with a desire to assist you, Mr. Chairman, that the interruptions have made no impression upon me. I was dealing with a fair issue. I wanted to know, and I still want to know, what is going to happen if it is discovered by the assessors of the tax proposed to be imposed by the Amendment that the person upon whom it is supposed to rest has absolutely no existence. What steps will then be taken regarding the particular unit of land upon which the tax is to be placed? I have observed throughout all these discussions that hon. Members opposite immediately leave the Chamber whenever the merits of the question are discussed, and they are no better informed about the merits of this issue now than they were when the Debate commenced. As far as I can see the hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman) is not prepared to face the issue as to what is to be done with regard to land upon which the tax cannot be levied, although Parliament has decided that it shall be levied. Before the Closure was moved I asked this question.

Is it the intention of the Opposition that land in respect of which executors or trustees cannot be found shall be confiscated? What do they intend shall be done with regard to land which, when their carefully worded Amendment comes to be considered, leaves us in the position that unit after unit of land cannot have a tax imposed upon it at all. The Tory party is constantly accusing us of putting forward Amendments of an indefinite character and throughout the discussions on this Bill have said that our intention is that land shall come into the possession of the State without proper compensation being paid. I submit that it is highly probable, on the basis of this Amendment which has not yet been explained to the Committee, that the only thing a taxing authority can do when they cannot find the person upon whom to assess this tax is to take steps to confiscate the land. The Opposition by this Amendment have not only wasted a good deal of time but have presented us with a proposal which will form a basis for further steps to be taken against them in regard to their land policy.

Mr. DENMAN

Are we to get no statement at any stage from the Opposition as to what the Amendment means?

Sir THOMAS INSKIP

The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) has no doubt come into the Committee with the other reinforcements of the Government, and he does little honour to the Solicitor-General who about an hour ago made a clear statement upon this Amendment.

Mr. DENMAN

On a point of Order. Is the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) addressing the Committee?

The CHAIRMAN

I understood that the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) desired an explanation of the Amendment, and, as he gave way when the hon. and learned Member for Fareham rose, I called the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. DENMAN

I rose to continue the Debate in default of any explanation from the other side of the Committee. If the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) is going to give the Committee an explanation of the Amendment I will gladly resume my seat and make my observations later. I have listened to the Debate from the beginning and therefore the observations of the hon. and learned Member are entirely beside the point. I will gladly give way to him if he will explain what the Opposition really mean—if he can.

Sir T. INSKIP

The last words of the hon. Member, "if he can," are characteristic of the temper in which hon. Members have discussed this Bill but, fortunately, although the hon. Member has been put into a position of some indignity, it is not necessary for me to meet taunts of that character. If anything was needed to bring discredit upon this wretched Bill it is the proceedings of the last hour, and as you have allowed the hon. Member opposite time after time to repeat the question as to whether or not any explanation is to be given of this Amendment I presume that you will allow me to give one or two explanations. During the Debate, on the Finance Bill hon. Members opposite sat like dumb dogs—[Interruption]—but since it became obvious not only that their arguments were exhausted but that their numbers were not available in the Division Lobby they have ceased to become like dumb dogs and have become like deaf adders. [Interruption.]

Mr. MESSER

Is it understood that the adjective "dumb" does not apply to hon. Members opposite?

Sir T. INSKIP

They have become like deaf adders, and refuse to listen to the voice of the charmer, charm he never so wisely.

Mr. LOGAN

Would it be in order if I said that the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) is like a Kilkenny cat?

Sir T. INSKIP

The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) would not be out of order but he would be giving a very characteristic specimen of the wit of hon. Members opposite. It was obvious that hon. Members opposite were not prepared to listen. They did not want an explanation of the Amendment. They wanted to delay time until a sufficient number of persons were present to go into the Lobby. I speak within your knowledge, Mr. Chairman, just as within the knowledge of hon. Members opposite. The Solicitor-General gave an explanation of the Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend in which he admitted not merely that we had called attention to a point which was worthy of attention but that the Amendment proposed met the difficulty to some extent, and the Solicitor-General assured the Committee that he was prepared to draft an Amendment upon the lines of that which appeared on the Paper and that an alteration of the last words of the Amendment would adequately meet the difficulty to which attention had been called.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I do not want the hon. and learned Member to misrepresent what I said. I made it quite clear that under your ruling, Mr. Chairman, two Amendments were being discussed. Unfortunately they were in inverted order on the paper to which I was referring to that in which they appear on the Order Paper. I said that we could not possibly accept in any circumstances the Amendment to which the hon. and learned Member is now referring. The second Amendment, I said, was a point which had not been drawn to our attention, but we were perfectly prepared to bring forward words on the Report stage to deal with it. The first Amendment I could not possibly accept.

Sir T. INSKIP

It is just as well to get out of the way any misunderstanding as to the Amendment, owing to the Solicitor-General, as he has frankly said, having the Amendment on his papers in the inverse order to that in which they appear on the Amendment Paper. The hon. and learned Gentleman has described as the first Amendment that which in fact is on the Amendment Paper as the second Amendment. I understand that it is the second Amendment on the Amendment Paper which the Solicitor-General says is unworkable. That is not the Amendment which has in fact been moved, although with the permission of the Chair it is one of two Amendments that have been discussed. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman) said an hour and a quarter ago that he would not press the Amendment to which the Solicitor-General referred. That is the Amendment which the Solicitor-General says was not a practicable one. But the hon. and learned Member for Rusholme does propose to press the Amendment which appears first on the Paper; that is the Amendment which the Solicitor-General has called the Second Amendment and which I understand he admits has some substance in it. That is the Amendment which we thought was worthy of being treated by the Committee as one upon which a Division should be taken.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman) will, I am sure, agree that he said, in view of my statement, that he would not dream of pressing that Amendment. That is the first Amendment. Therefore the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) is not right in saying that the opposition propose to press the first Amendment. It is the second one.

Sir T. INSKIP

Whether my hon. and learned Friend was going to press one of the Amendments or not, I understand now that the Solicitor-General and my hon. and learned Friend are in agreement. [Interruption.] The Solicitor-General knows perfectly well that I am trying to elucidate a misunderstanding which arose owing to the fact that the Amendments were in different order on two separate papers. Having disposed of that matter, I can say that the perfectly disgraceful character of the obstruction on this Amendment has made it simply impossible for any hon. Member on this side to get up and explain the Amendment on the Order Paper. The proceedings of which hon. Members opposite have been guilty upon this Amendment have shown not merely the unwillingness but the complete incapacity of hon. Members opposite to discuss the Bill.

Mr. COCKS

The hon. and learned Member has charged a body of persons here with obstruction. Is that in order?

The CHAIRMAN

The word "obstruction" as applied to any hon. Member is out of order, but I understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman used it in a general sense.

Mr. DENMAN

When I rose I asked hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they proposed to press the fourth Amendment which appears on page 1950. I ask again, is that now their intention? It is that Amendment in respect of which I made the remark that the Opposition might give an explanation if they could. They have singularly failed. I still ask them to provide an explanation of what that Amendment really means—if they can.

Mr. KELLY

I was hopeful, when listening to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip), an ex-Attorney-General, that we should have some explanation of what was meant by the Amendment. We have not had one word of explanation. We have heard a great deal about conduct being disgraceful, and a great deal about reinforcements. I am inclined to think that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself must have been amongst some reinforcements that came up, for the Amendment is certainly not understood by the hon. and learned Member for Fareham. He believed that we were discussing the first Amendment. Are we to be told whether it is the Opposition's intention or desire—their intention does not count for very much—that anyone who happens to be a trustee is liable to have an assessment made upon him, or is it their desire that such an individual should be exempted from any possibility of an assessment? Unless we are to have an explanation I can only assume that the language used with regard to the conduct of the proceedings is language that can well be applied to those who are responsible for these Amendments. Judging by the absence of explanations, judging by the incapability of the Opposition to explain their Amendments, it is disgraceful of them to put such Amendments on the Paper.

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL

In view of the great amount of time already wasted, we do not propose to divide on this Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN

Then it can be negatived.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN

The next Amendments to be taken are the last one on page 1950—in page 15, line 3, to leave out from "shall" to "be," in line 7—and the first three on page 1951—in page 15, line 7, to leave out the word "so" after the word "payable "to insert the words" to the Commissioners "; and in line 8, to leave out the words "one month" and to insert instead thereof the words "six months."

Major LLEWELLIN

I beg to move, in page 15, line 3, to leave out from the word "shall," to the word "be" in line 7.

The Clause reads as follows: (4) The tax assessed shall, if assessed on or before the first day of June next after the end of the year of charge, be payable to the Commissioners on the first day of July next following and, if assessed on some date later than the said first day of June, be so payable on the expiration of one month from the date of the assessment. The Clause, if my Amendments are accepted, will read: The tax assessed shall be payable to the Commissioners on the expiration of six months from the date of the assessment. I have been wondering why the Government had their Measure drafted as it is, for it is obvious, as the Bill stands, that if a man has an assessment made upon him on 1st January in any year he has six months in which to pay his tax, but that if on the other hand he has the assessment made upon him on 1st June, he gets only one month in which to collect the money and pay the tax. I cannot understand why, if a man has the assessment made upon him early in the year he should have a normal period in which to pay, but if he is assessed later he should be expected to find the money in a much shorter time. Six months' grace is a proper time to allow for the payment of the tax. A large number of trustees will be liable to pay this tax on land holdings that they may have in trust, and it might be very difficult for them to raise the necessary money within the short period of one month, which is all that will be allowed if they are so unfortunate as to have an assessment made upon them in the latter part of the year. I shall be interested to hear from the Solicitor-General why this differentiation was made between the earlier assessment and the later. Obviously it cannot have been arranged in order to get the money in before the end of the financial year in April. If an assessment were made on 1st March a man still need not pay until 1st July, but if the assessment is made in the latter part of the year he has to get the money in within one month. The Amendment would make uniform for all taxpayers the amount of time allowed for payment when an assessment is made upon them.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Amendment raises a very interesting point as regards the possibility of having a fixed date for the collection of the tax. Although under the words of Sub-section (4) there is a latitude as regards dates after June, that is only intended to cover dates in cases where assessments have been delayed or there has been an appeal on valuation, or some such matter as that. It is intended that in the majority of cases the assessment will be in the hands of the payer on or before 1st June, after the end of the year of charge. Then it was thought wise to give a fixed date for payment. Most hon. Members will agree that if you have some liability falling upon you it is a comfort to know the date when it will fall, rather than to learn that it may fall within six months if some authority does something. The main liability under the Bill will fall on 1st July each year, and that was thought to be a convenient date in view of other possible commitments of persons paying this tax, and it was thought better to fix the payment specifically on 1st July after at least a month's notice from 1st June.

If longer notice were given it would be so much the better perhaps, but allowance with regard to subsequent assessments is really only to meet cases where a normal course cannot be carried out for some reason or other. I am sure the Committee will agree that on the whole it is more satisfactory to have a fixed rate, so that everyone may know at the time of the valuation and assessment and so on, that on that date they will have to find the money to pay this tax, rather than to require payment at some quite indefinite date dependent upon when they happen to get the assessments sent to them. It is for those reasons that I suggest to the Committee that the proposal of the Bill is more convenient, and that it suits the convenience of the taxpayer.

Sir T. INSKIP

The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of the convenience of the method adopted in the Bill. He, of course, looks at the matter from the point of view of revenue and from the point of view of a Government which seeks to penalise those who have been so unfortunate or so misguided—though often acting under the compulsion of some statutory provision—as to invest money in land. No doubt this proposal is convenient to the Revenue. No doubt it is convenient to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that everybody shall be ordered to pay up within 28 days of receiving notice of assessment, but the Amendment has been moved because we wish to consider, not merely the convenience of the authorities, but the convenience of the taxpayer. This tax is not like the Income Tax, a tax upon receipts. It is a tax upon the capital value of a property which in all probability in many cases will not be yielding any revenue at all. The Amendment is moved in order that many people who will be liable to pay this tax—upon a form of investment which is already taxed up to the hilt under the Income Tax Acts—shall have the opportunity to furnish those resources from which the tax will have to be paid to the tax collector.

I should like to hear an opinion expressed through some great organ or in public meetings, as to whether the general public think that they are being adequately protected by the Solicitor-General and by this Government who claim to represent their interests, when they are told that they must be ready with the cash within 28 short days of the assessment, or be subject to the penalties which the hon. and learned Gentleman's Government, if still in power, will be prepared to enforce. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to think that 28 days is enough, but is that the opinion of the public? [Interruption.] I should like to hear hon. Members opposite go to the electors and tell them that the Government have resisted a proposal to give everybody six months time within which to pay the sum in which they will be assessed under this proposal. I seem to have heard an hon. Member below the Gangway speaking as if this were a tax upon landlords. Hon. Members opposite cannot get it out of their minds that this is a tax upon landlords. It may be, but it is a tax upon people whether they are landlords or not. It is a tax upon the people who are their own landlords, who have committed the unpardonable crime of thinking that they could make provision for their own old age or for their family's comfort, by buying a piece of land and have bought it in a district where, unfortunately, it has a value over and above cultivation value. It is a tax upon people who have dared to put their investments or their savings into a form of property such as ground vents or feu duties.

The CHAIRMAN

This Amendment deals only with the date of payment of the tax and not with the tax which is being imposed.

Sir T. INSKIP

Surely I am entitled to argue that in the case of a tax which has so many characteristics of hardship, one month is too short a period to allow the taxpayer to collect the necessary resources for the payment of the tax.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be pointing out all the different classes of people who are being taxed and to be dealing in fact with the imposition of the tax. I have merely pointed out that the Amendment deals only with the question of time in regard to the payment of the tax.

Sir T. INSKIP

But am I not in order in pointing out that it will not be millionaires only who will have to put up the money within the 28 days, but also humble proprietors of villas in urban communities?

The CHAIRMAN

It depends on how the hon. and learned Gentleman points out those facts. It appeared to me that he was really discussing the tax itself and not the date.

Sir T. INSKIP

You, Sir Robert, will no doubt stop me when you think that I am exceeding the relevance which has been the characteristic of the proceedings this afternoon.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Member might as well refer to the relevance of something which took place in days gone past, as to something which took place on a previous Amendment. We are now dealing with a new Amendment.

Sir T. INSKIP

I venture to think, Sir Robert, that I have been so far submitting myself to your Ruling, and asking for your guidance, and I understand that according to your Ruling I am perfectly in order in pointing out that this is a burdensome tax and that six months is not too long a period to enable the taxpayer to collect the money with which to pay it. I understand that I am in order in pointing out that this is not a tax which is going to fall upon landlords alone, but that it is going to fall upon people who own land for the purposes of their own residences and on humble folk whose resources are not extensive. The last thing that I want to do is to take up time in discussing the matter beyond what is necessary to open the eyes of the public to the penalties which this Government are imposing upon them. We regard it as important that humble taxpayers should have proper time within which to provide the money to meet the tax collector when he knocks at the door, and that is why we propose to press this Amendment to a Division.

Major GEORGE DAVIES

The Solicitor-General said it was advantageous that there should be a fixed date of payment, but as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) has pointed out, the advantage is primarily to the Exchequer and not to the taxpayer. As the Clause is drafted, provision is made for a fixed date up to 1st Juno, that is to say, for the first five months of the year. But thereafter it becomes a moveable feast, like Easter, and the period is fixed as one month after the assessment. Therefore in the Clause as drafted, the Solicitor-General does not achieve his point of having the advantage of a fixed date. If that be the case, the principle is not a fixed principle. Already, in the Clause, the hardship involved is realised to the extent of allowing 28 days. All of us who come within the clutches of the Exchequer know the great difficulty which we have in providing the ordinary and usual taxation, but this tax is a capital tax, unlike the Income Tax, and the money has to be found from a source which does not normally exist.

In the case of a tax on income, a man has something from which to pay the tax, but in this case the State assesses a man's land on a capital basis as being worth so much, and orders him to pay taxation upon that within 28 days. The money has to be found from capital resources. His income has already been heavily drawn upon to meet other taxes and rates; it is now proposed to pile Pelion upon Ossa by adding the fresh burden of a capital tax, and he is only to be allowed 28 days in which to find the money. He is not even to have the advantage in all cases of the fixed date because that will not apply to the latter part of the year. Surely in this matter the Solicitor-General can yield a point in favour of the unfortunate taxpayer. Six months is not too long to allow, when capital has to be realised, and when, probably, something has to be sold at a sacrifice in order to meet this demand. If the Solicitor-General cannot concede six months, he ought to consider some reasonable compromise such as four months.

Mr. REID

May I point out to the Solicitor-General that the largest individual payers of this tax are likely to be firms engaged in business operations, the owners of large shops in cities and the owners of businesses which require considerable areas of land. Is it reasonable or fair, at a time like the present, when the reports in the newspapers show that many of these firms are not making any money at all, to force them to meet this new demand for very considerable sums within 28 days? I think the six months asked for in the Amendment is only reasonable.

Mr. LOCKWOOD

I wish to support the pressure which is being put upon the Solicitor-General to allow adequate time for this payment. In refusing to consider the Amendment, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman shows a lack of appreciation of the difficulty which people have in meeting normal taxation. The Solicitor-General when presenting the taxation proposals of the Government to the Committee should endeavour to look at the matter from all angles. We know what occurs in connection with the assessment for normal Income Tax which is met in two payments. We know that many people have the utmost difficulty in meeting it. I do not think that I exaggerate in saying that 70 per cent. of the taxpayers have great difficulties in paying the normal Income Tax. But this is not a tax levied upon anything which is income-bearing; it is a tax on capital. The Government have already had their tax upon the income. They want to levy a tax upon the capital and they propose to give only one month within which to meet that demand. There ought to be an adequate extension of time in this case, not only because this is a capital tax as opposed to a tax upon income, but also because we know that to-day the great bulk of the taxpayers are having great difficulty in meeting their ordinary taxation, as and when it becomes payable. If for that reason alone the Amendment or something in the nature of 6.0 p.m. the Amendment, should be acceptable to the Government. The learned Solicitor-General is, I am sure, very reasonable and is quite prepared to listen to those who have some experience of industrial difficulties and of the difficulties of people in finding liquid cash to-day. I am sure he will accept the opinion of those who are engaged in industry as to what their difficulties are. He may not know from personal experience, but some of us know what difficulties there are in these days, when the dividends on our investments are not forthcoming, when in most cases they are being passed over, and how that fact affects the resources which we have to meet taxation. If we have not the income, we cannot meet our obligations, whether for the Government or anybody else, and it would be a gracious act on the part of the Solicitor-General if he would accept the Amendment.

Mr. WINTERTON

I hope the Government will stick to the proposal in the Bill. It seems to me that the proposals that the other side are making would themselves introduce a new inequality, as burdensome as any that they have suggested are created by the Bill. If I understand the Amendment rightly—and it is rather difficult to do so, because of the form in which it stands—the proposal is that if a landowner has his assessment made in January, he will be called upon to pay his tax at any time within the succeeding six months.

Major LLEWELLIN

That is the proposal in the Bill.

Mr. WINTERTON

If the landowner is in the position of having his assessment made on 15th June, his tax under the Bill becomes payable within a month, and the Amendment proposes to give this individual, already favoured by the fact that hi" assessment comes late, a further six months' grace before the actual payment of the tax becomes due. There would thereby be constituted an inequality between the people whose land is first assessed and those whose land is afterwards assessed, by the great space of time between the two periods when the tax is payable. I can see no reason for creating that inequality as between one taxpayer and another.

There is another point which has been stressed from the benches opposite. All their speeches have been devoted to the suggestion that only 28 days are to be allowed for the payment of this tax, but as a matter of fact that is not so. The period of 28 days applies only to the few assessments which are made after 1st June, and it is quite misleading to make these speeches, designed to create in the mind of the taxpayer the idea that only one month's grace is to be allowed, when in the great majority of cases the Bill provides for six months' grace before payment falls due. The late Attorney-General suggested that if, when this Bill becomes law, the present Government are in power, they will proceed to enforce it with all the penalties set forth in the other Clauses, but supposing at a later stage some other Government are in power, formed by hon. Members opposite, are we to take from that speech the suggestion that they will not administer the law of the land as it is passed by this House?

The CHAIRMAN

That does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. WINTERTON

I suggest, without any desire to traverse your Ruling, Sir Robert, that there was implied a suggestion that the present Government would put this into action, and I am asking if it is suggested by inference that if another Government were on these benches, this Measure would not be put into operation.

The CHAIRMAN

To use a stereotyped phrase, the hon. Member must wait and see.

Mr. WINTERTON

I was trying to look into the future and to see what was in the minds of hon. Members opposite. Everybody in this House and outside it knows that whatever may be the date on which we are called to pay either our taxes or our rates, it is always an unpopular date. It is always the wrong time when the tax collector calls, or when the rate demand paper is received. You can always raise a cry about a wicked Government calling upon you to pay your dues on a given date. It is one of the cheapest electioneering devices that has ever been suggested in this House. We have had all this sound and fury and the pathetic appeal by an hon. Member opposite who sits for a Yorkshire constituency, about times being bad and about the difficulties of the poor landowners scraping together sufficient pence in order to pay 1s. 8d. in the £ on the capital value of their land; but I read in the Conservative Press, and I am pleased to do so, quite frequent allusions to the fact that there is now a turn in the tide of affairs, that we are commencing a great period of prosperity, and that in two years everything will be booming.

Mr. LOCKWOOD

Will the hon. Member refer to Slaithwaite, in the Division of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must keep to the Amendment.

Mr. WINTERTON

I was going to say that there is nothing in that argument, because the tax does not fall due until two years hence, when the circumstances may be very different from what they are now, and when we hope everybody will be able to pay the tax with a good grace and to look pleasant as they pay it. The principle is not new. There is a fixed date on which rates and Income Tax are demanded, and it would be very undesirable to begin to vary that practice in the case of the new land taxes. I therefore trust that the Government will resist the blandishments of the Opposition.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 222.

Division No. 305.]	AYES.	[6.9 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Hardie, David (Rutherglen)	Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)	Mort, D. L.
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.	Harris, Percy A.	Muff, G.
Alpass, J. H.	Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Muggeridge, H. T.
Ammon, Charles George	Haycock, A. W.	Murnin, Hugh
Angell, Sir Norman	Hayes, John Henry	Nathan, Major H. L.
Arnott, John	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)	Naylor, T. E.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)	Noel Baker, P. J.
Ayles, Walter	Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)	Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Herriotts, J.	Oldfield, J. R.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Barnes, Alfred John	Hirst. W. (Bradford, South)	Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Barr, James	Hoffman, P. C.	Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Batey, Joseph	Hopkin, Daniel	Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)	Hore-Bellsha, Leslie.	Palln, John Henry
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Paling, Wilfrid
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	Hunter, Dr. Joseph	Palmer, E. T.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Isaacs, George	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Benson, G.	Jenkins, Sir William	Perry, S. F.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Blindell, James	Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Phillips, Dr. Marion
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	Jones, Llewellyn-, F.	Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Bowen, J. W.	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Pole, Major D. G.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Potts, John S.
Broad, Francis Alfred	Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)	Price, M. P.
Brookway, A. Fenner	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Pybus, Percy John
Bromfield, William	Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Quibell, D. J. K.
Bromley. J.	Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Brooke. W.	Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)	Rathbone, Eleanor
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Kelly, W. T.	Raynes, W. R.
Burgess, F. G.	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-spring)
Caine, Hall-, Derwent	Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Cameron, A. G.	Kinley. J.	Ritson, J.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Knight, Holford	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Charleton, H. C.	Lang, Gordon	Romerll, H. G.
Chater, Daniel	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Church, Major A. G.	Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)	Rothschild, J. de
Cluse, W. S.	Law, Albert (Bolton)	Rowson, Guy
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Law, A. (Rossendale)	Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Lawrence, Susan	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)	Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Compton, Joseph	Leach, W.	Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Cove, William G.	Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Sanders, W. S.
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Lees, J.	Sandham, E.
Daggar, George	Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Sawyer, G. F.
Dallas, George	Lindley, Fred W.	Scott, James
Dalton, Hugh	Lloyd, C. Ellis	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)	Logan, David Gilbert	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)	Longbottom, A. W.	Sherwood, G. H.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Longden, F.	Shield, George William
Day, Harry	Lovat-Fraser, J. A.	Shillaker, J. F.
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Lunn, William	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Simmons, C. J.
Duncan, Charles	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Ede, James Chuter	MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Edmunds, J. E.	McElwee, A.	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)	McEntee, V. L.	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Egan, W. H.	McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)	Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Elmley, Viscount	MacLaren, Andrew	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Evans, Herbert (Gateshead)	Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Foot, Isaac	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Freeman, Peter	MacNeill-Weir, L.	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	McShane, John James	Sorensen, R.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)	Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)	Stamford, Thomas W.
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)	Mander, Geoffrey le M.	Stephen, Campbell
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Manning, E. L.	Strauss, G. R.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)	Mansfield, W.	Sutton, J. E.
Gibson H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)	March, S.	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Gill, T. H.	Markham, S. F.	Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Gillett, George M.	Marley, J.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Glassey, A. E.	Marshall, Fred	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Gossling, A. G.	Mathers, George	Thurtle, Ernest
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)	Matters, L. W.	Tillett, Ben
Gray, Milner	Messer, Fred	Tinker, John Joseph
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)	Middleton, G.	Toole, Joseph
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Millar, J. D.	Tout, W. J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)	Mills, J. E.	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Milner, Major J.	Vaughan, David
Grundy, Thomas W.	Montague, Frederick	Viant, S. P.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Walkden, A. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Morley, Ralph	Walker, J.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C)	Morris, Rhys Hopkins	Wallace, H. W.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)	Walters, Rt. Hon- Sir J. Tudor

Watkins, F. C.	Wilkinson, Ellen C.	Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)	Williams, David (Swansea, East)	Wise, E. F.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)	Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Wellock, Wilfred	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)	Young, R. S, (Islington, North)
Welsh, James (Palsley)	Williams, T, (York, Don Valley)
West, F. R.	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Westwood, Joseph	Wilson, J. (Oldham)	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Dugdale, Capt. T. L.	Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Albery, Irving James	Eden, Captain Anthony	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)	Elliot, Major Walter E.	Muirhead, A. J.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Everard, W. Lindsay	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Astor, Viscountess	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	O'Connor, T. J.
Atholl, Duchess of	Ferguson, Sir John	Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Atkinson, C.	Fermoy, Lord	O'Neill, Sir H.
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.	Fielden, E. B.	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)	Fison, F. G. Clavering	Peake, Capt, Osbert
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)	Ford, Sir P. J.	Penny, Sir George
Balniel, Lord	Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Galbraith, J. F. W.	Perkins, W. R. D.
Beaumont. M. W.	Ganzonl, Sir John	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon	Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton	Power, Sir John Cecil
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)	Pownall, Sir Assheton
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Bird, Ernest Roy	Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Purbrick, R.
Boothby, R. J. G.	Gower, Sir Robert	Ramsbotham, H.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Reid, David D. (County Down)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Remer, John R.
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Boyce, Leslie	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Bracken, B.	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Brass, Captain Sir William	Gritten, W. G. Howard	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Briscoe, Richard George	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Broadbent, Colonel J.	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Salmon, Major I.
Buchan, John	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Hanbury, C.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Buckingham, Sir H.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Bullock, Captain Malcolm	Hartington, Marquess of	Sassoon. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Savery, S. S.
Butler, R. A.	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Campbell, E. T.	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Skelton, A. N.
Carver, Major W. H.	Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Castle Stewart, Earl of	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Smith-Carington, Nevilla W.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)	Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer	Somerville, D. G. (Willesdon, East)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Hurd, Percy A.	Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton	Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm-, W.)	Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Iveagh, Countess of	Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Chapman. Sir S.	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Christie, J. A.	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer	Knox, Sir Alfred	Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Clydesdale, Marquess of	Lamb, Sir J. Q.	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)	Thompson, Luke
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George	Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel	Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)	Titchfield. Major the Marquess of
Colfox, Major William Philip	Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)	Todd, Capt. A. J.
Colman, N. C. D.	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Train, J.
Colville, Major D. J.	Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Conway, Sir W. Martin	Llewellin, Major J. J.	Turton, Robert Hugh
Cooper, A. Duff	Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey	Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Locker-Lampson, Com- O. (Handsw'th)	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.	Lockwood, Captain J. H.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Cranborne, Viscount	Long, Major Hon. Eric	Wayland, Sir William A.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.	Lymington, Viscount	Wells, Sydney R.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	McConnell, Sir Joseph	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Macquisten, F. A.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)	Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Withers, Sir John James
Dalkeith, Earl of	Margesson, Captain H. D.	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey	Marjoribanks, Edward	Womersley, W. J.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)	Mason, Colonel Glyn K.	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Davies, Dr. Vernon	Meller, R. J.	Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Merriman, Sir F. Boyd	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, s.)	Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Dawson, Sir Philip	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.	Sir Frederick Thornes And Sir Victor Warrender.

Captain BOURNE

I beg to move, in page 15, line 10, to leave out the words "six years," and to insert instead thereof the words "one year."

Under the Government's proposals, assessments may be made at any time not later than six years after the end of the year of charge to which it relates. I want the Committee to consider for a moment cases that may arise very easily under this Clause. It is clear from our discussions that the actual valuation is a matter of very considerable difficulty. A man may be satisfied in his own mind that his land may be exempt from the operations of this Bill; for some reason or other the land is not valued, and this confirms the opinion of the owner that it is bona fide exempt. The owner may die or his circumstances may change in six years. After some years, the owner enters into a contract for sale. The prospective purchaser not unnaturally asks the vendor if the land is liable for the Land Tax. The vendor replies that he has not been assessed for it and that to the best of his knowledge and belief there is no liability for Land Tax on it. The purchaser takes the land on the understanding that the land in its present state is exempt.

Perhaps four years after that transaction has taken place, the Inland Revenue comes down and says, "We are going to assess it." I do not see what right the Government have to put their assessments back as far as six years. It must inevitably interfere with thousands of bona fide transactions which would otherwise be carried out in good faith by both parties, both the vendor and the purchaser believing that land was free from tax when a conveyance took place, and would remain free unless there were a material alteration due either to the conditions of the surrounding land or to some extraneous cause like a new road or something of which the purchaser would know if it took place. Under this Clause, however, although the land has not been valued for taxation in either the first quinquennium or the second quinquennium, the Government can come down on a man and say he is liable not merely to pay the tax, but to pay all the arrears of the tax for those six years when he believed he was free of the tax.

In asking for six years' assessment, the Government are asking for something which is not justified, and for which there is no reason, because if their valuations are properly carried out, they ought to know each five years whether land comes within the scope of this Bill or whether it is outside, and the only reason I can see for the Government asking for these very drastic powers is that they are perfectly well aware that they cannot carry out their valuations in the time at their disposal, and that when the tax first comes into operation in 1934, only a small proportion of the valuation will be completed. They are uncertain whether the valuation will be completed within five years. In the second quinquennium a great deal of land will be unvalued, and the only possible hope of recovering what the Chancellor hopes to get is to make this tax retrospective in some cases for six years, and so tax the unfortunate landowners or purchasers for what is really a sin of omission on the part of the Government.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham)

I listened carefully to the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member, but I think that the facts relating to this part of the Bill are tolerably clear. This matter was considered by the Royal Commission on Income Tax in 1919, and hon. Members will recall that up to 1923 the period following the year of assessment in which an additional assessment might be made for Income Tax was limited to three years. The Committee will allow me to say, in passing, that I was a member of this Commission, so I am familiar with this part of the controversy. In 1923, very largely on the recommendations of the Royal Commission, this period was extended to six years. I should like to read a few sentences from the report of that Royal Commission which, I think, go very near to the essence of this case. The Royal Commission said: Under-assessment is generally the result of some error or omission on the part of the taxpayer, and the discovery of this omission by the revenue authorities, is often a matter of time and chance. That will not be seriously disputed. Whereas the information may be presumed to be in the hands of the taxpayer all the while, it may happen that the error is not discovered until the three years time limit is passed, and then it is too late for the Commissioners to put the matter right. All that the proposal in this part of the Bill does is to bring the time limit for the purposes of assessment and recovery into line with the ordinary Income Tax practice in this country. I can well imagine that hon. Members may say that after the lapse of six years there would be a difficulty in knowing what the valuation was six years before. They might also suggest that it was rather hard on a taxpayer as regards land value under this Bill to be called upon to make a payment after the lapse of that time. I do not think that these contentions can be maintained, because, after all, the real point is liability to the tax. The information is, generally speaking, in the hands of the taxpayer, but only comes to the revenue authorities by chance or late in the day, and it would be unfair to relieve taxpayers who have been in that position from this burden to which all other taxpayers have been exposed.

I am more impressed with the point that the hon. and gallant Member took as to the position of land which had been subject to a sale or transfer during that period, and it was discovered later that the land was subject under the six years period to a tax. Of course, one would assume that before a sale of that kind was completed, there would be very full inquiry by the purchaser as to possible liability to Land Tax, and I should say off-hand, without committing myself, that it should be possible to get a definite statement to that effect from either the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or some other source. This point, I admit, is worth consideration. If I may say so without lack of respect to the case which the hon. and gallant Gentleman put, I think that it is the only part of his case which will call for a little further investigation before the Report stage. As regards the rest, I see no reason for departing from the terms of the Clause. While I make no promise on behalf of the Government, I will certainly look into the point as to what would happen where there had been a transfer or sale of property during that period.

Sir B. MERRIMAN

What the President of the Board of Trade has just said goes to the heart of the matter. There are two quite distinct points here. One is the mere question of the length of time to which an assessment can be made retrospective. Of course, I assume the answer to that would be that this was bringing the Bill into line with ordinary Income Tax practice. The other point is bound up with it, and is of vital importance. It is whether you can carry retrospectively over six years, or even for one year, a charge in respect of the Land Tax as against the purchaser for value without notice. I hope that the Solicitor-General will deal with this point. The President of the Board of Trade has said that he will give the matter his careful consideration. May I point out that there is on the next page of the Order Paper an Amendment which is designed to deal with this very point?

The matter arises in this way. In 1925 Parliament passed a series of Acts relating to the law of property. One of the cardinal features of those Acts was that when a purchaser got a title in accordance with the provisions of the Act from the Land Registry, he got something which was absolutely clear and against which no charge which had not been notified on the register could prevail. So strongly was this laid down by Parliament that it was made to apply even to the charge for Estate Duties—to a charge registered as a class "D" charge—and if a purchaser bought in the absence of any such registration and notice thereof—because that is the only way in which the purchaser can satisfy himself of the existence of the charge—even the Estate Duties did not come in. I am not putting it in technical language, but giving the substance with reasonable accuracy. Unless provision is made to equate the charge for these duties with the charge for Estate Duties, the result might quite conceivably be—in fact, will inevitably be—that a purchaser for value in this year of grace, with no notice of any charge at all, with no obligation on the part of the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue to give any indication of any possibility of a charge, and with no knowledge on the part of the seller of the property that any charge is intended, may find himself five or six years hence the subject of a charge which cuts right across the value he paid for his property. Will the Solicitor-General tell us whether he is prepared to accept the following Amendment—In page 15, line 28, at the end, to insert a new Sub-section: (8) A charge for the tax may he registered under the Land Charges Act, 1925, as a land charge of class D, as if it were a charge for death duties, or, in the case of land, the title to which is registered under the Land Registration Act, 1925, may be protected by registering, pursuant to Subsection (2) of Section fifty-nine of that Act, a notice, caution, or other prescribed entry, and where a charge in respect of the tax is not so registered or protected before the end of the year of charge, a purchaser or other person who acquires an interest in or charge on the legal estate for money or money's worth after the end of the year of charge, shall take free from the charge. Provided that, in the case of land the title to which is registered as aforesaid, such interest or charge be acquired by registered disposition, as defined by the Land Registration Act, 1925, and Section seventy-three of that Act shall not apply to a charge for the tax. If the Government do not accept it, they will not have begun to deal with the difficulty which will confront purchasers for value. This proposal of the Bill cuts right across the principle, which it was thought had been established for all time, of making the State register the test of the safety of the investigations of title.

Mr. O'CONNOR

I do not wish to pursue the point which my hon. and learned Friend has put with such clarity, but I would like to ask what is the justification for the Government, in effect, requiring as long a time as six years? The argument put forward by the President of the Board of Trade, and accepted by my hon. and learned Friend, is that it is to secure uniformity with the Income Tax system, but surely this is not on the same footing. It may very well be that the remarks which the President of the Board of Trade read out are strictly applicable to anybody whose own information is the basis of the tax put upon him, but that would not be the case here at all. The valuation will be made by people who have knowledge of the neighbouring hereditaments, and it is upon the basis of the neighbouring hereditaments that the valuation will be arrived at. It is more the value of the hereditaments in the neighbourhood of the unit than the unit itself which will determine the valuation upon which the tax is to be levied. That information is essentially in the possession of the valuers and the Government Department carrying out the valuation, but it is not in the possession of the person who is the owner of the unit.

There is an entire difference in the considerations which prevail in the case of Income Tax assessments, where the main information is supplied by the individual, and an assessment which takes place by a Department upon information which is in the possession of the Department and not in the possession of the individual. It is not relevant to argue that we are seeking to bring the basis of the method into relation with Income Tax methods. Further, what earthly hope is there of a valuer in the case of a rapidly developing area saying what the value was six years previously? Take the case of a small township which develops upon an arterial road. It was agricultural land six years ago, and what person in the world can say, except by the roughest possible guess, what the value was then? For those two reasons I submit that the period of six years is far too long, and the Government ought not to be misled by the false analogy of the Income Tax procedure.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) has put perfectly clearly most of what I wanted to say. The proposed tax is a totally different tax from the Income Tax. The owner of a small piece of land may assume that he is not going to be liable to tax. He may even have taken expert advice on the subject, and have been told that he is not liable to tax, and yet some years afterwards it may turn out that, according to the Government valuers, the property is liable to tax. In that case I refer only to an instance of where the tax would be very low, where it was a question of whether the property was or was not of the value of £120; but take the case of a very valuable freehold property. There will be many cases where the amount of the tax will be subject to wide differences of opinion among experts. Everybody concerned may anticipate that the tax on this particular property will amount say to only £50 a year, but it may turn out that the Government are able to settle on a figure which makes the tax at least double. That shows the great difference there is between these cases and Income Tax cases, and surely 12 months ought to be a sufficient time in which the Government might make up their minds whether they are going to rule that a particular property is subject to the tax and, if so, how much it is to be. Six years ought not to be established as the period over which the Government can go back, at least until the tax has been in operation for a number of years, and has become a settled tax.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON

I have one question to ask the Solicitor-General, because I am in some doubt as to the true meaning of the provision. Let me say, first, to the President of the Board of Trade that I understand he does not contest the proposition that in case of a sale where there is a bona fide holder for value some further consideration will have to be given to this question. On that, head I only want to reinforce what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman) with regard to the Amendment which appears later on the Paper. Does this provision mean that the Commissioners may reopen the question by proceeding to value something which is not before them after the lapse of five years? If it has not been valued, that fact is due to the valuers having exercised their discretion. I have always taken a rather strong view about this exercise of discretion. We have not yet had an opportunity of raising the point, though I hpoe we shall have, of discussing whether this discretion should be given to the valuers, and I rather think I shall have the support of the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) in making some objection to that proposal. Is it not rather ridiculous, when valuers, exercising their discretion, have refused to value a particular bit of ground because they regarded it as exempt, to say that after five years the Commissioners are to be at liberty to revise that decision and to come down and value the land? That looks to be a case of having it both ways, and is the reverse of the analogy of the Income Tax Act quoted by the President of the Board of Trade. In this case it is manifest that there is no information in the possession of the subject which he is concealing from the Commissioners. The valuers have first decided not to value and then the Commissioners have reversed that decision.

My second comment is that, if that is the intention of the Government, I am not sure whether, in fact, they will be able to do it. In Sub-section (1) of Clause 13 I see that, for the purpose of assessment, the land value is to be taken as the value as shown by the entries in respect of that unit in force on 1st January in the year of charge. If my reading of that Sub-section is right, the Government can only value such units as are in the register on 1st January in the year of charge. If that is so, I do not see how the Solicitor-General is going to achieve his intention of reopening the question of the valuation and valuing something which has not been previously valued after the expiry of five years. Whether I am right in my point that the Commissioners may not be able to do that, I am perfectly clear in my own mind that to allow them to do it would be grossly wrong.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I quite agree that this Amendment raises a difficult point, and some of the arguments put forward have been very forcibly expressed. I will take the last point, put by the right hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson). It is not suggested that there could be any sort of general revaluation under this Clause. Of course, there would be nothing of the sort, but there might be cases where the assessment was very close to a valuation, in the same year as the beginning of the quinquennium, but that you might value when you had passed the quinquennium. That would be a very unlikely case to occur. We could not go back afterwards and say, "This which has been left out can come in" or "That which has been left in can come out." Certainly in the intermediate period we might put in some valuation.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON

I understand that unless a unit appears in the valuation register, neither in that year nor in any subsequent year can the owner be assessed.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

Not until the valuation is in the register. It may be that through some misunderstanding a unit which has a valuation in the register has not been assessed. It might be that someone went to a commissioner in regard to that particular piece of land and said, "This comes under the exemption." It might be found that it was not the property of the particular company assessed, and it might be a genuine mistake. This provision would enable that assessment to be dealt with. As far as I know, the provision in the Sub-section will not have any wider application. There might be a case where the wrong man has been assessed, and the question might arise whether he ought to have been assessed, and judgment might have been given in that case. In the case of the Income Tax, it often appears that the man has been wrongly assessed, and you have a reassessment. There might be cases in which a dispute has arisen and the commissioners are found to be wrong. It is to meet that type of case that this Clause has been drafted. In view of what has been said, I promise to look into this matter very carefully before the Report stage, and I think that will be a more convenient way of dealing with the point.

As regards the question of the charge, we do not see the matter quite in the same way as the hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman). I admit that in the case raised by the hon. and learned Member, the charge should be registered, but it is only a comparatively small amount of land which would be subjected to that charge. It is uncommon in the case of any piece of land there should be any such charge upon it, but it is essential that it should be registered. The other proposals deal with the commonest land in the country, and it would be assumed by everybody that the land in question should be subject to the charge. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rusholme will agree with me when I say that it would really be undesirable if immediately every assessment were made it had to be registered. Short of doing that, it would be impossible for the commissioners to ascertain whether it was likely that a man was going to sell his land or not, and, unless they had that information, they could not proceed. The real question would be, is it more convenient for everybody to assume generally that land is subject to that charge, or would it be more convenient for the commissioners to register the charge? It seems to me that the more convenient course would be to let everybody assume that that will be the case, and that they will be subject to the charge, and it should be the duty of those who want to know to make the inquiry as to whether the charge has been duly paid.

Sir B. MERRIMAN

Provided there is some obligation on the part of the officials to give notice that this is to be charged, then the purchaser would be informed. The trouble is that if you once admit the principle that when you register the charge, or give some equivalent notice on the register, you are permitting the transfer of property in respect of which a charge can be enforced retrospectively, you thereby cut across the whole of the scheme. I do not think that the Solicitor-General answered that point.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I think that that is something which, apart from notice, everyone will assume. Anyone who purchases land will know that all land units are subject to this charge, and it will not be necessary to give any further notice. It would be assumed in respect of every unit that if there has never been a valuation, that point is covered by the case with which I have already dealt. There may have been a mistake in some cases, and the tax may not have been levied on the right person, but the purchaser will still know how that unit stands in the register at the beginning of the quinquennium, which will make it liable to a tax, and all that a person who wants this information will have to do will be to look at the register which is to be kept by the local authority. By looking at that register, they will see whether the land is valued or not. Of course if the owner who is selling the land wilfully withholds information that is already dealt with, and the Committee need not trouble about that point. The register of the local authority is really the document which will disclose to everybody who wants to know whether there is a charge upon the land or not, and they can only find that out by inquiring from the vendors whether the valuation hag been properly made or not.

Earl WINTERTON

I understood the Solicitor-General to say that the amount of Estate Duty which has not been paid in such cases is always a comparatively small amount. I would like to ask if any computation has been made on that point, because I should have thought that the amount would have been a very large one.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I think the Noble Lord will find upon inquiry that this charge occurs in a very few units.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS

The President of the Board of Trade evidently thought that Ave have raised a case which requires very careful inquiry. I am very glad to have the admission of the Solicitor-General that it is quite possible that errors may be made in the valuation, and the hon. and learned Gentleman has given us an assurance that this point will be considered on the Report stage of the Bill. I would like to point out to the Solicitor-General that he has not touched upon the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). My hon. and gallant Friend said that the real injustice was in the case of the purchaser of a piece of land who was not aware that there was any charge upon it. Let us suppose the wrong man has been assessed, or the assessment cannot be recovered. In that case it is the innocent purchaser who has to suffer, and I think the President of the Board of Trade said that that was a grievance which he would look into. Nothing the Solicitor-General has said deals with the injustice done to the innocent person who buys the land without knowing that there is a charge upon it.

The Solicitor-General dealt with the point of view of the revenue and the State, and he asked why should it not be assumed that everybody would know that, there is a general valuation of all land, and that a man ought not to be such a fool as to enter into a bargain without considering that fact and ought to make inquiries from the revenue officers to get that assurance?

Has the President of the Board of Trade considered the enormous amount of labour involved upon the revenue officials, if inquiry of this kind is to be made every time land changes hands? They would have to go into 7.0 p.m. the valuation. Once again we have the spectacle of the Socialist Government championing the rights of the State and saying that everything should be assumed in favour of the State. When one reads the Bill as a whole, one sees the bureaucratic mind behind this Bill, and the increase of "The New Despotism." Look at Clause 23——

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico)

We are not now discussing Clause 23.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS

If you would listen to the conclusion of my argument, you would understand it was completely relevant. In Clause 23 the individual has the duty, if he sells or transfers a piece of land, to supply the revenue with most elaborate details about it. He has to do that for the State, but what does the State do for him? Nothing, says the Solicitor-General. Everything has to be assumed in favour of the State. The individual, whether a duke or a dustman selling the land upon which his dustbin is situated, has nothing done for him. The dustman would probably come within the grossly prejudiced exemption of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Take the case of a smallholding, of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is so enamoured, which is just over the borderline. If a smallholder transfers his piece of property, he has to supply the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the most elaborate details about the sale, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives him nothing in return. The Chancellor of the Exchequer presumes he ought to know every detail of this enormously complicated tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer can wait six years and then pounce upon this humble citizen, as well as upon the duke, whereas the land speculator, who has already made his profit, goes free.

There is a great deal in this Amendment which ought to cause the Government to pause before they pursue their purpose of making this period six years. The Solicitor-General, who often expresses a most extreme point of view in most moderate language, was not quite candid with the Committee. I believe he intends to have this period of six years unless reason and argument compel him to make this modification. He bases this long period upon the Income Tax, an entirely false analogy. The whole basis of going back six years in Income Tax is that the man has knowledge of his own income and it can be verified. If he conceals the truth, he can be guilty of fraud. This Clause covers an entirely different case, that of a man who buys property free of charge and has no means of finding out whether there is a charge or not unless he writes to the Revenue. The President of the Board of Trade refused to put State charges upon an equal footing with other charges by having them registered, and said it was impossible. It is only one more example of the difficulties the Government get into when they try to force upon the country an utterly inequitable system of taxation.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON

I am a little startled by some of the observations from the other side of the Committee, and that is why I intervene. I am going to be technical, and it is high time someone was technical on this matter. The whole question of conveyancing in this country was thought to be in need of radical revision and, as a result of years of labour, the Real Property Act, 1925, introduced a system under which land is assumed to be free of charge. It was thought that that asumption would render land more readily transferable, and that the expenses of a transfer would be cheaper. The result is that we are to-day in the comparatively simple position that land, when it is offered for sale, is assumed to be uncharged land and that you can know, by the simple expedient of getting an official search from the land registry, whether that is right or wrong.

I deprecate entirely the suggestion from the Solicitor-General that we should commence to make an exception to that general rule, which is beginning to work very well, although there has been a disposition in some quarters to be a little obstructive with regard to some of the provisions of the Act of 1925. To start again with exceptions would be an extremely retrograde step. This policy was adopted to facilitate and cheapen the transfer of land and I have no doubt that, if we stick to the system adopted in 1925, we shall eventually achieve that object. It was because I heard the suggestion made that some new assumption was to be put into this Bill, and because I thought that that was really going back on the legislation of 1925, that I have intervened. I hope that, when the President of the Board of Trade and my hon. and learned Friend come to examine this Sub-section, they will bear that in mind.

There is one other point to which I take exception. The President of the Board of Trade has told us that it will be perfectly possible to go to the Revenue Department when a sale of land is taking place, and inquire whether there is to be an assessment or not. I must point out that it would not have the smallest effect on the legal right of the Revenue if the answer were that there was no charge and that there was not going to be an assessment. Notwithstanding that, the Revenue could the very next day with perfect propriety say that nobody could give away the legal right of the Revenue where a tax was due and that, though they were very sorry for the purchaser, they must nevertheless make the assessment. In those circumstances, the point of hardship raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) would immediately occur. It seems to me to be a grave point, if we are to make this legislation, that we should be at great pains to see that somebody, who is not in the least responsible, is not ultimately made to pay a tax for which he was not in the least liable. I hope that all these matters will be adequately examined when the President of the Board of Trade and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite come to implement their promise.

Mr. O'CONNOR

The Solicitor-General in effect said that this Sub-section was needed to deal with slips or oversights, but the Sub-section, as drafted, goes a good deal further and might cover the kind of case which the Amendment is designed to prevent it covering. Incidentally, the statement of the Solicitor-General that it is designed only to cover slips shows how false is the analogy with the six years of the Income Tax, which is in force for the purpose of preventing fraud. Between now and the Report stage, will he consider the possibility of introducing some limiting words to make it clear that this Sub-section is to deal with mistakes and oversights and is not intended to give a general right to review assessments?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I will certainly consider very carefully the whole position with regard to this subject.

Question put, "That the words 'six years' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 230.

Division No. 306.]	AYES.	[7.13 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Groves, Thomas E.	Middleton, G.
Adamson, w. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Grundy, Thomas W.	Mills, J. E.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Milner, Major J.
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Montague, Frederick
Alpass, J. H.	Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)	Morgan Dr. H. B.
Ammon, Charles George	Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)	Morley, Ralph
Angell, Sir Norman	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)	Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Arnott, John	Hardie, David (Rutherglen)	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Aske, Sir Robert	Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Harris, Percy A.	Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Ayles, Walter	Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Mort, D. L.
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Hayes, John Henry	Muff, G.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Muggeridge, H. T.
Barnes, Alfred John	Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)	Murnin, Hugh
Barr, James	Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)	Nathan, Major H. L.
Batey, Joseph	Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)	Naylor, T. E.
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Herriotts, J.	Noel Baker, P. J.
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)	Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk N.)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Oldfield, J. R.
Benson, G.	Hoffman, P. C.	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Hopkin, Daniel	Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Blindell, James	Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	Hunter, Dr. Joseph	Palin, John Henry
Bowen, J. W.	Isaacs, Georgs	Paling, Wilfrid
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Jenkins, Sir William	Palmer, E. T.
Broad, Francis Alfred	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Brockway, A. Fenner	Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Perry, S. F.
Bromfield, William	Jones, Llewellyn-, F.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Bromley, J.	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Phillips, Dr. Marion
Brooke, W.	Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)	Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Pole, Major D. G.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)	Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Potts, John S
Buchanan, G.	Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)	Price, M. P.
Burgess, F. G.	Kelly, W. T.	Pybus, Percy John
Buxton. C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Quibell, D. J. K.
Caine, Hall-, Derwent	Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Cameron, A. G.	Kinley, J.	Rathbone, Eleanor
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Knight, Holford	Raynes, W. R.
Chater, Daniel	Lang, Gordon	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Church. Major A. G.	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Clarke, J. S.	Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)	Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Cluse, W. S.	Law, Albert (Bolton)	Ritson, J.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Law, A. (Rossendale)	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Lawrence, Susan	Romerll, H. G.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)	Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)	Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Compton, Joseph	Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)	Rothschild, J. de
Cove, William G.	Leach, W.	Rowson, Guy
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Daggar, George	Lees, J.	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Dallas, George	Leonard, W.	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Dalton, Hugh	Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea. West)
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)	Lindley, Fred W.	Sanders, W. S.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)	Lloyd, C. Ellis	Sandham, E.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Logan, David Gilbert	Sawyer, G. F.
Day, Harry	Longbottom, A. W.	Scott, James
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Longden, F.	Sexton, Sir James
Duncan, Charles	Lovat-Fraser, J. A.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Ede, James Chuter	Lunn, William	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Edmunds, J. E.	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Sherwood, G. H.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	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, Herbert (Gateshead)	McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)	Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Foot, Isaac,	McKinlay, A.	Sinkinson, George
Freeman, Peter	MacLaren, Andrew	Sitch, Charles H.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)	MacNeill-Weir, L.	Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	McShane, John James	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)	Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)	Mander, Geoffrey le M.	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Gill, T. H.	Manning, E. L.	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Gillett, George M.	Mansfield, W.	Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Glassey, A. E.	March, S.	Sorensen, R.
Gossling, A. G,	Marcus, M.	Stamford, Thomas W.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Markham, S. F.	Stephen, Campbell
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)	Marley, J.	Strauss, G. R.
Gray, Mllner	Marshall, Fred	Sullivan, J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).	Mathers, George	Sutton, J. E.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Matters, L. W.	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)	Maxton, James	Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Messer, Fred	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

Thorne, W. (West Ham Plaistow)	Watkins, F. C.	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llaneily)
Thurtle, Ernest	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Tillett, Ben	Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Tinker, John Joseph	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Toole, Joseph	Wellock, Wilfred	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Tout, W. J.	Welsh, James (Paisley)	Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	West, F. R.	Wise, E. F.
Vaughan, David	Westwood, Joseph	Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Vlant. S. P.	White, H. G.	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Walkden, A. G.	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Walker, J.	Wilkinson, Ellen C.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Wallace, H. W.	Williams, David (Swansea, East)	Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey	Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Albery, Irving James	Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)	Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Davies, Dr. Vernon	Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Llewellin, Major J. J.
Astor, Viscountess	Dawson, Sir Philip	Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Atholl, Duchess of	Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Atkinson, C.	Dugdale, Capt. T. L.	Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Baillie-Hamilton. Hon. Charles W.	Eden, Captain Anthony	Long, Major Hon. Eric
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Lymington, Viscount
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Elliot, Major Walter E.	McConnell, Sir Joseph
Balniel, Lord	England, Colonel A.	Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Beaumont, M. W.	Everard, W. Lindsay	Macquisten, F. A.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Ferguson, Sir John	Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)	Fermoy, Lord	Margesson, Captain H. D.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Fielden, E. B.	Marjoribanks, Edward
Bird, Ernest Roy	Fison, F. G. Clavering	Meller, R. J.
Boothby, R. J. G.	Ford, Sir P. J.	Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.	Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.	Clavering, J. F. W.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Boyce, Leslie	Ganzonl, Sir John	Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Bracken, B.	Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Briscoe, Richard George	Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)	Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Broadbent, Colonel J.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Muirhead, A. J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Gower, Sir Robert	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Buchan, John	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	O'Connor, T. J.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	O'Neill, Sir H.
Buckingham, Sir H.	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Bullock, Captain Malcolm	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Peake, Capt, Osbert
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	Penny, Sir George
Butler, R. A.	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Butt, Sir Alfred	Gritten, W. G. Howard	Perkins, W. R. D.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Campbell, E. T.	Gunston, Captain D. W-	Power, Sir John Cecil
Carver, Major W. H.	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Pownall, Sir Assheton
Castle Stewart, Earl of	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Ramsbotham, H.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Hanbury, C.	Reid, David D. (County Down)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Remer, John R.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Chapman, Sir S.	Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)	Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Christie, J. A.	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hore-Bellsha, Leslie	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel	Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.	Salmon, Major I.
Colfox, Major William Philip	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Colman, N. C. D.	Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Coiville, Major D. J.	Hurd, Percy A.	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Conway, Sir W. Martin	Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Cooper, A. Duff	Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.	Savery, S. S.
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Inskp, Sir Thomas	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Skelton, A. N.
Cowan, D. M.	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Cranborne, Viscount	Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Knox, Sir Alfred	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.	Lamb, Sir J. Q.	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)	Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)	Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Dalkeith, Earl of	Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)	Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.	Warrender, Sir Victor	Womersley, W. J.
Thompson, Luke	Waterhouse, Captain Charles	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Thomson, Sir F.	Wayland, Sir William A.	Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.	Wells, Sydney R.	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Todd, Capt. A. J.	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Train, J.	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George	Major the Marquess of Titchfield
Turton, Robert Hugh	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl	and Captain Euan Wallace.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon	Withers, Sir John James

Colonel LANE FOX

I beg to move, in page 15, line 13, to leave out the word "thirty," and to insert instead thereof the word "forty-two."

This Amendment is self-explanatory, and I understand that the Government are likely to consider it favourably.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Government are prepared to accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir T. INSKIP

I beg to move, in page 15, line 23, to leave out from the word "shall," to the word "be," in line 25.

This Amendment proposes to leave out the words: notwithstanding any pending objection or appeal which may affect the assessment thereof.

Its effect would be that a taxpayer would be liable for the tax in the event of the assessment being final and complete and effective upon him but that, if he thinks that he has an objection, which is supported by a valid notice of objection, and if the matter is pending before the proper tribunal, the taxpayer shall not be liable to pay the tax. I venture to think that that is consonant with most people's idea of justice, especially in connection with a tax of this character, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will be prepared to accept the Amendment. I can imagine that he may possibly take an illustration from the Income Tax Acts, which make a taxpayer liable to pay his Income Tax notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal as to the assessment, either as to liability or as to amount; but it by no means follows, in my judgment, that what is good under the Income Tax laws is good for this tax, and it seems to be an elementary act of justice towards the taxpayer that, if as must often happen in the case of a novel tax, he is eventually found not to be liable for the tax assessed upon him, he shall not be called upon to pay.

The Bill does not contain any provision for repayment to the taxpayer of the amount in which he is mulcted, with interest at 4 per cent. or any other appropriate rate. The Bill is a question of "heads I win, tails you lose." I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will agree that, in the case of a tax which is not merely burdensome, but is intricate and likely to be administered with some considerable difficulty, in spite of the way in which the Solicitor-General has treated the matter, it is reasonable that the taxpayer shall not be compelled to pay the money until it has been finally ascertained by the responsible authorities that he is liable for it. I hope that the Solicitor-General will meet this Amendment with the gratitude to us for moving it which it deserves.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I am afraid that this is an Amendment which the Government could not possibly accept, in spite of the invitation which my hon. and learned Friend has extended to me, in rather less ferocious words than those in which he addressed an earlier invitation to me this afternoon. The reason why we are not able to accept the Amendment is, of course, one that is well known to everyone who is acquainted with the branch of the law to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred. It is that a large number of people will do anything to delay the payment of tax. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Let them get on with it," but that is not a very helpful way of administering an Act of Parliament. If the collection of a tax is to be a really practicable matter, it is essential that there should be this provision, and it has been found to be essential in other ways.

The position otherwise would be that every possible device of appeal could be used, by someone who really had no merits at all, in order to stave off the time when the tax would become payable. That is a thing which I am sure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would not approve of, and which they would not desire to see under any Act of Parliament imposing a tax. Cases in which there are genuine appeals, and cases in which orders for repayment are made, are, of course, dealt with in Subsection (8), under which the Commissioners have to make such repayments as are necessitated by Orders of the Court where it has been decided that the assessments have been wrongly made. I am sure the Committee will appreciate that there cannot really be any hardship under this provision, but that, on the other hand, it is an essential feature of the efficient collection of a tax. I regret, therefore, that it will be impossible to allow this alteration to be made. It would only lead to endless litigation, brought about, not because of its merits, but simply because it was delaying tactics to stave off the day when the tax should be paid.

Major LLEWELLIN

I am certain that a large number of us regret the attitude that the Solicitor-General has taken up. It always seems to me that you should have the same provision between the Crown and the subject as you have between the subject and the subject. It is the normal course in the courts of law that, when there is an appeal, there is a stay of execution or judgment. The Solicitor-General has said there will be no hardship at all. He contemplates, therefore, when he denies us this Amendment, that there will be some delay other apparently, than the 42 days that are allowed before the referees can deal with the matter. Surely the Solicitor-General is entirely wrong, because people may have had to pay a very considerable sum in taxation before the appeal is brought and they may be kept waiting for a considerable time thereafter for repayment. If that is not so, the Solicitor-General's arguments for refusing the Amendment are quite invalid, because the appeals will be dealt with in such a short period of time that there will be no additional time to speak of that the Government itself will have to wait.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to Sub-section (8) of this Clause, but there is a Very clear distinction between the liability of the Commissioners and the liability of the subject. The Commissioners have no particular period in which they have to repay this money at all, but you are making the wretched taxpayer pay up at once. He may have his money lying idle for some considerable time and there is no time in which he can demand it back from the Commissioners even if the appeal is ultimately successful, and no interest is payable on it. The Commissioners, therefore, can delay as long as they like without any penalty whatever. It shows that the whole Bill has been drafted with the Treasury point of view in mind and with no concern whatever for the taxpayer. I had hoped that they might have favourably considered the Amendment and shown that in some cases they have at heart the interest of the ordinary man in the street who will have to pay the tax.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON

I think my right hon. Friend has made out an overwhelming case for the Amendment. The Solicitor-General's only reply is that it would add to the mass of litigation and that it is a course which might be pursued by many subjects who wish to delay the payment of the tax. The delay which they can hope to get by the process of appealing is comparatively short. While it is true that in any given year the amount of tax may be small, what is being settled for the subject will very often be the whole liability to tax for a long period of years. I want to make this suggestion. Would the Solicitor-General be prepared to provide that, where money was paid by the subject and an appeal was entered and succeeded, the Commissioners should refund the money with interest at 5 per cent. to the date of payment? That is an acid test of the bona fides of the Government. In any event, I hope my hon. Friend will persist with the Amendment and will go to a Division.

Major DAVIES

The Solicitor-General has been so fair on the whole in his conduct of this complicated Measure that I am surprised that he has refused to accept the Amendment, because the Clause as it stands seems so essentially unfair. The subject might be compelled, possibly at great inconvenience, to say nothing of loss, to realise his possessions in order to pay the tax. He might have to sell something that he did not want to sell, at an inconvenient time, in order to produce money to which it was subsequently proved the State was not entitled. The Solicitor-General is framing his net with such small meshes, in order to catch certain evil fish, that he is going to get very large numbers of very good fishes, and that is fundamentally unfair to the taxpayer. I cannot see that the State will lose anything by it. We pride ourselves on the speed with which legal proceedings are carried through to a conclusion as compared with certain other countries, and, while there may be some who would take advantage of a loophole in order to postpone payment of a legal obligation, to leave the Clause unaltered is more unfair to the taxpayer than it would be to the State to make the Amendment.

My right hon. Friend has made a suggestion with regard to the running of interest. There is a very fair provision in operation in America. You are compelled to pay your tax on a certain date, even under protest, but, if on appeal it is found that you have overpaid, the State refunds the overpayment plus interest at 5 per cent. and, if you have underpaid, you pay 5 per cent. on the amount. I see no reason why something of that sort, fair to the Exchequer and to the taxpayer, might not be incorporated, but to provide that the taxpayer has to find the money within 28 days when it is proved that he had no reason to have done so is monstrously unfair. If this mutual provision can be made, there is no loss to anyone and, by accepting the Amendment, or perhaps bringing forward a modified form of words on Report, the Government will be rectifying what is a very unfair position as it now stands.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL

Unfortunately, it is impossible to put in a reciprocal Amendment owing to the scope of the Financial Resolution. That would be putting an extra charge over and above a d, tax. Had that been a possibility, there would certainly have been something to be said for the proposal to have interest charged on both sides. It is obvious, however, that, unless the taxpayer is going to pay 5 per cent. interest in every case as from the date the money falls due to the Crown—that anyone who was two months late would have to pay two months' interest at 5 per cent., which I do not think would be welcomed by taxpayers generally—it would be quite unfair to make a one-sided arrangement by which only the Crown pays. The right hon. Gentleman's reciprocal arrangement is logical, if complicated and difficult to carry out, but a one-sided arrangement would obviously be quite unfair.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON

This would only apply where the taxpayer has appealed and the courts find that the money ought never to have been paid. It seams to me that there is the strongest claim to interest.

Mr. TURTON

I am rather surprised at the Solicitor-General's attitude. He seems to regard this as a new principle, but it is already in our law. Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, provides that interest should be charged where there has been overpayment and the subject is being put at a disadvantage through the case being delayed. There have been many eases where interest has been allowed at 4½ per cent. and 5 per cent. I hope before Report the Solicitor-General will introduce a Clause embodying this principle and allowing the court to grant interest in addition to repayment of the amount overpaid.

Captain CAZALET

It would seem from the observations of the Solicitor-General as to the difficulty of accepting the suggestion that it would be far better for the Government to accept the original Amendment. As I understand it, the procedure embodied in the Clause makes the same conditions apply to the payment of the new tax as apply to-day in regard to Income Tax. Surely the Solicitor-General is wrong in thinking that these two taxes are comparable. This is a completely new tax and the conditions are entirely different. In regard to Income Tax, it is merely a question of establishing a number of facts, but, in trying to estimate these taxes, various speculative considerations will have to be introduced. From the experience of my legal friends, I understand that there is hardly a single valuation that remains the same after it has stood the test of cross-examination. The Solicitor-General says it will delay payment to a very great extent, but individuals, if they can help it, have no desire to go to law. It is an expensive process and the sum involved may be small. After one case has been settled—there will be a large number of identical cases—other people in a similar position will either have to pay or not have to pay, as the case may be. Therefore, in the end it may, in many cases, save the Government a great deal of trouble. If a, case of a certain nature goes against the Government they will have to make repayments in a large number of cases, and, it may be, in very small amounts, causing a great deal of trouble. No one desires to take cases to law, and as soon as one case is settled a large number of other cases will fall into line, and there will be very little delay in the Government getting whatever is their due in this matter. The Amendment, on the face of it, speaking as one who is not a lawyer, is very reasonable, and it is one which in justice and fairness the Government might very well accept.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT

The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) has asked a question which all who remember the legislation of 1910 will be able to answer. Such a provision as that for which hon. Members opposite now ask was contained in that legislation. What was the result? The courts were flooded with cases which stretched out month after month, and in some cases into years, and the result was the tax could not be collected at all. That is the real answer to the Amendment, which, on the face of it, has merits. It seems to square with our notions of justice, and but for the experience of 1910 no doubt the present Government would have listened to it. Those who are familiar with that legislation will remember that it had the effect of staying payment in numerous cases, and that such was the condition of business in the courts, that decisions were delayed month after month, and for very long periods. It is now common knowledge that it was that general treatment of the Statute which finally led to confusion and prolonged delay. For that reason, this is an Amendment which the Government can properly resist.

Captain GUNSTON

I am sure that we are very grateful, now that the learned Solicitor-General has left the House, that the Government have the advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight). I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give us the Treasury view rather than the legal view. I am informed that in many cases the appeals mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham were eventually settled in favour of the claimant as against the Crown. That being so, I do not think that his argument was applicable at that point, because those people had not delayed payment of cash, but had justified their case.

Mr. KNIGHT

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that, pending a decision over settlement, no payment could be obtained and that it had a serious effect upon the collection of taxation?

Captain GUNSTON

I understand that though no payment could be obtained in the vast majority of the cases, no payment ought ever to be made. It does not strike me that there was much injustice done. This is a rather different case from ordinary Income Tax. In the case of ordinary Income Tax you know what the tax is going to be; it has been going on for a great number of years. This is a new tax and a capital tax, and consequently it makes the position much more difficult. I realise the Treasury argument in regard to ordinary Income Tax. You must get the money in quickly, as you have to balance your Budget. This tax is not going to be collected for some years, when, possibly, it may not be as necessary to get the money in as quickly as is the case to-day. Having regard to all the circumstances, the complexities and difficulties which are going to be placed upon the taxpayer, the Treasury might take a generous view and at any rate try to meet the objection put forward from this side, if not now, at a later stage.

Captain CAZALET

Has not the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight), in referring to the cases in 1910, taken into account the very large number of appeals that were made and the number of decisions given against the Crown, and are not these main arguments in support of the Amendment as showing how difficult it is to get a just valuation and a settlement?

Mr. KNIGHT

The experience of that legislation shows that considerable sums of money in the aggregate could not be collected because they depended upon decisions which could not be obtained owing to the glut of cases in the courts. I surmise—I am not in the confidences of the Government—that in framing the Bill the Government took advantage of that experience and that they desire in the Bill to avoid the difficulties which accrued under the old legislation.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 282; Noes, 210.

Division No. 307.]	AYES.	[7.53 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Gillett, George M.	McKinlay, A.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Glassey, A. E.	Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Gossling, A. G.	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.	Gould, F.	MacNeill-Weir, L.
Alpass, J. H.	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	McShane, John James
Ammon, Charles George	Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)	Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Angell, Sir Norman	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)	Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Arnott, John	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Manning, E. L.
Aske, Sir Robert	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Mansfield, W.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Groves, Thomas E.	March, S.
Ayles, Walter	Grundy, Thomas W.	Marcus, M.
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Markham, S. F.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Marley, J.
Barnes, Alfred John	Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)	Marshall, Fred
Barr, James	Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)	Mathers, George
Batey, Joseph	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)	Matters, L. W.
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Hardie, David (Rutherglen)	Maxton, James
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)	Messer, Fred
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Harris, Percy A.	Middleton, G.
Benson, G.	Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Mills, J. E.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Hayes, John Henry	Milner, Major J.
Blindell, James	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Montague, Frederick
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)	Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Bowen, J. W.	Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)	Morley, Ralph
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)	Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Broad, Francis Alfred	Herriotts, J.	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Brockway, A. Fenner	Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Bromfield, William	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Bromley, J.	Hoffman, P. C.	Mort, D. L.
Brooke, W.	Hopkin, Daniel	Muff, G.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Muggeridge, H. T.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Hunter, Dr. Joseph	Murnin, Hugh
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)	Isaacs, George	Nathan, Major H. L.
Buchanan, G.	Jenkins, Sir William	Naylor, T. E.
Burgess, F. G.	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Noel Baker, P. J.
Burgin, Dr. E. L.	Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)	Jones, Llewellyn-, F.	Oldfield, J. R.
Caine, Hall-, Derwent	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Cameron, A. G.	Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)	Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Charleton, H. C.	Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Chater, Daniel	Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)	Palin, John Henry
Church, Major A. G.	Kelly, W. T.	Palmer, E. T.
Clarke, J. S.	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Cluse, W. S.	Kenworthy. Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Perry, S. F.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Kinley, J.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)	Knight, Holford	Phillips, Dr. Marion
Compton, Joseph	Lang, Gordon	Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Cove, William G.	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Pole, Major D. G.
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)	Potts, John S.
Daggar, George	Law, Albert (Bolton)	Price, M. P.
Dallas, George	Law, A. (Rossendale)	Pybus, Percy John
Dalton, Hugh	Lawrence, Susan	Quibell, D. J. K.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)	Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)	Ramsay, T. A. Wilson
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)	Rathbone, Eleanor
Day, Harry	Leach, W.	Raynes, W. R.
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Duncan, Charles	Lees, J.	Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Ede, James Chuter	Leonard, W.	Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Edmunds, J. E.	Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Ritson, J.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)	Lindley, Fred W.	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Egan, W. H.	Lloyd, C. Ellis	Romerll, H. G.
Elmley, Viscount	Logan, David Gilbert	Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Evans, Herbert (Gateshead)	Longbottom, A. W.	Rowson, Guy
Foot, Isaac	Longden, F.	Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Freeman, Peter	Lovat-Fraser, J. A.	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	Lunn, William	Samuel. Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Sanders, W. S.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Sandham, E.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)	McElwee, A.	Sawyer, G. F.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)	McEntee, V. L.	Scott, James
Gill, T. H.	McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)	Sexton, Sir James
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)	Sullivan, J.	Welsh, James (Paisley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis	Sutton, J. E.	West, F. R.
Sherwood, G. H.	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)	Westwood, Joseph
Shield, George William	Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)	White, H. G.
Shillaker, J. F.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)	Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Simmons, C. J.	Thurtle, Ernest	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)	Tillett, Ben	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Sinkinson, George	Tinker, John Joseph	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Sitch, Charles H.	Toole, Joseph	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)	Tout, W. J.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Altercliffe)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)	Vaughan, David	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)	Viant, S. P.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Smith, Tom (pontefract)	Walkden, A. G.	Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)	Walker, J.	Wise, E. F.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip	Wallace, H. W.	Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)	Watkins, F. C.	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Sorensen, R.	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Stamford, Thomas W.	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Stephen, Campbell	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.
Strauss, G. R.	Wellock, Wilfred	Paling.
NOES.
Albery, Irving James	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)	Dawson, Sir Philip	Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Astor, Viscountess	Dugdale, Capt. T. L.	Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Atholl, Duchess of	Eden, Captain Anthony	Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Atkinson, C.	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Llewellin, Major J. J.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)	Elliot, Major Walter E.	Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	England, Colonel A.	Long, Major Hon. Eric
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Lymington, Viscount
Balniel, Lord	Everard, W. Lindsay	McConnell, Sir Joseph
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Beaumont, M. W.	Ferguson, Sir John	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon	Fermoy, Lord	Macquisten, F. A.
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Fielden, E. B.	Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)	Fison, F. G. Clavering	Margesson, Captain H. D.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Ford, Sir P. J.	Marjoribanks, Edward
Bird, Ernest Roy	Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	Millar, J. D.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Galbraith, J. F. W.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.	Ganzonl, Sir John	Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Boyce, Leslie	Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Bracken, B.	Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)	Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Broadbent, Colonel J.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Muirhead, A. J.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Gower, Sir Robert	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Buckingham, Sir H.	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Butler, R. A.	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	O'Connor, T. J.
Butt, Sir Alfred	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	O'Neill, Sir H.
Campbell, E. T.	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Carver, Major W. H.	Gritten, W. G. Howard	Peake, Capt, Osbert
Castle Stewart, Earl of	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Perkins, W. R. D.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Power, Sir John Cecil
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Hanbury, C.	Pownall, Sir Assheton
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Hartington, Marquess of	Ramsbotham, H.
Chapman, Sir S.	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Reid, David D. (County Down)
Christie, J. A.	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Remer, John R,
Clydesdale, Marquess of	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Colfox, Major William Philip	Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)
Colman, N. C. D.	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Colville, Major D. J.	Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.	Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Conway, Sir W. Martin	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Cooper, A. Duff	Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Hurd, Percy A.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Cowan, D. M.	Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Salmon, Major I.
Cranborne, Viscount	Inksip, Sir Thomas	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)	Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)	Savery, S. S.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Dalkeith, Earl of	Knox, Sir Alfred	Skelton, A. N.
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey	Lamb, Sir J. O	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)	Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.)

Smith-Carington, Neville W.	Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)	Todd, Capt. A. J.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)	Train, J.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Southby, Commander A. R. J.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement	Withers, Sir John James
Spender-Clay, Colonel H	Turton, Robert Hugh	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon	Womersley, W. J.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)	Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Steet-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert	Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavst'k)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)	Warrender, Sir Victor	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Thompson, Luke	Wayland, Sir William A.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Thomson, Sir F.	Wells, Sydney R.	Sir George Penny and Major the
		Marquess of Titchfield.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I beg to move, in page 15, line 27, to leave out the word "charge," and to insert instead thereof the word "rent-charge."

This Amendment, together with that one in the next line, to add the words: "Having priority of all other charges and assessments thereon," was drafted by a late Member of this House, Dr. Dundas White, and he alleges that it is essential, if the Crown is to have the advantage of the provisions made in Section 121 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, that great consolidating Statute which was passed by the late Lord Birkenhead, that we must have the word "rentcharge" in the Clause. Section 121 of the Law of Property Act deals with "rent charges" and the special methods of recovery of rent charges, but there is nothing in the Act dealing with the special recovery of charges. That is left to the ordinary law, but rent charges have the advantage of this special treatment. I need not go into the special advantages, which are involved in taking possession and dealing with the property, etc. The main thing is, that the State in collecting the tax on land values should have a prior charge to any mortgage or any other debt secured on that property.

I am not a lawyer, and I do not know what the situation is as concerns other taxes, but here is a tax which is definitely a charge on the property, and it should be made perfectly clear that it is a State charge on the land and that it has priority over other charges of a private nature. Let me, give tithe as an illustration. Tithe has advantage under the Law of Property Act. I should regard it as being highly improper that the State should have a prior charge over the State when collecting their dues on property. [HON. MBMBEES: "Why?"] Because the State is more important that the Church, and in my opinion should remain so. If the Government have not considered this Amendment I hope that they will do so before the Report stage, so that we may be in the best position, as laid down by the Law of Property Act, to recover dues in arrear. It may be news to some hon. Members that in Canada, where in many provinces there is a local tax on land values, there have been a large number of cases where the tax has not been collected, because the owner has denied that he was in a position to pay, and the arrears have gone on from year to year. If anything of that sort happened here the State would be in a very bad position if there were prior charges on the property, and the State had only a second charge on the property. Therefore, it is very important that the Bill should be made quite clear, and that if the Government mean to make a charge they mean it to be a rent charge. If not, are they prepared to put the State in the position of not being able to collect the arrears of the tax and being in an inferior position as regards this tax compared with other charges levied on real estate?

Sir T. INSKIP

The right hon. and gallant Member's views about the relations of Church and State are, of course, well known in this Committee. I should like to think that he is singular in those views. I hope so, because if his views on land taxes were given effect, and it is possible that this Government may before very long give effect to them, it will mean that the Church—in which compendious title we include the Christian religion as represented in this country—will be deprived of a portion of its property. Perhaps that observation was irrelevant to the question we have to consider. I only mention it so that we may be reminded of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's judgment is always led astray as soon as it occurs to him that the Church is affected.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

This is a different thing; this is a privilege.

Sir T. INSKIP

The right hon. Gentle-made made the reservation that he was not a lawyer. I move with trepidation in the region of the law represented by the Law of Property Act, 1925, and I do not wish to speak with any competent opinion upon the matter, but I think that the phrase "rent charge" is wholly unnecessary to give effect to the intention of the Government. It is not, however, my business to make any observation upon that part of the Amendment. The part of the Amendment to which I have a real objection and a right to express an objection on behalf of my hon. Friends on these "benches, is the last sentence, in which he proposes that this tax, imposed in 1931 for the purposes of the year 1934, should take priority of all charges that have been imposed upon the land before the year 1934. That is a most astonishing example of the prejudice with which most hon. Members on the other side view this tax, Why on earth should the Government or the Crown having allowed people to advance money on the security of land, come in and say that their security, which was created under the protection of the law, shall not be worth the paper it is written on? If the law says it shall be a charge on the land, then let the charge have the ordinary priority which the legislation of 1925 may give to it. I hope the Committee will resist the proposed Amendment, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will say that it is even more pernicious than most proposals that come from that side of the Committee.

Mr. ATKINSON

A rentcharge is something payable to the existing owner of the land held on a long lease, or to the late owner of land which has been sold in fee, subject to the payment of a permanent rentcharge. If the rentcharge is not paid the remedy of the owner of the land is to retake possession, because the sole condition upon which the land is held is that a rentcharge is to be paid. If you are going to turn this tax into a rentcharge, does the proposal really mean that on failure to pay, the State is to be in the position of the owner of the land and to say: "You only hold this land so long as you pay the rentcharge. You have not paid the rent, therefore we will turn you out." The thing is preposterous. If you have a charge on the land that is a totally different thing. That means that you can realise enough of the land to pay yourself what is owing, while the rest remains with the owner of the land. If you turn this into a rentcharge, you are saying that for a comparatively small sum which has not been paid the State can step in and claim the privilege of the owner of the land and enter into possession.

What is to happen to other people who are interested in the land Suppose there is an existing rentcharge, a real rent-charge, and this Amendment becomes law. Are there to he two rentcharges, one owing to the State? If the person who ought to pay is in arrear for 21 days, is the State to swoop down and seize the land and to rob me of my rentcharge, if I happen to hold the other rentcharge? What about Schedule A? That is chargeable upon the land. Rates are chargeable upon the land and mortgages are also a charge on the land. Is it to be suggested that you can turn this tax into a rentcharge so that if it is not paid the State can step in and rob everybody?

Sir D. HERBERT

I wonder if after hearing the speech that has just been delivered the right hon. Member will feel more inclined to press his Amendment than before. Has he considered the implications of the Amendment? His argument, apparently, is that because the State is more important than somebody else, therefore the State should take whatever it chooses. That is what the doctrine amounts to. Let me quote a very common case of real rentcharge on property, a rentcharge on two or three fields left by some benevolent person long ago on condition that the proceeds should provide so many loaves a week for the poor of a particular parish. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the State is more important than the widows? Does he propose to put the widows behind the Land Tax in regard to their loaves every week?

Mr. SIMMONS

The State took the sons of the widows during the War.

Sir D. HERBERT

Although I have heard the hon. Member I confess that I do not understand him. Let me put another point to the right hon. Gentleman, by way of illustration. He is a much more important person than I am, but I do not think that that is a particular reason why if I own certain property, to which I have a right by law, he should take away my property. Let me put it the other way round. Let me say that I am a more important person than he is, and suppose that included in a real estate there is a rent charge to which he has a right. Am I or someone else more important than he to supersede his legal rights because of the question of superior importance? The fact of the matter is, that the right hon. Gentleman does not follow what is the meaning of a rent charge. For the purpose of a recovery of debt you cannot have anything better than a charge upon the land. That is the proper way of dealing with a direct charge which applies only to a charge payable annually. This tax cannot become a charge upon the land in the sense of a rentcharge payable in futurity or for a fixed term of years; it can only become a charge in each year for the amount of the assessment. For the sake of his own reputation, I hope the right hon. and gallant Member will not press the Amendment which really, to anyone who is somewhat of a lawyer, appears to foe merely an absurdity.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence)

I listened with great care and attention to what the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) had to say and the Government have given careful thought to this proposal. They cannot accept it. With regard to the word "rentcharge" being substituted for the word "charge," they do not see any reason why they should take that course. The word "charge" adequately expresses the intention of the Government and the word "rent-charge" would be misleading. The word "rentcharge" has a particular meaning applicable in a certain sense, and it would be a misnomer to refer to this charge as a rentcharge. Nor do they see any ground for calling it rent-charge in order to bring it within the terms of Section 121 of the Act. We have provided in this Sub-section what seems to be adequate powers for the collection of the tax and to give priority as far as it is required. In these circumstances, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Earl WINTERTON

I should like to congratulate the Financial Secretary on the decision which he has reached. I am glad that there are degrees of legal robbery to which the Government are not prepared to lend their hands. I have never heard a better example of the lengths to which one who by nature is a most amiable individual will go in an insane pursuit of a policy against anyone who has the misfortune to own land in this country, and I hope the electors outside, especially those in one of the divisions of Manchester where a by-election is proceeding at the present moment, will note what the right hon. and gallant Member has said with regard to the respective claims of Church and State. He says that where there is any conflict between these claims the claims of the Church must always go to the wall.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

rose——

Earl WINTERTON

May I call your attention to the fact that the right hon. and gallant Member devoted a large part of his speech to that argument?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I was about to call the hon. and gallant Member to order when he concluded that part of his argument. It was for that reason that I allowed the Noble Lord to make a passing reference to it in reply, but the matter is out of order.

Earl WINTERTON

I am much obliged to you for your explanation. I only rose in order to inquire why you should call me to order. Of course I accept your ruling.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I allowed the Noble Lord to proceed up to that point, because the right hon. and gallant Member made some reference to it before I could prevent it, but there is a limit and I came to the conclusion that it was being developed far beyond that limit.

Earl WINTERTON

I am much obliged to you and I quite see the situation. I will content myself with the observation that it is a good example of the lengths to which the right hon. and gallant Member, and those who agree with him, will go on this subject, and to congratulate the Government on resisting the Amendment. At the same time, there are some things in the Clause which are almost as bad as the Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I am much obliged to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) for his little lecture to the electors of Manchester as to the relative duties of church and State, but I do not see that it was strictly germane to the Amendment. At the same time, it was a useful little incursion into the by-election in Manchester.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

This is entirely out of order. The right hon. and gallant Member is responsible for introducing irrelevant matter and he must not repeat the offence.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I was trying to work round to that great poem advising Mr. F. E. Smith, in connection with the famous Disestablishment Act of 1906, to "chuck it"; but I see that I shall have to avoid it. Let me come back to the Amendment and to the remarkable reply of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It is a great pity that the Solicitor-General is not present, because evidently this question is entirely strange to the Financial Secretary. I presume that he has had no brief on the matter; at any rate, his reply was absolutely inconclusive. He has told us that the Government prefer the word "charge" to the word "rentcharge." It is not a question of whether the Government prefer the word "charge" to the word "rentcharge," but whether the word "charge" means "rentcharge." The whole question is whether the means of recovery of rentcharge provided in the Law of Property Act, 1925, covers the word "charge." The Financial Secretary avoided that question. He merely said that the Government preferred the word "charge." That is not a reply.

Are the Government satisfied that they have, for the recovery of the Land Tax, the powers necessary. Apparently, the Financial Secretary does not know. I can only suppose that the Government have not prepared any case in respect of Amendments coming from this side of the Committee. They treat them as of no importance. Amendments coming from the other side they treat as of importance, and they prepare a reply. The Solicitor-General leaves, no case is left behind in answer to the Amendment, and the Financial Secretary makes a speech which has no bearing whatever on the Amendment moved.

May I beg the Government between now and Report to consult the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether the Bill gives the Government power to recover under Section 121 of the Act; and what other charges are to rank prior to the Government charge? From the intervention of hon. Members opposite in this Debate, I gather that the Church comes first; tithe has priority over a Government tax. I did not know that before; it is very interesting. Is it true? I doubt it myself, but surely we are entitled to know the order in which these charges come upon the land. I gather that if someone makes a pious charge upon the land for loaves for the poor, for doles, that that is a prior charge to a Government tax. That again surprises me. I thought a Government tax came before these charges. I do not know whether that is so. Unfortunately in the absence of the Law Officers the Committee has no means of discovering whether it is so or not. In any case between now and Report it might be possible for the Government to find out the meaning of this Amendment and whether it is justified or not. I am not a lawyer, but the Amendment was framed by a man who was a very good lawyer, and one who ha" made a study of this question far more than anyone else in this Committee. It is an Amendment which calls for a reasoned reply from the Government.

Sir T. INSKIP

It must not be supposed that we on this side of the Committee associate ourselves in any way with the really monstrous attack which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has made on the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. We think that the Financial Secretary made one of the most admirable speeches with which he has enlightened and adorned our Debates. His accuracy on points of law was matched only by the cogency with which he resisted the specious arguments of the right hon. and gallant, Gentleman; and so far from wishing the return of a Solicitor-General we not only welcome the advent of the Financial Secretary, but we hope that he will stay as long as possible—as long as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman propounds his pestilent theories we hope that the Financial Secretary will be here to direct the committee against them.

Amendment negatived.

Sir T. INSKIP

I beg to move, in page 15, line 28, at the end, to insert the words: Provided that a mortgagee shall not he liable to pay by way of tax in respect of the part of the mortgaged premises of which he is in possession a greater amount than the amount of the rents and profits received by him, or which but for his wilful default he would have received, after any deduction of Income Tax, or of the tax or any part thereof under this Act, from the whole of the premises comprised in his mortgage.

This Amendment is necessary in consequence of Sub-section (1, b), which provides that in the case of a mortgage the tax shall be chargeable on the mortgagee who has gone into possession of the unit or is in receipt of the rents and the profits. It is chargeable on the mortgagee when the receiver is in receipt of the rents and profits, a provision which appears to me to be very difficult to justify on ordinary grounds of equity and fairness. But it would be intolerable to make the mortgagee in possession liable for the amount of the tax charged upon his security in excess of the rents and profits which he is in fact receiving or which he ought to receive from the land. The mortgagee has gone in in order to protect his security. He has gone in only because his security in the possession of the mortgagor was insufficient to meet the payment of the rents or the interest due upon the sum lent upon security of the land. The tax makes the security less attractive; in fact it makes the security weaker already. But to impose upon this misfortune of the mortgagee the burden of paying the tax to meet which he has no rents or profits, appears to be contrary to all one's ordinary ideas.

The mortgagee in possession might be a second mortgagee in possession. He may be postponed, in point of security, to the first mortgagee, who has been receiving his interest or whose interest the second mortgagee in possession pays. He is protecting the security of the first mortgagee. He is taking advantage of his comparatively weak position as second mortgagee to collect whatever rents and profits for his own purposes there may be left. It is true that if the land is sold the tax is charged upon the land and could be collected from the property, but to make him liable for a tax except in that event, to make him liable week by week or year by year to pay this tax when he is probably or possibly receiving not a single farthing for himself, when he is out of pocket for the whole of the interest which is due upon the sum that he is advanced, seems to be not merely intolerable, but contrary to all our ideas of justice.

I hope that the Financial Secretary has appreciated the burden which will rest upon mortgagees, and upon second mortgagee in particular. He is in a position now to implement what the Solicitor-General has more than once said, that he looks at these matters not merely from the point of view of the revenue or of the tax collector or the Treasury, but looks at them fairly from the point of view of the taxpayer also. He has told us on more than one occasion that such and such a proposal is not in the interests of the taxpayer. I have ventured to doubt whether the Solicitor-General can be altogether trusted to look after the taxpayer. He is after other game; he is after the tax; he does not care about the taxpayer, at any rate as long as the taxpayer has any blood to be squeezed out of him. I hope that, having regard to the interest which the Solicitor-General has professed in the fortunes of the taxpayer, the Financial Secretary will see the natural justice of saying that the mortgagee shall not be liable for any greater amount of tax than that which is equal to the rents and profits he has received. We are not asking that the mortgagee shall be free to collect any money for himself. We merely say, "At any rate let the poor man go away when he has paid over to the tax collector everything that he has received." What could be fairer than that?

Here is a mortgagee who has lent his money. His interest has fallen into arrears. He has done the only thing he can do to collect the interest; he has gone into possession. He collects some rents and profits, it may be a few pounds. Then the tax collector comes along. We are not suggesting that the mortgagee shall say, "No, you shall not get anything until I have collected my interest or reduced the overdraft at my bank, or paid the person who put up the money for me to advance." All that we ask is that, when he has paid over everything that he has laboriously collected in respect of the land, he shall be discharged from any further burden in respect of the tax. It is a charge upon the land. The Government can presumably take advantage of the charge whenever the land comes to be sold, and until that time arrives it is only fair and decent that the mortgagee shall not be compelled to do more than disgorge the rents and profits that he has collected in order to keep his security effective.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

I am afraid that I shall rather too soon lose the kindly things which the hon. and learned Gentleman said to me. If his words were spoken in anticipation of favours to come, I am afraid he will be disappointed. The Amendment is to give effect to the idea that when a mortgagee is in possession of property there will be certain rents and emoluments coming to him, and it is suggested that he shall not be liable for a greater amount in tax than he obtains under the net yield from the property of which he is in possession.

Sir T. INSKIP

Not net. The gross yield. "The amount of the rents and profits received by him."

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

The hon. and learned Gentleman proposes that a mortgagee shall not be liable to pay by way of tax in respect of the part of the mortgaged premises of which he is in possession a greater amount than the amount of rents and profits received by him. Off-hand that sounds a very reasonable proposal, but let us see to what it amounts. The mortgagee has stepped into possession and has taken the place of the owner—the owner, let us say, of a piece of undeveloped land, on which he is receiving quite a small rent, who is willing to accept that small rent, perhaps far less than 5 per cent. on the purchase price of the value of the land, because the land is ripening, and the time will come in five or 10 or 15 years when he will get a very much enhanced value on the sale of the land. The mortgagee steps into the position for the moment of the owner of the land, and the principle embodied in this Bill is that in such cases the owner of the land, or the mortgagee where the mortgagee occupies the position of the owner of the land, shall be liable for tax. If we were once to admit the principle, in regard to a mortgagee in possession, that he could have his tax reduced because the current annual yield from the land failed to give the full amount, we should be cutting at once into the principle of the tax.

The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that the mortgagee is not fully protected, but he will find that in Clause 16 of the Bill the rights of the mortgagee are fully protected. The mortgagee has the right to add the tax to any charge to which he is entitled under the mortgage, and the Clause provides that that addition is with priority over all other charges on that estate and with interest at the rate of 5 per cent. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the case of the second mortgagee. He pointed out that a second mortgagee might be in possession of a property, while having to pay to the first mortgagee the annual charge on the first mortgage. Clause 16 protects a second mortgagee in that case and enables him to recover that amount along with the other charges.

Sir T. INSKIP

Is the hon. Gentleman not assuming that there is some surplus value in the second mortgagee's possession? What is the good of adding another charge on land the whole value of which has already been exhausted? The hon. Gentleman might just as well put into the Clause a figure of 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. If there is nothing to take by way of security it is not much good saying, "You may add something else to your security."

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to the second mortgagee?

Sir T. INSKIP

Yes, I thought the hon. Gentleman said that there was some protection for him in Clause 16.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

Yes, there is, because it is provided that any tax assessed on a mortgagee shall he a charge on the mortgaged estate with priority over all other charges, and therefore priority over the payment to the first mortgagee. The mortgagee in possession is fully protected under Clause 16. We shall discuss that point in greater detail on a later Amendment, but, in view of the protection given by Clause 16 and the fact that the present Amendment would cut across the principle of the tax and place a mortgagee in possession in a better position than the owner of undeveloped land which is ripening for the purpose of sale, the Government are unable to see their way to accept the Amendment.

Earl WINTERTON

The hon. Gentleman, I have noticed during these discussions, always assumes that the value of land is going to improve. That assumption is at the root of all his arguments. His argument may or may not be sound in the case of land which is improving in value, but my hon. and learned Friend's argument was in reference to the case of property in which there is no surplus value. There are many such properties, and the people who lend money on mortgage, however careful and well-advised they may be, do not always make good bargains. Frequently they lend money on property which deteriorates. I have some knowledge of these matters as a former director of an insurance company, and I know that in many of these cases, unless they are very carefully guarded by the conditions of the mortgage, the lenders may find themselves "landed," if I may use the term, with a property which is deteriorating in value and the owner of which, through no fault of his own, is unable any longer to pay the dues of the individual or the company lending the money. I ask the hon. Gentleman to deal not with the case of property which is gradually appreciating in value, but with the case of property which is deteriorating, but on which, nevertheless, under these proposals tax is payable.

We say that in those circumstances it is monstrous to expect the unfortunate mortgagee who finds himself, through an error of judgment, in possession of property which has no surplus value or on which there is only a very small return, to pay to the Exchequer a larger sum than he receives. That is our objection, and it has not been dealt with by the hon. Gentleman's argument. He talked of current annual yield, and seemed to suggest that though there might be a loss at a particular moment the mortgagee in all these cases would be able to recoup himself in future. But the property might continue to deteriorate. I have some knowledge of land values and, if these proposals ever come into operation, I know that the value of certain land will deteriorate very much. It would be out of order to go into that subject now, but we must not assume in dealing with this matter that all land will appreciate in value.

There is another argument. It is generally admitted in all countries where agriculture is depressed—and in no country is it more depressed than in this country—that one method by which the State can help agriculture, is by allowing money to be lent on easy terms on the security of agricultural land. Surely this proposal will act as discouragement to that method of assisting agriculture by making it much harder for people to obtain money on mortgage. This is a point which arises in connection with a number of the Clauses of the Bill. It is no part of the Government's policy to discourage the lending of money on land where there is a reasonable security, but the Clause must have that effect unless the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment. We attach some importance to this Amendment, because it is a glaring example of the great injustice which might be done under the Clause, and we shall certainly go to a Division if the Government will not give way.

Mr. ATKINSON

The fallacy of the argument of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury rests in this: He said that a mortgagee going into possession steps into the position of the owner. That is wholly wrong. In the very great bulk of cases where the mortgagee goes into possession there is no surplus value. If there is, of course the mortgagor has retained possession. It is only where rents and profits are not enough to pay the outgoings that he fails to pay, and the mortgagee goes into possession, but he is very far from being in the position of the owner until he has foreclosed. Once he has a foreclosure decree and that has been carried out, he is the owner; he ceases to be the mortgagee and would become liable to this tax, but what you are dealing with here is his position before he has foreclosed and when his rights and duties are strictly regulated by the law. He has merely and solely got the right to seize the rents and profits, but his powers of leasing are restricted; he cannot sell or do anything until he has an order of the court or until there has been a foreclosure decree which has been carried into effect.

During all this time the mortgagor remains personally liable. The State has still the personal liability of the real owner, that is, the mortgagor who has ceased to pay his interest, and merely because the mortgagee takes the first step of entering into possession, or appointing a receiver, towards realising ultimately the security, you certainly cannot say to him, "If you do this, we will put a personal liability upon you as if you were the owner of the land," when he is not. The point of the Amendment is to prevent your putting a personal liability upon a man for a payment which ex hypothesi there is not enough coming out of the land to pay. It must be realised that that is unjust. He is no more the owner of the land than is anybody on these benches. He is merely a person who has taken the first step towards ultimately realising his security.

When one looks at the position of the second mortgagee, he has gone into possession in the hope of maintaining his security ultimately. The second mortgagee may think that, if the thing is properly handled, ultimately there may be enough for everybody, and therefore he has taken upon himself the obligation of paying interest to the first mortgagee, to keep him out, collecting what rents and profits there may be, and possibly losing money meanwhile. This will hit him even as it is, because this land charge would have to come first out of the rents and profits, but, supposing there is not enough, how can it be fair to say that it should be a personal liability? If the position is appreciated by the Government, I think the Amendment will be accepted, and when one remembers that the words of the Financial Secretary to justify his refusal of the Amendment were not accurate—I mean the words that the mortgagee steps into the position of the owner—it will be seen that if the argument is based on that, it is based on a fallacy. I hope the Government will reconsider the position.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

I cannot help thinking that the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) and the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) do not appreciate the Amendment. They assume that the Amendment would protect a mortgagee who had stepped into possession and who did not obtain any surplus value over and above the charge on the mortgage. There is nothing about that in the Amendment. Suppose that there is property valued at £1,000 which has therefore a Land Value Tax of about £4, and suppose that the mortgage is for £750 and, to take the Noble Lord's case, that the property has fallen in value to, say, £500, if the profits are coming in on the basis of £500 value, say, £25, then the Government say that out of that £25, £4 Land Value Tax will have to be paid. There is nothing in the Amendment to stop that.

Mr. ATKINSON

Assume the case of an empty shop in Regent Street.

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE

One moment. The Opposition Amendment would still leave the mortgagee in that case liable to the tax, because he would have out of it £25 rents and profits received by him, which would be in excess of the £4 Land Value Tax. The reason why I took the particular case of undeveloped land which was appreciating in value was because I thought that that was the only case in which the annual rents and profits received by the mortgagee from the land were likely to fall below the value of the tax. In all other cases, except in the most extraordinary case which it is hardly possible to conceive, the rents and profits must be above the Land Value Tax.

Earl WINTERTON

Take the case of a shop in Regent Street, as my hon. and learned Friend suggests, although that is not a very good example, because there they are nearly all Crown leases; but take the case of a shop in some street near Regent Street which is not Crown property. The mortgagee enters into possession—there is no dispute between us on that point—and at the time he enters into possession the shop is fully let. There is a heavy Land Value Tax on a shop of that kind. After he has entered into possession bad times come and the shop becomes vacant. His situation would then be that he would be paying to the State in tax more than he would be receiving in rent.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

I can only conceive that to be possible where practically the whole of the building is unlet. I should want to see it worked out, how it could happen, but I think it would be very unlikely that the gross rents and profits as a whole due to the mortgagee of the property would fail to exceed the Land Value Tax on it. But suppose for the sake of argument that that could be so for a short period—it could only be for a short period, because the mortgagee obviously would set about taking steps either to let the place or to sell it—very soon he could realise a great deal more, and out of that he would recoup himself if for 12 months he had failed to meet the land tax. But the case that I thought the right hon. Gentleman was putting was that of undeveloped land, where the mortgagee may be for some years kept out of having a balance on the right side. I do not think that the ease put by the Noble Lord would exist very often, and, even where it did exist, it would be only temporary and the mortgagee would have a speedy remedy to deal with it.

Captain CAZALET

May I put the case in pounds, shillings, and pence. Let us assume that an individual has invested £100 in a mortgage at a low rate of interest, say 3 per cent. He gets a low rate because the security is supposed to be good. Owing to a variety of circumstances, he enters into possession because the £3 a year is not being paid. The mere coming into existence of the incidence of this tax has already depreciated the value of that mortgage. All we say in this Amendment is that if the individual who has invested his money in this particular piece of property is not receiving the £3 which is his due, but is only receiving £l a year——

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

The tax is only 1d. in the £, and on £100 is 8s. 4d.

Captain CAZALET

It may well be that he is receiving nothing whatever, as would be the case in the instance of an empty house or an empty shop. I only took the figure of £1 to illustrate the point of the Amendment, which is that if he only gets £1, the tax which is charged should never be more than the sum he is receiving from his investment. It seems perfectly reasonable, and I cannot understand any argument that can be used against it.

Mr. MACLEAN

If the particular property such as hon. Members opposite are instancing becomes so remunerative as they are making out in order to get the Government to accept their Amendment, is it possible for anybody to say why the mortgagee should not foreclose instead of entering into possession?

Sir A. STEEL - MAITLAND

One wonders whether hon. Members opposite have really understood the case. I am sure that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, if he will think over the case, will find that there can be a very real hardship underlying this. Let me put it to him once again, and take the case that he has assumed. That is the case of a property worth £1,000, on which the tax would be roughly £4. The mortgage is £750, and the property may have diminished in value so as to be worth only £500. His argument is that even a value of £500 will bring in an annual income of about £25 a year, and that therefore it is perfectly obvious for the mortgagee to pay a £4 tax, with a considerable margin left.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

The Amendment would not protect that man.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I wish the hon. Gentleman would consider that that is not really the kind of case we have in mind. We have in mind the kind of case in which we think the administration of this tax is really to be feared, and we are trying to envisage the possibility. My hon. Friend behind me took the case of an empty 9.0 p.m. shop. It is clear that an empty shop will bring in no income, but the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that it will be empty for only a short time. I am not thinking of a shop in Regent Street, but of a shop of which hon. Members from the mining areas will be perfectly familiar. They know quite well that a great deal of the hardship in the district where the mining industry is being hardest hit falls not only upon the miners, but upon the shopkeepers and all the community around whose livelihood depends upon the miners. In those districts—I have seen them in South Wales, Durham and Northumberland—there is quite a considerable site value on some of the shops, and the tax might be, I do not say an enormous sum, but quite substantial in proportion to the interests concerned. When shops become empty in those circumstances, and the person who happens to be the unfortunate mortgagee enters into possession, he has not any receipts from the shop with which to pay the tax. There may be no receipts for a continuing period.

In the illustration which he gave, the Financial Secretary said that on the property worth £1,000 the tax would be £4. He assumes that the tax will be one penny, but when he or the Chancellor of the Exchequer wish to play to their own side, they hold out an inducement that the penny will grow, and that it will become 2d., 3d. and 4d. in the £. We have had time and again hon. Members opposite, encouraged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Ministers on the Front Bench, saying that they are not proceeding with this Bill on the hypothesis that the tax will always be one penny, but, on the contrary, that it is a tax that may grow. Therefore, there is no substance whatever in the defence that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has put up. He says that the Amendment will not be any defence for the mortgagee. If, however, we think that the mortgagee would like it, why cannot he make some concession? If there is no objection to it from his point of view, why not let us have a thing by which we set some value? Here all that is asked is that he shall not pay in tax an amount which is greater than the amount of the rents and profits received by him after any deduction of Income Tax or of the tax, or any part of the tax, under this Bill.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury used the word "emoluments." There is no question of emoluments of any kind. All we say is that the mortgagee who is in a position of this kind ought not to be liable, in his own person, above and beyond any rents and profits, for any tax that may be charged. On the case we are putting, the person who is liable is a man who is not the owner himself because, ex hypothesi, he has not foreclosed, but is a man whom you are going to make liable over and above any rents and profits that may have come into his hands, and yet at the same time the State has its recourse against the real owner. I have never known any case which has so much outdone the case in the Scriptures which speaks of thy adversary delivering thee to the judge and the judge casting thee into prison and there being no escape until the uttermost farthing has been paid. Here it is not only the uttermost farthing that suffices, something more is to be demanded. I am sure that if the Financial Secretary looks further into the case he will find it is one which can be met.

Mr. BENSON

It would be as well if hon. Members opposite consulted together to decide what kind of case this Amendment is designed to meet.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

There is more than one case.

Mr. BENSON

I know perfectly well the kind of case the Amendment is intended to meet. Hon. Members first of all say that it is not land that is advancing in value, but that it is small property. Somebody suggests a shop in Bond Street, somebody eke suggests a shop just outside Bond Street, and then the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) says it is a shop in some small, depressed mining area.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I did not say it was not a shop elsewhere. I asked the Financial Secretary to consider the case of a shop in a email mining area which, I said, deserved as much consideration as any other case.

Mr. BENSON

Let us take these cases one by one. Take the case of the really valuable shop let at £1,000 a year. Broadly speaking, a shop property bringing in that rent would be worth from £15,000 to £18,000—say 18 years' purchase. At one penny in the pound the tax upon that amounts to £75. That means that before the mortgagee has lost in tax the amount of one year's rent that shop has to remain empty for 12 years. It is rather ridiculous to suggest that a valuable shop bringing in anything like £1,000 a year is likely to remain empty for 12 years. Then let us take the case of a smaller shop let at about £25 a year, with a Land Tax of, say, about £4—less than one-sixth of the annual value. Small shops do not remain empty for six years.

Earl WINTERTON

Will the hon. Member answer this point? The mortgagee is put in possession because the shop has become vacant and he is in possession for two years, after which the original owner is able to satisfy him and goes back. What happens then?

Mr. BENSON

The mortgagee has paid about £8 in tax, and is entitled to add that £8 to his mortgage—[Interruption.]—the Bill says so—and that tax comes before any other charge. There is no injustice at all. I have no doubt that by some ingenuity hon. Members can discover some hypothetical case; they might, if one granted them all their premises, find some small shop on which the annual tax was larger than the income, but they have not done it so far. In all cases which they have given, it is clear that the annual income will cover the tax many times over, and that the mortgagee, even though he may have an abnormal amount of empty property, will have so large a sum, in proportion to the tax, that the question of empties really is not practical politics. There is only one case, one case alone, in which the Land Tax is likely to be larger than the amount of rent received. I am speaking now not without knowledge of land, for I have been an estate agent all my life, and know what I am talking about.

The only case in which land tax is likely to be larger than the amount of rent receivable is that of undeveloped land which is ripening and which has a high capital value. If this Amendment is accepted, that is the kind of property which is going to be exempted, and no other, and that is just the kind of property this Bill is designed to tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "All land!"] When I say that it is just the kind of land this Bill is designed to tax, I mean that that is the type of land that we on this side are most desirous of taxing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Bring in another Bill!"] No, we tax it quite satisfactorily under this Bill, judging by the amount of wriggling done by hon. Members. This is the kind of land we are particularly desirous of taxing, and this is the only kind of land that will receive any advantage whatsoever under this Amendment. I think it was the right hon. Member for Tamworth who suggested that this Amendment might not be very essential while the tax was at one penny, but that sooner or later the tax would grow. It may or may not, but under the present Bill the tax is one penny, and it is impossible in this Bill to legislate for a tax that may or may not be more than one penny many years hence. If that tax is to be raised it can only be raised in another Finance Bill, and when it is raised the various safeguards that are necessary can be inserted; they cannot be inserted now.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON

This matter has not been given that definite consideration which it deserves. I dispute what the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) has asserted, that this Amendment is an attempt to get this particular land out of the purview of the Bill. It is nothing of the sort. There will still remain under Sub-section (7) of this Clause the words: and shall be a charge on the land in respect of which it is charged. The simple point we seek to meet is that of the hardship upon the mortgagee in a case where the mortgagee has been called upon to pay. It is not a question of exempting a particular piece of land, or saying that there shall be no tax paid upon it. The tax will still be charged and will be payable. The situation will be that, if the mortgagee is only liable to pay to the extent of the sums which he receives, the land will nevertheless, year by year, be charged in favour of the Government with the amount of the tax; and, if and when the mortgagee sells the land, and there is sufficient to pay him the amount of his mortgage and the amount of unpaid interest, the Treasury would come down and say, "There is a charge upon this land to the amount of the tax which has not been paid, because by the operation of this particular Amendment you, the mortgagor, have not paid, and before you can get anything we are entitled to our tax." It seems to me that that is an answer to the observations which have been made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield. To ask us to show a concrete case in present circumstances is rather astonishing. The tax is not operative at the moment, and therefore it is difficult to imagine how we can show a concrete instance.

Although there may be a substantial mortgage on premises which are supposed to have a particular value by reason of difficulties in a particular locality, it is sometimes impossible for months and even for years, to exercise the power of sale, for the reason that in the midst of all those difficulties nobody will buy the property. This is particularly so in places where you cannot let the premises, and where the mortgagee is in the position that he has a charge on the land in respect of his mortgage money, and also in respect of interest which, year after year, is still accruing and has not been paid. I am sure the hon. Member for Chesterfield, with his experience, will agree with me when I say that that class of case is constantly arising in practice. I do not say that this is very common, but those who have had experience in dealing with small properties know that that is a case which often arises.

All this Amendment seeks to do with regard to a mortgagee in that unhappy position is to say, "You shall not be personally liable to pay out of your own pocket more than the sum of money which you have received from the property." I think it is just as well to state, for the information of hon. Members opposite, that the money collected by the mortgagee does not all go into his pocket. He has to account for it, and, if there is any surplus over and above his annual interest, he has to credit it against the mortgage money. If there is no income he has no fund to which he can turn, and his only other remedy is the issuing of a writ against the mortgagor, and in practice that is not much use. I think this question needs a little closer examination. There is the case where individual hardship may arise to a mortgagee who finds himself placed in the position which I have indicated, and I hope the Government still think it is possible to examine this question a little more closely with a view to offering some concession on the Report stage.

Sir S. ROBERTS

The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) said that he could not conceive of land increasing in value until the land tax was greater than the income. The hon. Member represents a constituency not far from the City of Sheffield, and near Sheffield he would find a large skeleton of an erection put up by the Harmsworth Press when they were going to start an evening newspaper in that district. That skeleton remains there, and there is no income from it. That is a case within my own personal knowledge. I do not say that in this case there was a mortgagee, but, if there was a mortgagee, he would have to pay the Land Value Tax. That is a case which is not land development on the outskirts of the town. If the hon. Member for Chesterfield goes to the East End of the City which I represent, he will find there large factories which are derelict, shut up, and no work is being done in them. There is no purchaser for those factory sites. No doubt the tax will be put upon them, but there is no income. That is another instance. That is not developed land, because it is land which is bringing in no income at all, and yet it would have to pay land tax under this Bill. I have brought these instances to the notice of the Government, because I do not think they have realised all the possibilities of this tax.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 206, Noes, 285.

Division No. 308.]	AYES.	[9.25 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Albery, Irving James	Bullock, Captain Malcolm	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Burton, Colonel H. W.	Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)	Butler, R. A.	Croom-Johnson. R. P.
Astor, Maj- Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Astor, Viscountess	Campbell, E. T.	Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Atholl, Duchess of	Carver, Major W. H.	Dalkeith, Earl of
Atkinson, C.	Castle Stewart, Earl of	Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.	Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)	Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Dawson, Sir Philip
Beaumont, M. W.	Chapman, Sir S.	Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Christie, J. A.	Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)	Clydesdale, Marquess of	Edmondson, Major A. J.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Elliot, Major Walter E.
Bird, Ernest Roy	Cohen, Major J. Brunel	England, Colonel A.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Colfox, Major William Philip	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Colman, N. C. D.	Everard, W. Lindsay
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.	Colville, Major D. J.	Ferguson, Sir John
Boyce, Leslie	Conway, Sir W. Martin	Fielden, E. B.
Bracken, B.	Cooper, A. Duff	Fison, F. G. Clavering
Briscoe, Richard George	Conrtauld, Major J. S.	Ford, Sir P. J.
Broadbent, Colonel J.	Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.	Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Cowan, D. M.	Galbraith, J. F. W.
Buchan, John	Cranborne, Viscount	Ganzonl, Sir John
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton	Lymington, Viscount	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)	McConnell, Sir Joseph	Skelton, A. N.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Gower, Sir Robert	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Grace, John	Macquisten, F. A.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)	Smithers, Waldron
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Margesson, Captain H. D.	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	Marjoribanks, Edward	Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Meller, R. J.	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H	Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)	Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)	Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Hanburv. C.	Muirhead, A. J.	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	O'Connor, T. J.	Thompson, Luke
Hartington, Marquess of	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Thomson, Sir F.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	O'Neill, Sir H.	Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Peake, Captain Osbert	Todd, Capt. A. J.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Penny, Sir George	Train, J.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Perkins, W. R. D.	Turner, Sir Ben
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer	Power, Sir John Cecil	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Hurd, Percy A.	Pownall, Sir Assheton	Warrender, Sir Victor
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Preston, Sir Walter Rueben.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Inskip, Sir Thomas	Ramsbotham, H.	Wayland, Sir William A.
Iveagh, Countess of	Reid, David D. (County Down)	Wells, Sydney R.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Remer, John R.	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Kindersley, Major G. M.	Reynolds, Col. Sir James	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Lamb, Sir J. Q.	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)	Withers, Sir John James
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Ross, Ronald D.	Womersley, W. J.
Lewis. Oswald (Colchester)	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest	Salmon, Major I.	Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)
Llewellin, Major J. J.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Lockwood, Captain J. H.	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Long, Major Hon. Eric	Savery, S. S.	Captain Wallace and Captain Hudson.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Caine, Hall-, Derwent	Gill, T. H.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Cameron, A. G.	Gillett, George M.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Glassey, A. E.
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.	Chater, Daniel	Gossling, A. G.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Church, Major A. G.	Gould, F.
Alpass, J. H.	Clarke, J. S,	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Ammon, Charles George	Cluse, W. S.	Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Angell, Sir Norman	Cocks, Frederick Seymour.	Gray, Milner
Arnott, John	Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Aske, Sir Robert	Compton, Joseph	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Cove, William G.	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Ayles, Walter	Cripps, Sir Stafford	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Daggar, George	Groves, Thomas E.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Dallas, George	Grundy, Thomas W.
Barnes, Alfred John	Dalton, Hugh	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Barr, James	Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Batey, Joseph	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Day, Harry	Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Dudgeon, Major C. R.	Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Benson, G.	Duncan, Charles	Hardie. G. D. (Springburn)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Ede, James Chuter	Harris, Percy A.
Blindell, James	Edge, Sir William	Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	Edmunds, J. E.	Hayes, John Henry
Bowen, J. W.	Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Edwards, E. (Morpeth)	Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)
Broad, Francis Alfred	Egan, W. H.	Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Brockway, A. Fenner	Elmley, Viscount	Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Bromfield, William	Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)	Herriotts, J.
Bromley, J.	Evans, Herbert (Gateshead)	Hirst, G. H, (York W. R. Wentworth)
Brooke, W.	Foot, Isaac	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Brothers, M.	Freeman, Peter	Hoffman, P. C.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	Hopkin, Daniel
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)	Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)	Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Buchanan, G.	George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)	Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Burgess, F. G.	George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Isaacs, George
Burgin, Dr. E. L.	George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)	Jenkins, Sir William
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)	Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossloy)	John, William (Rhondda, West)

Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Mills, J. E.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.	Milner, Major J.	Simmons, C. J.
Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)	Montague, Frederick	Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Sinkinson, George
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Morley, Ralph	Sitch, Charles H.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Kelly, W. T.	Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)	Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Mort, D. L.	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Muff, G.	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Kinley, J.	Muggeridge, H. T.	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Knight, Holford	Murnin, Hugh	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Lang, Gordon	Naylor, T. E.	Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Sorensen, R.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)	Noel Baker, P. J.	Stamford, Thomas W.
Law, Albert (Bolton)	Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)	Stephen, Campbell
Law, A. (Rossendale)	Oldfield, J. R.	Strauss, G. R.
Lawrence, Susan	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)	Sullivan, J.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)	Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)	Sutton, J. E.
Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)	Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Leach, W.	Palin, John Henry	Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)	Paling, Wilfrid	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Palmer, E. T.	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)
Less, J.	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Tillett, Ben
Leonard. W.	Perry, S. F.	Tinker, John Joseph
Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Tout, W. J.
Lindley, Fred W.	Phillips, Dr. Marion	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Lloyd, C. Ellis	Picton-Turbervill, Edith	Vaughan, David
Logan, David Gilbert	Pole, Major D. G.	Viant, S. P.
Longbottom, A. W.	Potts, John S.	Walkden. A. G.
Longden, F.	Price, M. P.	Walker, J.
Lovat-Fraser. J. A.	Pybus, Percy John	Wallace, H. W.
Lunn, William	Quibell, D. J. K.	Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson	Watkins, F. C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Raynes, W. R.	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Richards, R.	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
McElwee, A.	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Wellock, Wilfred
McEntee, V. L.	Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)	Welsh, James (Paisley)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)	Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)	West, F. R.
McKinlay, A.	Ritson, J.	Westwood, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)	White, H. G.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Rameril, H. G.	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
MacNeill-Weir, L.	Rosbotham, D. S. T.	Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
McShane, John James	Rowson, Guy	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)	Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.	Salter, Dr. Alfred	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Manning, E. L.	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lanelly)
Mansfield, W.	Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)	Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)
March, S.	Sanders, W. S.	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Marcus, M.	Sandham, E.	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Markham, S. F.	Sawyer, G. F.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Marley, J.	Scott, James	Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Marshall, Fred	Sexton, Sir James	Wise, E. F.
Mathers, George	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)	Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Matters, L. W.	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Maxton, James	Sherwood, G. H.
Messer, Fred	Shield, George William	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Middleton, G.	Shillaker, J. F.	Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charleton.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I beg to move, in page 15, line 28, at the end, to insert the words: () Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners in respect of a land unit assessed to tax that in consequence of the coming into force of new statutory restrictions made during the valuation period immediately preceding such assessment the value of such unit has been decreased, and that the owner of the unit has paid the tax as assessed, he shall be entitled to claim from the Commissioners the repayment of an amount equal to the difference between the assessed tax and the tax at which the unit would have been assessed if such new statutory restrictions had been in force at the date when the assessment was made.

The Amendment which stands in my name and in that of other hon. Members is intended to deal with a point which has been put before the Committee on more than one occasion. I would like to say at once, in order to prevent any misunderstanding, that it is not a drafting Amendment. It is an Amendment of substance, and it is one that is set forth in order to deal with what I think the Solicitor-General will admit is a case which requires serious consideration. We are dealing in the Committee with these proposals and at the same time another Committee upstairs is dealing with the whole subject of town planning, and the point of this Amendment is that it is obviously possible, as this Bill is drafted, that an owner of land shall be assessed to tax under this Bill, and that, having been assessed to tax, there will then be put into operation a town planning scheme, the effect of which may be to decrease the value of his land.

That decrease in the value of his land is not a penalty for any wrong-doing on his part; it is merely the putting into operation of a provision which is intended for the benefit of the whole community, but which happens to be to the disadvantage of the particular individual concerned. Under the Bill as it stands, he nevertheless continues to be assessed on the original value of his land—the value which was estimated before this new statutory provision came into force; and he will have to pay the tax upon that false value until a new valuation takes place and the necessary amendment can be made. Therefore, it may happen that for four years in succession he will be called upon, as the Bill stands, to pay tax upon a value which no longer represents the value of his land then—a value which has been altered by a provision over which he has no control, but which is the effect of a Statute.

I leave it to the Solicitor-General to deny that the Value of the land belonging to an individual owner will be altered by a town-planning scheme. There are various ways in which it may he altered, but I will only give one as an illustration to the Committee, although I am sure plenty of other illustrations will occur to their minds. Under the Town Planning Acts, it is possible for the town planning authority to do what is called zone the area of land; that is to say, they may allocate to certain areas a particular user. They may exclude from certain areas particular kinds of buildings, and, similarly, they may confine to a particular locality the right to erect particular kinds of buildings.

Suppose that in a given area the local authority decides that it is necessary to confine the erection of factories to a certain part of the area. What is the effect of that? Before this provision comes into operation, anybody may put up a factory in any part of the area if he thinks that it is suitable for his purpose. If the area is a large one, the chances that a factory will be put up on any particular site may very likely be remote; but, under the town planning scheme, it may be provided that factories are excluded from the greater part of the area, and can only be erected on one particular part of it. Supposing that that is so, it means that, if any factories at all are to be erected in that area, they must be erected in the particular part of it which is allocated to them, and the natural consequence of that would be that any land which was used for residential purposes abutting upon that new factory area would be decreased in value. That is a case which would come under the provisions of this Amendment.

Further, I would point out to the Solicitor-General and to the Committee that, if this provision was necessary under the old Town Planning Acts, it is still more necessary under the Bill which is now going through Committee upstairs, because, as hon. Members may recollect, under that Bill the Minister has the power—an extensive power—of making a declaration to the effect that no compensation shall be payable to an owner in respect of various restrictions that may be put upon his land by the operation of the town planning scheme. That may be all right as far as the town planning scheme is concerned; I am not concerned now to discuss that point; but, if the owner is not only to have the value of his land decreased, but is to be denied any compensation for that decrease under the Town and Country Planning Bill which is now before a Committee upstairs, surely that is an additional reason why, if he is to be assessed before the town planning restriction comes into force, and if he is not to be relieved by having his valuation altered, he should at least be given the power to recover from the Commissioners the excess of tax which he has wrongly paid. I am quite sure that the Solicitor-General will agree that a good case has been made out, and that he will be ready to give us the accommodation that we desire.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

This Amendment is really, in effect, an attack upon quinquennial valuation. The difficulty, of course, always arises, when one has a quinquennial valuation, of variations in value during the quinquennium, and I suppose that everyone would regard it as the ideal that one should have a valuation as often as possible, if that were a practicable system of procedure. The right hon. Gentleman has assumed rather that the effect of a town planning scheme is always to decrease the value of the land. He did not tell us what he proposed should be done as regards those units the value of which increased during the quinquennium. But, naturally, if there is some provision as regards decreases, there would have to be a similar provision as regards increase, in order to make the procedure in any way fair. The matter, however, would not even end there. The fact that a decrease or increase results from a town planning scheme is not really material so far as land value is concerned; there may just as well be a decrease or an increase arising from some other cause altogether. For instance, as everyone anticipates, the values of land are generally going to rise throughout the country, and this is in fact a provision which will benefit the owner. [Interruption.] I did not catch the interruption of the hon. Member; perhaps it was not worth catching.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS

I said that there might be a General Election.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

After the General Election, we shall collect more land tax than before. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned zoning as an example. One of the features of zoning is that it is designed to increase and improve the value of the land. I know the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me, that the principle which lies behind zoning is good estate management; in fact, the principle which lies behind all town planning is good estate management, and the ideal of the town planner is so to allocate the land within his area that all of it is used to the best advantage, that is to say, that all of it is so used as to give the best results. Although it is perfectly true in some cases—I do not quite agree as to the case of factories which the right hon. Gentleman cited—although in some cases the effect of zoning might be to decrease the value of the land, in the vast majority of cases the zoning would increase its value. Moreover, the effect of zoning would be to give a great measure of protection and fixation of values where there are large gardens to the houses. The effect of zoning, therefore, is eminently designed to preserve the value. Similarly, when you have houses two, three or four to the acre, the idea is to preserve the value and to stop people coming in in order that they may affect adversely the value of the land and property of their neighbours.

That being the principle of town planning, I should have thought it was abundantly clear that the first thing to think of is how the State is to get the increase which will follow upon the town planning scheme. But that in our view is not a practical or a fair thing to do. Once you adopt the principle of the quinquennial assessment, you cannot start meddling in the middle of the quinquennium with the valuation. The whole principle of it is that you have it fixed at the beginning and for that period of five years it is a certain fixed figure. If once you are to depart from that, the only possible logical line of departure would be to have a provision by which, whenever there is a change of value, for whatever reason, in any land unit, there is a reassessment. That obviously would be a wholly impracticable scheme, and, moreover, in the long run it would clearly not be to the advantage of the owners of property, not that that is the sole reason for adopting the quinquennial period. The reason is quite well known, and it is one which has been given and used in a number of other cases, such as the valuation of the metropolis for rating purposes and other cases of that sort, and it has worked and has served as a reliable method of valuation. There will undoubtedly be cases where property will go down in value, and there will be other and more numerous cases where it will go up, hut to try to fix it mathematically correctly is a hopeless impracticability, and for that reason I regret that the Government are unable to accept the Amendment.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD

I have read in the newspapers this week-end how successful the Solicitor-General has been in putting forward the views of his party on this Bill, and I am in general agreement as to the considerable success he has enjoyed in the very difficult task which has confronted him. But I do not think he would care to be judged by the observations he has made on this Amendment, and I do not think they can give any satisfaction in any quarter of the House. My right hon. Friend says that if under a statutory enactment during a particular valuation period a unit has decreased in value, in fairness, honesty and justice an alteration should be made so far as the payment of Land Value Tax is concerned. I do not think anyone could possibly object to the fairness and justice of that principle, and the hon. and learned Gentleman has not attempted to do so. I should have thought it was obvious to anyone except those who desire to crop up an unsatisfactory proposal of this kind that, if an Act of Parliament came along and its effect was to decrease the value of a particular unit of land, a consequential adjustment ought to be made in justice to the owner of the land. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, "This is a five years' valuation. You must not do anything in connection with it. Five years is a sacred figure, and anything that may happen, either an increase or a decrease, during that five years must not be interfered with." What a monstrous injustice! It shows the basis upon which these proposals have been conceived, and how very little thought has been given to them.

The proper reply would be, not that this does not cover an increase as well as a decrease, but, "I will accept the Amendment and include an increase as well." It is no answer to the Amendment to say it only covers a decrease and that no suggestion is made for an increase. The obvious reply, if they want to do the fair thing, is "Inasmuch as the Amendment only deals with a decrease, on Report we will bring up an Amendment to cover both an increase and a decrease." He said there may be other cases besides the particular matters in the Amendment which may bring about a decrease or an increase. There may be, but I think in the first place there is a distinction to be drawn between an increase and a decrease which come as a result of a statutory enactment. Here you have an Act of Parliament which brings about an increase or a decrease in the value of land. So defective is the Bill that there is no possibility of putting it right. Inasmuch as it is a statutory enactment which brings about this increase or decrease, that is altogether different from other causes.

My second answer is that, if there are other causes that take place during those five years, surely it is right and proper that a correction in the value should be made. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to tell me there is no precedent on the Statute Book by which Amendments can be made during periods of this character? He has forgotten to mention the Rating and Valuation Act itself, which provides a method by which corrections can be made. Instead of saying there are other causes, and therefore this matter cannot be put right, why did he not say, "We will put it in the Bill in order to do fairness and justice. We will follow the precedent of the Rating and Valuation Act and provide for a correction to be made in the value acting upon well recognised principles"?

He actually came forward with an argument which is rather peculiar from that particular bench. He said this is not in the interests of property owners. I should like to know when the Solicitor-General was particularly anxious about property owners in connection with these proposals. He is very anxious about them in connection with this matter, but he apparently forgets all about them in connection with his main proposals. Property owners are criminals as far as the main proposals of the Bill are concerned. When it comes to giving a fair meed of justice so far as this proposal is concerned, he says, "I could not do that. It might damage owners of property." I can understand the Attorney-General saying that with a certain amount of confidence and truth. But the Solicitor-General! No, Sir. We could not admit that as far as he is concerned. Justice and fairness will not be done to the owners of property or to the State if the Amendment be not accepted. If you take the view, as the Government do, that this particular tax upon land is a right, proper and fair thing, and if, in fact, the value of the land increases during the particular period of five years, In justice to the State you should make an Amendment for that particular period. If, on the other hand, you want to do justice, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has so frequently declared, to owners of property, and the value of the land decreases, it should be possible, in justice and fairness, to make an amendment during that period.

Therefore, on both these points I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman, on reflection, will agree that his answer does not give the real reason why the Amendment should be rejected. I suppose that the real reason, if I may supply it to the hon. and learned Gentleman—and hon. Members behind him, no doubt, would like to know it—is, that if you permitted Amendments of this character, the machinery under the Act, doubtful and ricketty as it is under the present proposals, would almost completely collapse if provision were made for such a proposal. The more you examine these proposals and endeavour to be fair and just on the one hand to the State, and on the other hand to the property owners of the country, you see how futile and useless are the provisions of the Bill.

Captain BOURNE

The Committee must have heard with some astonishment the statement of the learned Solicitor-General that the effect of the Town and Country Planning Bill would be to put up land values. This happens to be a question of particular interest to my constituents. We are extremely anxious to get a good town planning scheme, but not from the point of view of raising the value of land. You may desire, as we desire in Oxford, when town planning, not to raise values but to preserve amenities, and preserving amenities does not necessarily mean raising the site values. They are two totally different aspects of the question. A person may desire to get the biggest possible pecuniary return from an estate and he may, on the contrary, desire to preserve its character, realising full well that if he does so the return will not be so great in cash as that which he could have obtained if he had chosen to throw it open to general competition. I think that the Solicitor-General has entirely confused those two aspects of the benefit in his answer.

I will give an example. In Oxford, we are extremely anxious to preserve a green belt round the town. In fact, it is one of the biggest necessities, 10.0 p.m. if Oxford is to preserve its present character. It will mean taking in many sites on the south side of the city. Oxford has developed rather rapidly in recent years, and does anybody mean to say that if you permitted those sites to be built upon, the site values would not be enormously greater than if they had been preserved in perpetuity as open spaces? That is the question. The prudent point of view of Oxford in preserving the city, in some ways unique, and in preserving its amenities, is that it is highly desirable that they should keep those spaces open for that purpose. But it is not good estate management from the point of view of getting the highest revenue which can be derived from the land, and the two things are by no means exactly compatible. You may desire to preserve a beauty spot, or a certain view, or an historical wood, and, in order to do so, you may willingly take a very much lower financial return from the property than if you were prepared to rack-rent it for building or industrial purposes. The object of town planning, as I understand it, is to prevent the exploitation of the natural beauty spots and amenities of a town on a purely commercial basis.

If I am right in than interpretation, the whole of the argument of the Solicitor-General falls to the ground, because he is arguing that the object of town planning is to increase the site value. I will take the case which he gave. He says that in a certain area—I think he mentioned Edgbaston, which I do not know—the mere fact that you preserve a residential area with houses and gardens will, in point of fact, raise the site value of that part. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] An hon. Member opposite, I notice, agrees with him. But take a great city where those areas exist and where, in many cases, they have highly commercial enterprises, such as Woolworths. Does the hon. and learned Member mean to say that Woolworths would not give a vastly higher price for one of those sites? An hon. Gentleman says "No." I can give an instance in Oxford where residential property has been sold for commercial purposes. It will, in the hon. and learned Member's opinion, be desirable, but it is not the object of town planning. He should make up his mind. Does he want rack-rents, and to get the highest value for every site for commercial purposes or does he wish to preserve the amenities? Upon that, his answer to this question depends.

There was another remark of the learned Solicitor-General which surprised me. He says that where land has increased in value under town planning—and I think that we all admit that in certain cases increase has taken place—it is only fair that the State should take part of the benefit. That may or may not be a good argument, but I think that he overlooked the fact that in the Town and Country Planning Bill now before the Committee upstairs the proposal of His Majesty's Government is that the local authorities shall take 100 per cent. of the value, and that it be attributed to zoning. If that is the case, what right has the Treasury to come down and ask for additional taxation? If you zone land, and use A's land for building, and B's land is not taken for that purpose, the local authority, or the town planning authority responsible for putting up regulations, may say to the man who is allowed benefit, "We want a large share of your benefit in order to compensate the man who is not allowed benefit." That may or may not be an argument, but once you have given the local authority or a town planning authority the statutory right to take it, the Exchequer has no right to come down and put on an additional tax.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS

It is not merely the ignorance of the Solicitor-General in regard to town planning, but his childish faith in the quinquennium period that I complain about. I realise that from the time of Nero to the age of Stalin there is something attractive to hon. Members opposite with regard to the period of five years. I can only suppose that the Solicitor-General has some blind faith in the five years period. I find a number of new crimes indicated in the Bill. For instance, in Clause 23 there is a new crime if the unfortunate seller of the land does not furnish full particulars. It seems almost as if the Solicitor-General proposes to include another new crime, that of meddling with the quinquennium. There are exceptions to every rule, even to the sanctity of the quinquennium. We have heard of the creation by the State of new rights. I suppose the Solicitor-General would describe that as a "novus actus interveniens," which changes entirely the rights of the parties, and an entirely new situation arises. If we pass an Act of Parliament creating new rights, that may be regarded as meddling with the quinquennium. The Solicitor-General has no argument except that it is more convenient that the quinquennium should remain absolutely sacrosanct. It is characteristic of the whole proposals of this singularly misconceived Bill, that if you deviate from the rule of thumb you create a situation which is impracticable. If you deviate from a simple rule, which applies to the just and the unjust, and which is sought to apply to a situation to which it cannot apply; unless you remain faithful to the rule of thumb principle, the Bill will not work. That is the only argument to which the Solicitor-General has addressed himself. He might make an exception to this principle.

The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) has introduced the question of the Town Planning Bill. We have not had any argument on the Town Planning Bill, and I think the Solicitor-General might apply his mind to this principle. If we pass an Act of Parliament which creates an entirely new situation, must the sacred principle of five years still apply? The Town Planning Bill is one Bill that may create an entirely new situation and other Bills may be passed affecting enormously the value of property during the five years. It seems to me an absolute injustice that Parliament should take no cognisance of what action it may adopt in the future. It ought to preserve its rights to pass future legislation, without prejudice to the rights of any of the King's subjects. I think that the Solicitor-General, in preserving the sacred principle of the inviolability of the quinquennium, is taking an attitude which he cannot possibly justify. He suggested that in a particular case there might be an enormous rise in the value of land as a result of this legislation. He suggested that, as the result of the return of a Socialist Government to power at the General Election, the value of land would enormously increase. I can hardly take him seriously, and I would ask him to treat the House a little more seriously than that. Everyone knows that as the result of this legislation the value of land will almost disappear, and the revenue will lose enormous sums under Schedule A. Therefore, what he will gain on the swings, he will lose on the roundabouts.

Sir HILTON YOUNG

It seems clear that there is no answer to the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain). As he moved the Amendment I wondered what the answer could possibly be. It did not occur to me that the ingenuity of the Solicitor-General would be such as to answer the case by answering another case which had not been put, forward. His reply was that he must have some period for the valuation. This Amendment is not an attempt to secure a revision of every possible change of values during the period, but to secure a revision in consequence of one particular change of value, and that is a change of value due to the addition of any new statutory provisions. What is it that differentiates that particular change of value from every other change of value? This is a point to which there is no answer, and, there being no answer, the Solicitor-General has not produced it. The differentiation is this, that it is the very party that has made the valuation, that is, the State, which subsequently produces a change of the valuation by imposing fresh legislation.

Look what an intolerable position that creates, intolerable to the sense of fair play on behalf of the average citizen. The State says: "We will value your land and make you pay tax upon it, on the assumption that the laws are such and such. You can make such and such use of your land under the laws of the country, but we impose our valuer upon your land and, under the law, we will exact a tax of so much on that basis." Having done that, the State alters the law in its own favour. It alters the bargain, so to speak, that it struck with the taxpayer. I should call that a fraud upon the taxpayer. Having imposed the tax at a certain rate upon the land, on the assumption that the state of the law was such and such, the State proceeds to confiscate a part of the value upon which it has assessed the tax, and refuses to make any change in the position of the taxpayer, in consequence. If the Government will give this point their attention in the cooler frame of mind which may come after the lapse of time and the healing passage of time which may remove the sting of recent events, they will see that there is a strong case for the Amendment. They cannot afford to produce an intolerable sense of injustice in the mind of the taxpayer. That is what it would appear they wish to do.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I will reply first to the last point made by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young). He said that there is some particular change in value by reason of statutory enactments. I cannot see what difference it makes in the quality of the land value whether the change arises, if it does arise, by town planning or, let me say, by cutting an arterial road through the country. They are both acts of the State and they are both done, in a sense, in the interests of the State. I cannot see the difference that it makes because one is done under one Act of Parliament and the plan has, therefore, statutory authority, whereas the other is a mere executive act done under the Act of Parliament which empowers it. The Amendment would deal only with the town planning case and would not deal in any way with a case such as the arterial road or any other State work carried out by a municipality under a town planning scheme. Therefore, there is no distinction when one has to consider the question of land value between the various cases which may give rise either to an increase or a decrease in the value of land during the period for which the valuation is to hold good.

The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) accused me of a complete misunderstanding of the Town and Country Planning Bill, and also of town planning conception. The ultimate aim of town planning is good estate management, and the principle of good estate management depends on the ultimate preservation of the values of the estate. Take the case which the hon. and gallant Member put forward, of someone who in one small corner of the estate wishes to realise a high value which will decrease the value of the rest of the estate. That is exactly what town planning aims to prevent, that where you have a desirable suburb, such as I understand is Edgbaston, and someone comes down and sets up a hideous petrol station spoiling the amenities of the district. It is quite true that the man who builds the petrol station on that land may get a higher value, but the whole value of the surrounding land is decreased, and it is the object of town planning to stop that unneighbourly use of land by which owners suffer a decrease in value owing to the selfishness of one particular person in the district. The preservation of the amenities of a district is aimed at preserving the values of land. Take the precise case which the hon. and gallant Member mentioned, the green belt around Oxford. He said that the object of this green belt is to preserve the character of Oxford. Does he suggest that the preservation of the character of Oxford is not an extremely important feature in preserving the values of Oxford? Of course it is a vital feautre, and the purpose of the green belt is to preserve the values of Oxford and not allow them to be commercialised and decreased.

The question of open spaces cannot arise on this question because if these open spaces are permanently planned as open spaces compensation will have to be paid and the compensation to be paid to the person who receives it will be compensation for any loss by virtue of the Land Tax. That question therefore does not arise. The only question which arises is where there is a decrease in property without compensation, and that is a case which as I say will occur very rarely. In regard to another point the hon. and gallant Member answered his own argument, He said that it was not material to consider here the question of betterment but in so far as betterment was taken from people who got an increase in value the people whose land was not bettered would be compensated, if that is so there is no need to take any account either of the increase or the decrease because they compensate each other. I quite agree with that theory, and that probably is the true answer. But that is another matter. Town planning is on a plan of its own, and there is no reason why, because of the Town Planning Bill, any special provision should be made for revaluation during the quinquennium any more than for any other reason which may arise.

Sir ROBERT HORNE

I suggest to the Solicitor-General that he has not appreciated the argument put to him by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young)

or if he has that he has entirely failed to answer it. Let me give an illustration which I am perfectly certain will violate all the principles and instincts he has with regard to the law of the land in which he practises. Let me give an illustration and make an appeal to my learned Friends on the Government Front Bench. I do not profess to know horse-racing, but I do know this, because I have seen these territories marked out and have been told for what they were used. There are large portions of territory which at the present time are being used as training grounds for race-horses. These grounds draw considerable rents. Under the Bill I have not the slightest doubt that the Government representative, if he went down to look at these fields, would assess them on the basis of 20 times the annual rents, and the annual rents are high. But suppose that next year Parliament should pass a law by which horse-racing in this country were made entirely illegal and the training grounds were reduced to their agricultural value, and the rent was unobtainable. Does the learned Solicitor-General say that under those conditions Parliament, which has made it impossible for the tenant to use the ground for the purposes upon which the value is assessed, can really charge him as if that value still existed? The hon. and learned Gentleman knows quite well that in the case of a private individual no such bargain would ever be upheld by the Courts. Does he say that the State can break the law and is to be allowed to do that kind of thing? If he really applies his mind to the Amendment and gives it fair consideration, he will adopt it.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 286.

Division No. 309.]	AYES.	[10.25 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)	Bracken, B.
Albery, Irving James	Balniel, Lord	Briscoe, Richard George
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Broadbent, Colonel J.
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)	Beaumont, M. W.	Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Bellairs, Commander Carlyon	Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Borks, Newb'y)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Buchan, John
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Astor, Viscountess	Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Buckingham, Sir H.
Atholl, Duchess of	Bird, Ernest Roy	Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Atkinson, C.	Boothby, R. J. G.	Burton, Colonel H. W.
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles w.	Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Butt, Sir Alfred
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)	Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Boyce, Leslie	Campbell, E. T.
Carver, Major W. H.	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Castle Stewart, Earl of	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Perkins, W. R. D.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Power, Sir John Cecil
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)	Hanbury, C.	Pownall, Sir Assheton
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)	Hartington, Marquess of	Pybus, Percy John
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Ramsbotham, H.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Haslam, Henry C.	Reid, David D. (County Down)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Remer, John R.
Chapman, Sir S.	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Christie, J. A.	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer	Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)
Clydesdale, Marquess of	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel	Hore-Bellsha, Leslie	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Colfox, Major William Philip	Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.	Ross, Ronald D.
Colman, N. C. D.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Rothschild, J. de
Colville, Major D. J.	Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Conway, Sir W. Martin	Hurd, Percy A.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Cooper, A. Duff	Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Salmon, Major I.
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.	Inskip, Sir Thomas	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Cowan, D. M.	Iveagh, Countess of	Savery, S. S.
Cranborne, Viscount	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)	Skelton, A. N.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Knox, Sir Alfred	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n … Kinc'dlne, C.)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)	Lamb, Sir J. Q.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Smithers, Waldron
Dalkeith, Earl of	Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey	Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)	Somerville. D. G. (Willesden, East)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Davies, Mal. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Dawson, Sir Philip	Llewellin, Major J. J.	Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hon. Godfrey	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.	Lockwood, Captain J. H.	Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
Eden, Captain Anthony	Long, Major Hon. Eric	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Lymington, Viscount	Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Elliot, Major Walter E.	McConnell, Sir Joseph	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
England, Colonel A.	Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)	Thompson, Luke
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Thomson, Sir F.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)	Macquisten, F. A.	Thomson, Mitchell-. Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Everard, W. Lindsay	Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Todd, Capt. A. J.
Ferguson, Sir John	Margesson, Captain H. D.	Train, J.
Fielden, E. B.	Marjoribanks, Edward	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Fison, F. G. Clavering	Mason, Colonel Glyn K.	Turton, Robert Hugh
Ford, Sir P. J.	Meller, R. J.	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	Merriman, Sir F. Boyd	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Millar, J. D.	Warrender, Sir Victor
Galbraith, J. F. W.	Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Ganzonl, Sir John	Milchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)	Wayland, Sir William A.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.	Wells, Sydney R.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)	Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Gower, Sir Robert	Morrison, W. S. (Glos. Cirencester)	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Grace, John	Muirhead, A. J.	Withers, Sir John James
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)	Womersley, W. J.
Gray, Milner	O'Connor, T. J.	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	O'Neill, Sir H.	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Omsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Gritten, W. G. Howard	Peake, Captain Osbert	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Penny, Sir George	Captain Sir George Bowyer and Captain Wallace.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Barnes, Alfred John	Broad, Francis Alfred
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Barr, James	Brockway, A. Fenner
Aitchison. Rt. Hon. Craigie M.	Batey, Joseph	Bromfield, William
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hilsbro')	Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Bromley, J.
Alpass, J. H.	Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	Brooke, W.
Ammon, Charles George	Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Brothers, M.
Angell, Sir. Norman	Benson, G.	Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Arnott, John	Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Aske, Sir Robert	Bilndell, James	Buchanan, G.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	Burgess, F. G.
Ayles, Walter	Bowen, J. W.	Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W R. Elland)	Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Raynes, W. R.
Caine, Hall-, Derwent	Kinley, J.	Richards, R.
Cameron, A. G.	Knight, Holford	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Lang, Gordon	Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Chater, Daniel	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Church, Major A. G.	Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)	Ritson, J.
Clarke, J. S.	Law, Albert (Bolton)	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Cluse, W. S.	Law, A. (Rossendale)	Romerll, H. G.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John H.	Lawrence, Susan	Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)	Rowson, Guy
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)	Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)	Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Compton, Joseph	Leach, W.	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cove, William G.	Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Daggar, George	Lees, J.	Sanders, W. S.
Dallas, George	Leonard, W.	Sandham, E.
Dalton, Hugh	Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Sawyer, G. F.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)	Lindley, Fred W.	Scott, James
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lloyd, C. Ellis	Sexton, Sir James
Day, Harry	Logan, David Gilbert	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Longbottom, A. W.	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Dudgeon, Major C. R.	Longden, F.	Sherwood, G. H.
Duncan, Charles	Lovat-Fraser, J. A.	Shield, George William
Ede, James Chuter	Lunn, William	Shillaker, J. F.
Edge, Sir William	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Edmunds, J. E.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Simmons, C. J.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)	McElwee, A.	Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Egan, W. H.	McEntee, V. L.	Sinkinson, George
Elmley, Viscount	McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)	Sitch, Charles H.
Evans, Herbert (Gateshead)	McKinlay, A.	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Foot, Isaac,	MacLaren, Andrew	Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Freeman, Peter	Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)	MacNeill-Weir, L.	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)	McShane, John James	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)	Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)	Mander, Geoffrey le M.	Sorensen, R.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)	Manning, E. L.	Stamford, Thomas W.
Gill, T. H.	Mansfield, W.	Stephen, Campbell
Gillett, George M.	March, S.	Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Glassey, A. E.	Marcus. M.	Strauss, G. R.
Gossling, A. G.	Markham, S. F.	Sullivan, J.
Gould, F.	Marley, J.	Sutton, J. E.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Marshall, Fred	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)	Mathers, George	Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)	Matters, L. W.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Maxton, James	Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)	Messer, Fred	Thurtle, Ernest
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Middleton, G.	Tillett, Ben
Groves, Thomas E.	Mllis, J. E.	Tinker, John Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.	Milner, Major J.	Tout, W. J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Montague, Frederick	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Vaughan, David
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)	Morley, Ralph	Viant, S. P.
Hamilton. Mary Agnes (Blackburn)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)	Walkden, A. G.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)	Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)	Walker, J.
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)	Mort, D. L.	Wallace, H. W.
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)	Muff, G.	Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor
Harris, Percy A.	Muggeridge, H. T.	Watkins, F. C.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Murnin, Hugh	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Hayes, John Henry	Nathan, Major H. L.	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Naylor, T. E.	Wellock, Wilfred
Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Welsh, James (Paisley)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)	Noel Baker, P. J.	West, F. R.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)	Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)	Westwood, Joseph
Herriotts, J.	Oldfield, J. R.	White, H. G.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm-, Ledywood)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)	Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Hoffman, P. C.	Owen, H. F. (Hereford)	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Hopkin, Daniel	Palin, John Henry	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Paling, Wilfrid	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph	Palmer, E. T.	Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Isaacs, George	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Jenkins, Sir William	Perry, S. F.	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
John, William (Rhondda, West)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Phillips, Dr. Marion	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.	Picton-Turbervill, Edith	Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)	Pole, Major D. G.	Wise, E. F.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Potts, John S.	Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Price, M. P.	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)	Quibell, D. J. K.
Kelly, W. T.	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Rathbone, Eleanor	Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Charleton.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

It being after Half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 4th June, successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at this day's Sitting.

Clauses 15 (Recoupment of tax to leaseholders by lessors), 16 (Tax paid by

mortgagee charged on mortgaged estate), and 17 (Ultimate incidence of tax assessed on persons not having whole beneficial interest) ordered to stand part of the Bill.