HC Deb 24 June 1931 vol 254 cc534-81

(1) For the purpose of the charge of the tax, the land value of every land unit not being a unit comprising agricultural land shall be reduced either—

  1. (a) by a sum equal to four times the annual value of the unit for Income Tax purposes; or
  2. (b) by a sum equal to seven-eighths of the land value of the unit, whichever is the less.

(2) For the purposes of any assessment of land value tax the annual value of a land unit for Income Tax purposes shall be taken to be the annual value of the lands, tenements and hereditaments comprised in the unit which has been adopted for the purposes of Income Tax under Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918, for the year comprising the first day' of January in the year of charge to which the assessment of land value tax relates:

Provided that, where the area as respects which the annual value has been so adopted as aforesaid is not co-extensive with the area of the unit, the Commissioners shall make such apportionments of annual value as may be necessary to determine the annual value of the unit and, in the case of lauds, tenements and hereditaments as respects which no such annual value has been so adopted as aforesaid, the annual value shall be taken to be of such amount as may be determined by the Commissioners to be the amount at which the annual value of the lands, tenements and hereditaments would have been assessed for the purposes of the said Schedule if they had been assessed to Income Tax thereunder and in the case of lands, tenements and hereditaments comprising any minerals, if no minerals had been comprised therein.

(3) For the purposes of the application of this Section to Scotland—

  1. (a) for the references to lands, tenements and hereditaments there shall be substituted references to lands and heritages;
  2. 535
  3. (b) where the annual value of any lands and heritages has been assessed on the basis that local rates in respect thereof are payable by the landlord, that value shall, for the purposes of this Section, be reduced to such amount as would have been assessed if those rates had been payable by the occupier.—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

Brought up, and read the First time.


I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This new Clause will not, I think, pass through the Committee with the celerity of the one which has just been incorporated in the Bill. In view of the fact that we are working under restrictions, I shall not occupy more time than is necessary in explaining the Clause and the circumstances that have led to its appearance on the Order Paper. It is to implement a promise that I gave last week to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) that, if no opportunity were given for the discussion of a Clause of a somewhat similar character that stood in his name, the Government would provide such an opportunity. This matter has had a rather chequered career. Amendments, and revised Amendments, and re-revised Amendments dealing with it have appeared in succession on the Paper, and even the Government printers seem to be in a conspiracy against its success. After the welcome that was given to these proposals in the discussion on the Land Tax Resolution and upon the Second Reading of the Bill from the benches below the Gangway, I never expected the opposition that developed a few days later. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), speaking on behalf of the Liberal party, I think on the Second Reading of the Bill, welcomed the land proposals most enthusiastically and expressed his regret that they were of such a moderate character and said his gratification would have been still greater if they had been of a more comprehensive character. The hon. and learned Gentleman said: I can, therefore, understand that to most of the Members on this side of the Gangway and to all the Members on the other side, this Bill is welcome. He went on to express the criticism to which I have referred that the Measure was not radical enough to satisfy some of his friends. But it is to some other remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman that I want particularly to draw attention. He said: With regard to the tax itself, I should like to say a few words. Frankly, it is undoubtedly an extra tax and an additional burden upon certain taxpayers.… There is only one justification for this additional tax and that is that it is based on the value of the site which has been created by enterprises other than the enterprise of the owner."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1931; col. 1824, Vol. 252.] I quote that, because it is quite evident that at that time it was clear in the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman that this was an additional tax; in other words, that it was a double tax. And it was also clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman's Leader, because his attention was drawn in the course of the Debate to this particular point. After having eulogised these proposals, he made a remark which has been very much in my mind during the Debates of the last fortnight, when he solemnly warned me about the ruin that would come to my proposals if I listened to the claims which, no doubt, I should receive for exemption from the tax. The right hon. Gentleman knew quite well that the tax was a double tax. It was to be a tax in addition to Income Tax, These observations were made after hon. Members had been in possession of the Bill for a week and, therefore, they could not have been under any misapprehension at all.


The speech that I made was made on the Resolution, before the Bill was introduced.


The right hon. Gentleman is quite right, but, as a matter of fact—I do not know whether this is a breach of confidence or not—he had the Bill two or three days before it was introduced.


When I made the speech and said I had not received the Bill or seen it, I had not seen it. I saw it afterwards.


The right hon. Gentleman spoke on the Financial Resolution. Of course that was before the Bill was printed. When the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery made his speech Members of the House had been in possession of the text of the Bill for a week, and, therefore, they could have been under no misapprehension at all as to what was involved in. these proposals. They understood that it was to be a uniform, flat rate tax, and that it was to be a special tax of a special nature for special reasons. For 40 years the Liberal party had the question of the taxation of land values in the forefront of their programme, and there has never been anything indefinite in the way in which they have presented this question. It has always been in the same phraseology, the Resolution has always been exactly the same Resolution, that a uniform national land tax should be imposed on the capital site value of the whole country. That has been repeated at innumerable conferences, and no Member of the Liberal party has taken such a prominent part in the Debates upon this question at numerous conferences than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean).


I spoke at a Yorkshire conference once and that must be the one to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. My speech contained one sentence. I know perfectly well what it is, and I am prepared to speak about it at any- time, but the right hon. Gentleman ought not to make a perfectly general statement of that kind which is wholly inaccurate.


The right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten, I think; I referred to a conference of the Liberal party. As a matter of fact, I had not in mind any conference in Yorkshire in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. If he will refresh his memory, he will find that he spoke upon this question at a special land conference that was called and also at conferences, where this question has been raised, of the National Liberal Federation. There can be no doubt what the policy of the Liberal party has been. For instance, I find the case is put admirably in the Town and Land Urban Report of the Liberal Land Committee, which reported in 1925. It said: On account of its peculiar character, the ownership value of land has been viewed in most countries as a fair subject for special taxation. If the nation gives secure rights of user of its land, it follows that the value of land is a form of wealth to which the nation has a special claim and which therefore is peculiarly appropriate for taxation. It came to me, therefore, as a complete surprise, after those clear declarations and the justification of the double taxation by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire when they suddenly discovered that there was something immoral in this additional tax. And rather than agree with it, they were prepared to die in the last ditch. They discovered that double taxation was something quite alien to our system of taxation. There is nothing new in it. There are innumerable instances of double taxation in our taxation system. You might more appropriately call it treble taxation, because there is taxation under Schedule A, there is taxation for Estate Duty, and then there will be a special tax on land. There are innumerable other instances. Take motor oars. They are subject, I believe, to taxation four times over. You tax the car, you tax the petrol, you tax it by licence and by a driver's licence, and then, on an imported car, you tax him again. He is taxed about five times over. Lastly, arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's legislation in 1909, take the case of mine-owners, who are taxed three times over. They are taxed on profits, taxed on royalties, and taxed for the Miners Welfare Fund. Therefore there is nothing new in this except this difference, that, to use the argument by which the taxation of land values has been supported by the Liberal party, there is a special case here for special taxation.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall put down the Amendment which had such an untimely end. It was an Amendment which could never have been accepted. It would have wrecked the whole Bill. The only thing that would have been left would have been a few patches of land here and there, and probably, if the Amendment had been incorporated in the Bill, they would have been taken out of taxation by the various Amendments we have been considering. After all, there is something to be said for these Liberal Amendments, and there is something in them. It is, that it is unfair to tax land at the same rate whatever may be its degree of undevelopment or development. I quite agree. That is especially applicable or admissible in the initial stages of any tax.

After the unfortunate experience of those Amendments—if is common property, I am not seeking to shelve or shirk or hide it; it was a perfectly reputable thing to do—we entered into negotiations with the party below the Gangway and a formula was ultimately devised for trying to deal with the point I have mentioned just now, to see whether we can graduate the tax according to the degree of development, so that the person who had spent large sums of money upon the development of a site, and usefully from the point of view of the community, should not be taxed quite so highly as the man who was leaving his land unused and undeveloped. We drafted that formula in the first instance and the discussions ranged—[HON. MEMBERS "Raged?"]—ranged over certain cases and eventually under the capital value of Schedule A, we agreed to a deduction of four times. With that provision we have inserted in this Amendment another condition. The application of a formula pure and simple would have left some developed sites free from taxation altogether, but by this rather ingenious arrangement of a double calculation for purposes of the reduction of land value which we have incorporated in the Amendment, no site however highly developed it may be, will be taxed less than a penny upon the value after the deductions have been made, or in other words less than one-eighth of a penny in the pound of the original site value.

I will explain how this plan works, and will try to do so as simply as I can, I will take three instances—first of all, that of the undeveloped site. The capital value has been assessed for the site at £1,000. It is practically undeveloped. It is assessed under Schedule A at £10 a year. We multiply that by four and get £40 for the deduction. We have to make a second calculation, and the second calculation is seven-eighths of the capital site value. Seven-eighths of £1,000 is £875, but we have to take the lesser of the two deductions, and therefore in that case we should deduct £40 from the £1,000 and the tax would be levied at one penny in the pound upon £960.

I take another case where there is a fair amount of development. The capital site value is £1,000, and Schedule A assessment £100. Four times that gives £400. Therefore, £400 is deducted from the £1,000. We have to make the second calculation before we come to a decision, namely, the seven-eighths of £1,000, that is £875. £400 is less than £875, and therefore the deduction would be £400, and a man would be taxed at one penny in the pound on £600. The last case is one of a very fully developed site. £1,000 is the site value under Schedule A, assessment £250. Four times that is £1,000. Of course, if £1,000 were deducted, there would be nothing at all. But then the other calculation comes in of seven-eighths, and we deduct £875, and that leaves £125 to be assessed at a penny in the pound. That is equal to one-eighth of a penny upon the whole of the site value. I hope that I have succeeded in making the purpose plain. That is how it works.

Let us see how far the principle of the 40-year-old Liberal programme has been maintained. In all the conversations that I have had with the party below the Gangway on this subject my main concern has been to save the soul of the Liberal party and to bring back to the fold those wanderers who have strayed and erred like lost sheep. Under this new Clause every land unit, except such as are specially exempted, will pay a tax of 1d. in the pound on the value, after the deductions have been made. The rate of the whole value will gradually fall according to the degree of development, and in the most extreme cases it will pay a tax of one-eighth of a penny. Therefore, we get a tax upon every site value, varying according to the degree of development. It will be a special tax, an additional tax, and, if you like, a double tax.

The second object of the Bill is the valuation. That remains intact, untouched. I have said, I believe more than once, that I look upon this proposal of valuation and of taxation as being a step forward in a comprehensive scheme for transferring local rates from improvements to site value. Therefore, the amount of the tax initially does not matter very much. Future Parliaments will settle that. Probably when the time comes for dealing with local rating on that basis a complete revision may be necessary in the scheme of national taxation. I submit that all the principles upon which the Bill is based remain unimpaired. The Liberal party can look the whole world in the face and say that their 40-year-old programme has now been carried into effect. I said at the beginning that I would briefly explain the new Clause as far as I could, and I hope that I have made it plain. Therefore, I submit it for the approval of the Committee.


I am very much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having redeemed his promise, not that I have ever had any doubt, because whenever he has made a promise I must say, whatever the way in which he redeems it, he does redeem it, and it is the substance that matters and not the form. He has introduced a new method—new during the 41 years that I have been in Parliament—of making concessions. He has been perfectly original in that respect. I have seen Ministers belonging to the party above the Gangway, to the party of which I am a member, and to the party of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is such a distinguished ornament, and up to the present when a Government or a Minister has made a concession it has always been done graciously, to create the impression that, whether you are getting something or not, at any rate they were giving something away. The right hon. Gentleman has adopted a totally different method. His method is to make it as offensively and as disagreeably as he possibly can, and there is no doubt about his capacity in that direction. I daresay there is a good deal to be said for it. The right hon. Gentleman wants to discourage people from asking for concessions, and he has taken probably, what he thinks is the right way. It is a dangerous way for a Minister. Ministers of longer experience than he have always come to the conclusion that that was not the way.

I remember that when I first came to this House there was a Chancellor of the Exchequer who was very famous for having a pretty rough tongue in private. He was a distinguished member of the party above the Gangway, and a great Minister. I refer to Sir Michael Hicks-Beach. When he came to the House of Commons he adopted quite a different method, and he was a very successful Parliamentarian for that reason. It was part of my duty when I was a young Member rather to obstruct. In those days, people did that sort of thing. It is an old and an obsolete Parliamentary weapon, but in those days we did it. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach always used to get up and try to persuade us. He would make little concessions and try to give us the impression that we were getting something and that he was making a great concession. The result was that he was a very good man at getting Bills through. This may be a better method, but may I just give a word of advice, as Father of the House, to young Members who are looking forward to becoming Ministers in their time? On the whole, I would advise them to follow the method of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach in public, whatever they may do in private. However, I am not going to deal further with what seems to be the method of reluctance and indignation adopted by the right hon. Gentleman in having to make a concession. The concession has been made, and I am grateful for it.

I will say a few words in regard to what he said about our having departed from the line that we have taken before. I can answer him. I took the trouble to look at the report of the Conference to which he referred, the great Land Conference at which were adopted certain Resolutions on land generally, and at which the land Values resolution was moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). He made a very strong speech upon the subject and the attitude he adopted was pretty well the attitude that we have adopted in the negotiations with the right hon. Gentleman. But it is immaterial what either our attitude or the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman was. We have arrived at an arrangement which, on the whole, I think is good. The right hon. Gentleman has not had the whole of his way. If anyone doubts that, he has only to read his speech. On the other hand, we have not had the whole of our way. That is the very essence of all arrangements. It may be said that we have departed from a certain principle to a certain extent, but the right hon. Gentleman has done the same thing. That is the way legislation is carried through this House, that is the way in which government is carried on in any decent democracy, and especially in a democracy like our own which is the only one that has made a real success of democratic institutions over a long period.

I understand an Amendment is to be moved later which will challenge the essence of this Amendment, and in that case I propose to reserve what I have to say until we reach that proposal. All I wish to do now is to thank the right hon. Gentleman for redeeming his promise. It is true that he has been more successful as regards the question of draftsmanship, but it must be remembered that he has at his disposal not merely one of the most distinguished member of the Bar but all the resources of the Government, and there is a great difference between his position and the position of an Opposition, although it may have the services of a very eminent lawyer. It is a litle ungenerous, therefore, to criticise an Amendment of an Opposition in those circumstances. In substance, we are agreed. For the moment, I thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Government for having moved this Amendment and redeemed their promise; and I shall await the moving of the subsequent Amendment to defend the principle of this proposal.


I do not think the Committee can part with the Second Reading of this new Clause without taking note of the very extraordinary circumstances in which the Debate takes place. We were led to believe only a fortnight ago that the country had arrived at a critical situation and that the position of the Government was in peril. A compromise has been arrived at, and one would not have paid much attention to the particular terms of the compromise were it not for the fact that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has not only made modifications upon the general arrangement, but has completely given up the principle upon which he said he was going to stand. I am not surprised at the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in regard to the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in defending this Clause. I have rarely seen so much truculence exhibited on the part of a Minister who had made an arrangement with an opponent, but perhaps his truculence was justified by his confidence that no matter what he said or did, no matter what insults he poured on the Liberal party, it would not goad them into an opposition which would unseat him.

Upon what principle is this new Clause based? It is based upon a theory that in some way or another by taking four times the annual value of a particular tenement of land as assessed under Schedule A of the Income Tax Acts you will arrive at some idea of the extent to which that tenement has been developed. The Liberal principle was that there should be no double taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes, as I understand him, that some notice shall be taken of the amount of development taking place on a tenement and that allowance shall be made in the taxation in respect of that development. I must point out to the Committee that the principle which has been adopted for the purpose of giving this allowance is irregular in its method, is uneven in its operation, and has no foundation in reason upon which it can be defended.

Let me take an illustration to show how the principle at once breaks down. It entirely depends upon the value of buildings put up on a particular site as to whether a sufficient allowance is granted or not. If the buildings are expensive, then you may take from the site value a figure which may be high enough to equal the whole of the capital value of the site upon which the buildings are erected. But a site may be completely developed for its purpose and yet have buildings of very small value upon it. Take the case of public works, engineering works or shipbuilding works. The buildings are of small value as a rule compared with the buildings you have on sites in the centre of our great cities. In the case of a shipyard you will have no adequate allowance at all, while you may possibly have an adequate allowance in the case of shops and establishments, which certainly do not deserve more consideration at the present time than our great industrial organisations. So much for the principle.

Let me give the Committee one or two illustrations of sites completely developed in the city of Glasgow to show how this multiplication by four works out. I take a property in St. Vincent Street in the centre of Glasgow. The site value, under the arrangements which were made in previous legislation, is estimated at £6,774. The assessable rental under Schedule A is £217 5s., which multiplied by four gives you £869 as against a site value of £6,774, in respect of a unit of land in the middle of the city of Glasgow which is completely developed and covered. How can it be said that any proper or adequate allowance is being made in such a case?


Can the right hon. Member give us the present value of the site?


The site value is £6,774, and the total value of the tenement and buildings is £15,000, and you have a figure of £869 to be deducted from a site value of £6,774, although the land is covered with substantial buildings of four storeys high and is used according to the best method in which it can be used. I take another case in West George Street, in Glasgow, where the site value is £7,300. The assessable value is £330, which multiplied by four gives you £1,320 to be deducted from a site value of £7,300. That, again, is a case where the land is entirely covered by appropriate buildings for its use, and yet you have the great difierence between the amount of the site value and the deduction proposed under the Clause, as well as a great disparity between what is to be deducted in the one case and in the other. I could give the Committee a number of cases of the same kind to show that this principle cannot be worked out upon any fair basis or arrive at any results which do not show amazing discrepancies as between one ease and another, although they may be contiguous properties in the same street. I suggest that we should not give adherence to a principle which operates so fantastically.

I would like to say a word or two about the point of view which the Liberal party took up in this matter. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs went up to Scotland and made speeches there. In Edinburgh there was perhaps a more stimulating air than he enjoys in Southern England. He could not have said that his foot was exactly on his native heath, but at least it was on a soil which tends to lead to accuracy and inspiration and also to some element of courage. Upon that occasion the line that the right hon. Gentleman took was that this was entirely an unjust form of taxation. He pointed out that although a penny was a rather small thing it was a little bit bigger than it appeared, and he added that, being a penny on the capital value, it represented 1s. 8d. of the annual value. Then he referred to the iniquity of a person being obliged to pay 4s. 6d. in Income Tax under Schedule A. and 1s. 8d. in addition. He made reference to an objection which is certainly very strong. He said the proposal would penalise improvements. Yet we have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day that the justification for the modification that he is making is that he must encourage improvements. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs thinks the proposals will penalise improvements, as they indeed will.

Next the right hon. Gentleman went on, progressing still further in the ardour of his arguments, and said, "We will not levy a tax twice over," and that was the principle upon which he finished. He said it would be entirely unjust, and added, "We mean to stand by it, whatever the consequences may be." Then he gave a somewhat pathetic account of the ignominies which the Liberal party had suffered in keeping the Government in power and in consenting to methods of procedure which went very much against the grain, and he said that Liberals were entitled to consideration on that account; accordingly that if the Government insisted upon its attitude the Liberal party would be adamant upon this question.

The right hon. Gentleman came back to London; he came to the more enervating atmosphere of this House, and I have no doubt at all that he was subject to the mellifluous influence of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). No doubt he felt also the difficulties in which many of his colleagues might find themselves if anything were to happen to compel the Government to go to an election. The result was the series of negotiations to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred; and the further result has been what we have seen to-day. So far as the Liberal party is concerned it ended in producing an Amendment which consisted of a jumble of words which no one could interpret or make sense of. That only exhibited the confusion in which their minds were. Now we have the Amendment moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which departs entirely from the principle upon which the Liberal party said they were going to stand, no matter what the consequences might be. It is true that the amount of the tax has been brought down from a penny to one-eighth of a penny, but, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, future Parliaments will look after that figure. The figure matters nothing so far as this Amendment is concerned. No doubt necessity, or supposed necessity, will induce some future Parliament to make one-eighth of a penny into a penny or ultimately a shilling. The words in the Clause are, "not less than one-eighth of a penny," which is a very sinister expression, when we consider the principle for which the Liberal party was to stand. We ought to protest against the idea of passing the Second Reading of a Clause constructed upon no principle which can be reasonably explained—a Clause which departs entirely from that sound principle upon which the Liberal party found itself and from which it has now run away.

9.0 p.m.


After the speech of the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home), I am not sure whether he is disappointed or not at the Government having proposed this Amendment. I understood that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen of the Conservative party were opposed to this tax in any shape or form, and that they were determined, come what may, that not a penny, not a fraction of a penny, should be levied upon site value. Now apparently there is disappointment at the fact that we have shown a way in which at any rate the full penny will not be levied on fully developed sites. We have shown that way, and because it did not occur to the right hon. Gentleman he has expressed his disappointment. As to the way in which this Amendment was proposed, let me remind the Committee that the Liberal party throughout has been in favour of taxation of site values. For 40 years the party has had this matter upon its programme. The Liberal party has also been in favour of a complete valuation. When I spoke on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill I welcomed the fact that the Chancellor was proposing once again to tax site values, but I expressed disappointment that the valuation was an incomplete valuation, and that the Chancellor was not following the true line of the true tax valuer. The true tax valuer has always said that there should be no tax upon improvements, and that there should be one tax and one tax only on site values.

This, as I have admitted, is an additional tax so long as Schedule A remains a part of the financial programme of this country. The right thing to have done was to have introduced this as a separate and complete tax, and to have abolished Schedule A altogether. Schedule A is not a true Income Tax. It is levied upon hypothetical valuation of the land as between a hypothetical landlord and a hypothetical tenant. It is levied not only on improvements, but upon the site—the positional value of the ground upon which the buildings and improvements have to be. In that respect and to that extent it is an annual tax upon a particular site. If the site is a fully developed site the tax will amount, roughly, to about 2½d. in the pound of capital value. If the site is undeveloped the tax will amount to only a fraction of a penny. In that way it taxes unfairly the fully developed site and does not tax properly the undeveloped site.

This was meant to be an additional tax, and I said so frankly when speaking in this House. So that it would have meant, left as it was in the Bill, a tax upon the fully developed site of an additional penny, with 2½d. already paid, bringing the amount paid in respect of the land up to 3½d. in the pound on the capital value. On the undeveloped land it would have meant 1d. plus a fraction, so that, again, undeveloped land would escape at the expense of the fully developed land. That being so, I put down an Amendment which aimed at this result—that the land paying tax under Schedule A should have the credit of such payment so that it would not have to pay, over and above that, a full 1d. The result would have been that fully developed land would escape this tax altogether; that under-developed land would have had to pay a portion of it, and that undeveloped land would have to pay practically the whole of it. That was the purpose of the first Amendment, and I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead should have referred to the way in which the Amendment appeared for the second time on the Order Paper. I think it was rather ungenerous of a member of my own profession to accuse a fellow-member of that profession of faults which were obviously due to a printer's error. What happened was this. The first Amendment was certainly in order and in its right place——


The hon. and learned Member may think that, but he must not assert it.


I apologise. I was not referring to the Amendment which was ruled out of order. I was only referring to the one which wag on the Paper and Was withdrawn. That Amendment which was on the Paper and was withdrawn, was to Clause 20 of the Bill. It was an Amendment which allowed the tax to be assessed in full but having allowed the tax to be assessed in full—and thus followed the desires of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, in preserving the tax—it provided that before the tax was actually paid, allowance should be made in respect of such amount as has already been paid by the land under Schedule A. The Chancellor of the Exchequer saw fit to refer to negotiations which took place between Members who sit on these benches and himself and other Members of the Government. There was one phrase which he used in that connection with which I would agree. It was a misuse of a word by the right hon. Gentleman but it was a true representation of what took place. The right hon. Gentleman meant to say that the discussion "ranged" over certain matters, but I think what he actually said was that the discussion "raged," and the discussion was a raging one as far as he was concerned, because he realised that the Amendment which we were putting forward was a just Amendment, and that it had to be met.

There was only one objection to it and that was a real objection, an objection in substance, namely, that it would involve a double valuation. There was the valuation which would have to be made under the Bill to ascertain the site value. and there was the second valuation which would then have to be made, under that Amendment, to ascertain what the site paid in respect of Schedule A. That would have meant expense and delay and in order to avoid the double valuation it was suggested—and since the Chancellor of the Exchequer has claimed that the form now put forward was invented by his colleagues, I may say that it was the invention of the Solicitor-General himself, who put it forward in order to avoid double valuation, but the express object of both forms was the same—that those who paid fully on the site under Schedule A, should no longer be called on to pay more under this tax, while those who paid less than they ought to pay under Schedule A, namely, the owners of under-developed or undeveloped land, should pay in proportion and in a proper proportion.

The only discussion which took place between us was as to the proper multiple to use. The multiple suggested by them was two; the multiple which we fought for was that which experience has taught every valuer in the land is the proper one in respect of fully developed land, namely, four. [Interruption.] Every valuer of experience will tell hon. Members that usually a building is worth four times the value of the site. [HON. MEMBERS: "Five times!"] Well, five times. If the buildings and improvements are properly valued under Schedule A, the multiple which we have chosen will thus exempt the fully developed land from the further payment of this tax. It is purely arbitrary, I quite agree, but it is the nearest multiple that we can obtain which will not involve any injustice to anybody, and it will, at any rate, avoid the enormous expense to the country of another valuation. But the ultimate object both of this Amendment and of the Amendment which was first put on the Paper, is exactly the same and I hope that experience will show that, in insisting upon this, we have achieved the object which we set out to achieve. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway do not think so, why did they not put down again the Amendment which I had upon the Order Paper in the first instance? They might have put it down to Clause 20 at that time but they did not choose to do so. With regard to the one-eighth, I agree that that was a concession to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted every fully developed site—not merely the underdeveloped or the undeveloped but the fully developed site also—to bear the same tax and in order to meet him we agreed to what we thought would amount to no more than a nominal tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, a nominal tax where the land is properly valued and properly paying under Schedule A and where it is a fully developed site; and if it is paying more than a nominal tax it means that the owner has already been escaping his due share under Schedule A. But it is no more than an acknowledgment that every site should bear a site value tax and it is only intended as such. It is for that reason that we put down the Amendment which has now been accepted by the Government and has now been proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer although somewhat ungraciously.


I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) on making a very interesting historical survey of the steps which have led up to the Clause, the Second Reading of which has been moved this evening. My hon. and learned Friend played a very distinguished part in those discussions, and I think the Committee are beholden to him for his statement. I cannot say as much about the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Never was a more graceless, grudging speech made than that which he delivered this evening. I do not know what effect he calculated it would have upon the enemy, but it has certainly frightened some of my hon. Friends here. I do not see how the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any reasonable man, can hope to enlist sympathy for his proposals, if that is the spirit in which they are to be advocated. His speech was, first to last, a suppressio veri and a suggestio falsi. He said that the principle of an additional tax upon land values had been in the Liberal programme for the last 40 years. That is not the case. It never has been the case, and I trust never will be the case, and not only is it not in the policy of the Liberal party, but it has never been in the policy of a single land taxer. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), who is such an authority upon these matters, on the very day when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his proposal said: I want to remind him of this fact—it must have escaped his memory—that it was agreed that if anything was paid by any landowner in respect of his land under Schedule A, he would be relieved to the extent of an equivalent amount if a land tax was imposed upon him. He made that statement several times in the course of his speech, and he said quite distinctly that it was understood that remissions would be given under Schedule A for the exact amount of this tax. He said indeed that that was the superiority of this tax over the proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in 1909, that they were going to remove taxation from industry' and to begin by imposing taxation on laud values instead; so that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes down here and says that it has been the principle of land taxation for 40 years to treat the new impost as an additional one, he cannot have been paying attention to the hon. Member for Burslem, nor can he have read the great and luminous works of his master, Mr. Henry George.

I happen to have here what is considered to be the Bible of the land taxers. It is called "Progress and Poverty," by Mr. Henry George. The whole case for land taxation is based upon dissatisfaction with the present system of taxation. If it were not for the evil effects which were thought to ensue from the present system of taxation, none of these proposals of Mr. Henry George would ever have seen the light of day. He attributed every single human misery to taxation upon improvements. He seeks to prove it at considerable length, in a considerable number of works, and with very great eloquence. He says, in effect: "If I build myself a house, and I show industry and energy in building it, the tax collector comes down upon me and penalises me because of my industry. That is all wrong. You must take the tax off improvements and place it upon the site value." He says, in Chapter I of Book IX of this learned work: To abolish the taxation which, acting and reacting, now hampers every wheel of exchange and presses upon every form of industry, would be like removing an immense weight from a powerful spring. He says the same sort of thing in varying language throughout the whole work. He says: To shift the burden of taxation from production and exchange to the value or rent of land would not merely be to give useful new stimulus to the production of wealth; it would be to open new opportunities. That is the whole theme of the land taxer, and has been so for many years, even before Mr. Henry George. It was the physiocrats at the time of the French Revolution who advocated what they called l'impêt unique, and they based their claim for this new tax from first to last on the evil effect of taxing improvements, which, they said, discouraged enterprise and ingenuity and brought about all the sorrows to which the modem world is heir. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to find a short cut to the Millennium, he cannot do better than take off the Income Tax altogether, and every other tax upon industry, and substitute the proposals of this work. He will then see, as Mr. Henry George tells him he will see, that poverty will be abolished, that everybody will have a happy home, that war will be banished from the thoughts of men, that there will be international peace and good will, and that everybody will enjoy the fruits of their industry in comfort and in happiness.


Has what the hon. Member is now saying about the single tax been the policy of the Liberal party for the last 40 years?


I never received such a thrill in my life since I read "Labour and the Nation." I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem, who has devoted the whole of his working life, I understand, to the advocacy of this proposal—and I think the House is indebted to him for the lucidity with which he has expounded it, for only yesterday he said that the idea of this tax was that it should be a substitute for existing taxation—I asked him where I could obtain, in a compendious form, an explanation of what this tax really involves, and my hon. Friend was kind enough to send me, or to have sent to me, a little book called "Land-Value Policy," by a former Member of this House, Mr. James Dundas White. What does he say, and what does he gay repeatedly, because all land taxers repeat themselves, just as historians do? He says: The policy of taxing and rating landed properties on the real value of the lands is bound up with that of untaxing improvements. The two reforms are complementary to one another. The first would make the natural opportunities available for use on fair terms, and the second would promote their development. There is no doubt about it here. What you put on by way of land tax you must remit by way of Income Tax. I was interrupted just now by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson), who takes charge of these proceedings during the unfortunate absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am grateful to him for putting me the question. He said, "What about the Liberal party?" In doing that, he was only echoing his master.


No, the interruption was to ask whether what the hon. Member was saying about the single tax had been the policy of the Liberal party for the last 40 years.


Certainly. The 40 years' policy of the Liberal party has been to remit Income Tax and put on a land tax.


Not to remit it, but to remove it entirely.


The Chancellor of the Exchequer may well behave like Pilate and ask "What is truth?" and refuse to wait for an answer, but I ask my hon. Friend to give me an opportunity to answer him. Naturally, as a Liberal, I would not——[HON. MEMBERS: "As a what?"]. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that the privilege of criticising the Government is a monopoly enjoyed by them. I naturally would not rely exclusively on the tomes which I have quoted. I naturally had recourse to the literature of the Liberal publication department, and this is a published pamphlet on the subject which will answer my hon. Friend's question. It is written by that eminent publicist, Mr. Harold Storey, and he says: This (new tax) is, for the most part, a new method of assessment for purposes of revenue, and not an additional imposition. It would be paid by the people who now pay Income Tax on income derived from the ownership of land, and in their case it would be in substitution for that part of their Income Tax. He then sets out a table on the next page as follows: New national land values tax—£52,000,000"— I think there he was a little optimistic— deduct present tax paid on income from ownership of land (say) £24,000,000—surplus of £28,000,000. He deducts the whole of the Schedule A receipts from this tax. This is a pamphlet which is circulated to every Liberal in every constituency. Why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should so far suppress the real facts as to suggest to the small minority of hon. Members in this House who are not acquainted with the intricacies of this subject, that this tax was to be an additional one and that that was the Liberal policy, I cannot understand, any more than I can understand his general revocation of his faith upon every one of the taxes in this Budget, including the Petrol Tax. This, then, is the central principle of Liberal policy, as it has been of land taxation also from its inception—there shall not be a double tax. We have asserted that again and again. I was prepared to accept this new Clause in its present form, because I understood there was some technical reason why a token tax ought to be imposed, but when I listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer I was informed that that was not the case. The reason for this additional tax, he explained, was in order that the principle of double taxation might be affirmed. In view of what the Chancellor has said, is there one Liberal who adheres to the policy of his party who would go in support of him in the Lobby to-night? Why, the protest against double taxation was made in very, very firm and undoubting language by my leader, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who said that it was a matter of conscience. How then could we support this Clause except by giving life to the old adage that Conscience does make cowards of us all.


The powerful speech which the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) has delivered puts the case of the Liberal party quite clearly. This Amendment was first of all put on the Paper as a protest against the principle of double taxation. That was the reason why it was placed there at all. That reason was reaffirmed by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) at Edinburgh, and reaffirmed there in an unmistakable way. He said we were prepared to stand or fall by it. I, for one, have very great admiration for the tenacity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is a man who knows exactly where he stands, and he gets his way. He has got his way in regard to this Amendment—practically the whole way. He has achieved it by the imposition of one-eighth of a penny tax in order to reaffirm the principle of double taxation. That is not the only thing he has done. I agree with what has been said by another hon. Member in regard to fully developed land, that a comparison is being made between Schedule A and the principle of this tax. The whole fallacy arises from comparing the two taxes, one with the other, by taking Schedule A and setting that off against the tax which is intended to be imposed under the Bill. Actually Schedule A has nothing whatever to do with the tax proposed under this Bill. To set out and subtract, in this form or any other form, the impost under Schedule A from the tax proposed, is like trying to subtract Thursday from the North Pole. It is upon a totally different basis.

As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir E. Home) pointed out in the perfectly valid illustration he gave, in London and the Provinces, and far more in the Provinces, a great portion of the valuation would fall not to one-eighth of a penny tax, but the full 1d. tax on the greater amount of the assessment. You have the case given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer where the capital value was £1,000. The value under Schedule A was £10. Four times £10 is £40 and that, taken away from the £1,000 is £960. That will fall to be taxed not at one-eighth of a penny, but for the full 1d. tax. The remaining £40 falls under the one-eighth of a penny. It will come in for the whole 1d. tax, so that the concession actually made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is practically valueless. No one who believes that the principle of double taxation is a wrong principle can possible support this proposal. No one who has said that this is a matter of conscience can possibly support it, and for that reason I hope it will not be carried.


I apologise to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) for not being present when he opened his speech, but I gathered from the tail end of it that he was having a night of revelry, and, apparently, he had been quoting from what he had discovered in a book 40 years ago written by Henry George. I hope that those other members of the Liberal party will show the same assiduity and enterprise, and will also secure a copy, or I will send them one. I know something of the Liberal party; indeed, I knew a good deal of it in the old days when the fight was on before. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) at the outset of the campaign, was extremely anxious, irrespective of double or treble taxation, to have his valuation and tax operating in the Budget of 1909–10. He went out into the country, and I wish his example was copied by some of the Leaders of our Front Bench. He fired the imagination of the people for the land tax. He made the people sing, "God gave the land to the people," but something happened inside the Liberal party itself to make the new tax quite abortive.

I well remember a cave forming inside the Liberal party led by one of the most prominent and influential members. They came to the right hon. Gentleman and told him, "If you dare to go forward with your penny tax on the value of land, there will be disruption in the party." I remember, even as late as 1912, that three by-elections were pending, and the late Lord Oxford was rather wondering what would happen to the fortunes of his party, because by that time the bureaucratic proposals of unemployment insurance had been transplanted from Germany into England, and the stock was going down. There were three by-elections, and what did the Liberal party do then? It is all very well now for the hon. Member for Devon-port to stand, in his youth and sublime arrogance, and repeat——[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Let me tell the Committee what happened. When the stock was falling there were three by-elections, at North-West Norfolk, Holmfirth, and Hanley. They came to the single taxer and the Henry George men, and asked whether we would go forward and fight the by-elections, and if we won, then they would be very much surprised at the strength of the policy. I went forward into the fight. I took part in three elections, and we won those three elections.


The hon. Member cannot expect the Committee to accept his interpretation of that. I was in the by-elections.


It came to such a point that Lord Oxford, who was then Prime Minister, became afraid of the intimidating influences of the caucus in his party, and he stood at that Box and told the country that there were no Henry George men in the Cabinet. I am saying this to remind the Liberal party that their leader in those days was more aggressive in handling the policy of Henry George than some of his followers are here to-night. The Liberal party gradually sank into the position in which it finds itself to-day from the moment that they were false to the principles with which they had fired the people in 1909–10. I see that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) and a few others have been looming before the country as the men who have been drafting this Clause because of a remark I dropped about Schedule A when I was speaking in the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Arrogance!"] I have nothing to swank about, because I want to put the Committee right about this. The proposition that this Amendment was built on anything I said is an entirely false conception. What I wanted the Committee to understand when I was speaking was that if a tax was levied on the value of the land and was in full operation, regard would have to be had for what was happening under Schedule A.

The Liberal party, swift and keen to come into the picture somehow, although the leader of the party had told the Chancellor to make no concessions, and warned him against making any exemptions, ran upstairs and had a party meeting. They drafted their Amendment no less than five times. Finally, the great Edinburgh speech was made because the leader of the party was wholly unconscious of the anxiety running through his own party in London. They were going to hold fast to the principle of no double taxation. I put this to the Liberal Members of the House. For years the Liberal party have advocated the local rating of land values. Since 1906, when Campbell Bannerman was determined to lead the party in that policy, the party stood for the rating of land values. I ask any hon. Gentleman on the Liberal benches if he can show me any document in which it is stated that, if the rating of land values were introduced, any regard would be had to Schedule A.


I read the passage from the Liberal pamphlet.


The hon. Gentleman was speaking about taxation. I am speaking about local rating.


This passage that I have read says exactly the same thing, that

"the tax, like the rate, is not an additional burden."


When was that pamphlet published?


In 1927.


Since 1906—and I know the literature of the Liberal party on this question upside down—— [Laughter.] I give hon. Members the pleasure of that, because it will be the best joke they will have to-night. I know the literature on this matter from A to Z, and at no point was there ever in the literature, nor in the published speeches made by the leaders of the Liberal party to the effect that if the rating of land values was in full swing any regard would ever be had to Schedule A. Indeed, it would have been nothing short of a farce if any responsible statesman in this House had proposed some new system of rating and land values and had adjusted local rating in relation to something in national taxation. This talk of double taxation is a new idea. Taxes fall upon consumable subjects, and the average man is taxed on his beer and on his tobacco, and he is taxed 10 or perhaps 20 times on the things that he consumes. Men pay Super-tax and Income Tax and there are any number of instances of more taxes than one falling on the same subject. Suppose that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, thinking back on the old days when he had the mass of the people behind him, as he often must think, were at this Box and endeavouring to get through the valuation of the land of this country. Does any Liberal suggest that in the transitional period between the time that the valuation was being made and when the first tax upon the valuation was achieved, there would not be a large element of double taxation? Of course there would be, and all this talk about double taxation is so much political window-dressing.

I was surprised to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Devonport, because if there ever were a real democrat on the Liberal benches it is he, and I am astonished that he should have taken up such a reactionary attitude. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had to give way on this question, he has won a greater victory- than many men and women in the country appreciate, because he has had to stand almost single-handed against intrigue and all sorts of forces trying to drag him down. He stands here to-night victorious on the great principle that the valuation of the land will remain intact and it will not go down to history that the Liberal party aided him in this most gallant fight. When I joined the Labour party I thought there would be no vested interests in the party. I thought at one time that inside the Liberal party there would be no vested interests, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs knows that when he was endeavouring to press this matter as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was intimidated by reactionary forces inside the Liberal party itself. Therefore, although I did not hear all the speech of the hon. Member for Devonport, I suggest to him that if he goes back into the history of his own party it will bring him round to a saner idea of what the politics of this principle really mean, and I hope that he will live long enough to join in the plaudits of the people who will look back upon this proposition, the proposition of making the value of this land known to the people of this country, untaxing the products of labour and bringing to bear the hammer of taxation upon this historic anomaly of land monopoly.


rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put." Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put accordingly, and agreed to.


I beg to move, in line 1, after the word "tax," to insert the words "and for the better avoidance of double taxation."

This Amendment must be read in conjunction with the Amendment at the foot of the page—In line 2, leave out the word "either"—and the Amendment at the head of the following page—In line 4, to leave out from the word "purposes" to the end of the Sub-section. The effect of the three Amendments taken together would be to leave out paragraph (b) in the first Sub-section of the Chancellor's Clause. The fact that we have allowed the Clause to pass its Second Reading without challenge does not mean that we have in any way abated our hostility to the proposals which the Clause proceeds to modify. Our opposition to the proposals as a whole is the same as it has been throughout, and when the time comes to move that the Clause be added to the Bill we shall go into the Lobby against it; but we have been anxious for an opportunity of moving this Amendment, and did not desire to take up time with unnecessary Divisions. There is another point we should like to draw attention to, and may have the opportunity of doing so before the Guillotine falls. I refer to the multiplier in paragraph (a) of this same Sub-section. Although this Amendment has no reference to that multiplier I do not wish it to be supposed that in our opinion four times the annual value is the proper figure to take.

But leaving that aside for the moment, I come to the real purpose of the Amendment I have moved. Its purpose is to go as far as possible in the direction of putting a stop to double taxation. Although we Strongly opposed the proposals for land taxation from the first moment when we were aware of their nature, I think I am right in saying that it was not our party which laid particular emphasis upon the question of double taxation. If we have a characteristic as a party it is, I think, that we do not so much regard theory as practice, and that we approach the consideration of any new proposal from the realist's point of view and not necessarily from the point of view of whether it conflicts or accords with some theory. The characteristic of the Liberal party is that they are particularly concerned with theory, and it is an illustration of that point of view that they fixed at once—well, not at once perhaps; I am going too fast. Their first reaction was that there was nothing wrong with the proposals, except that they did not go far enough, but after they had had time to take in the contents of letters they received from their constituents they had recourse to theory, and they pitched upon the question of double taxation. They stated that the principle of double taxation was one to which they could never give their adherence, that the principle of single taxation was violated by these proposals, and that they themselves were prepared to fight for that principle at all costs. They followed that up by putting down an Amendment the purpose of which was to carry into effect the principle to which they had declared their adherence. Their Amendment provided that the Land Tax should be assessed, but that after it Shad been assessed the tax payable under Schedule A should be deducted from the amount of the Land Tax. Therefore if it were equal to or greater than the amount of the assessment to the Land Tax, there would be nothing to pay at all.

Whatever may be thought of that Amendment, at any rate it did carry out the principle. If I may so describe it, it was an honest Amendment, one about which there was no mistake. It definitely secured the principle that there should not be double taxation. Therefore, I am not surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been astonished at the extraordinary tergiversations of the Liberal party, although I think his astonishment was directed to their earlier reversal of policy rather than to the one which took place after they had had conversations with him. In my opinion, the first Amendment of the Liberal party represented the only honest course for a party to take which had laid down its adherence to the principle of single taxation. They have now—or some of them have—apparently given in to a new proposal which is no longer in accordance with the principle they had themselves laid down, which, in fact, directly contravenes that principle. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his opening speech on this subject this evening, stated that double taxation was nothing new. He gave instances from existing taxation to show that more than one tax was placed upon a particular article or upon a particular form of income. That is true, and; yet I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer's analogies were false analogies, and that there is a definite and separable principle which may be extracted from the case of the Land Tax and tax under Schedule A. What is the Income Tax? The Income Tax, whether under Schedule A or another Schedule, is, in effect, the measure of a man's ability to contribute towards the expenditure of the country. Having assessed ability, and put upon it a tax which carries out and puts into Operation that ability to pay, you have no right to double that tax.

Therefore, I cannot agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that because there are various taxes for instance, placed upon the man who uses a motor car, that is a fair analogy with the double tax involved in this tax. In their struggles to try and make it consistent with what they said a little while ago, I gather that the Liberal party are going to argue, although in fact they have given away the principle, that the transgression is only a small one. I do not think that I ever heard a more merciless exposure of the Liberal party than that to which they were subjected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not wonder that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said that this was a new way of making concessions, because they have had their faces fairly rubbed in the mud. I do not see how they can pretend for a moment that they have saved the principle of their original Amendment. What is now proposed is rather an ingenious arrangement which has entrapped the Members of the Liberal party by providing, in the Chancellor's words, that "there will be a tax on every site value, or to put it in another way, that we still get the double tax." No wonder the official organ of the party opposite said: On every point of principle, the Liberals have made a complete climb down. Under it (the new Clause) every unit of land (except exempted land belonging to hospitals, etc.) will bear a tax graded according to the degree of development. So the Liberals have swallowed all they have said about double taxation. How is this new principle going to work? Is it really only a small departure from the principle of double taxation which is involved by the proposal on the Amendment Paper? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) gave us an illustration as to how the principle would work in Glasgow. I will give some instances nearer home. Here are particulars of an actual case of a block of offices and residential flats in London in a locality principally of a shopping character. It is a case where the property is let on a lease with 45 years unexpired. In this case the annual value for Income Tax is £1,360 and the estimated site value is £34,460. If you multiply the annual value by four and deduct it from the site value, you get £29,020. Therefore, the tax at 1d. in the £ would be £120 under the proposal which is before us. The amount under the original Bill would be £143 11s. So that the whole difference in this case is a difference of £22 a year, or a saving of less than one-sixth of the tax, which is equivalent to an Income Tax of 6s. 3d. in the £. Here is another case. In a shopping centre in London, the estimated site value of the land was £62,500, and the annual value for Income Tax purposes was £1,538. Multiplying that by four, and deducting it from the site value, the balance would be £56,410. Under the original Bill, the tax would be £260, and under these new proposals £235, a difference of only £25.

10.0 p.m.

Take another case of a somewhat different character. This is the case of a house and garage in which the original tax is £61, and under these proposals it will be £53, or a difference of £8 a year. I could multiply these cases over and over again, but in every case the practical and net result is that not only has the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I said on a previous occasion, got away with the principle at the expense of the cash, but he has got the cash, too. The unfortunate taxpayer who thinks that he is going to avoid double taxation by any proposal of this kind, will certainly find himself utterly deceived when he comes to work out the actual figures.

I conclude by saying that I think this Amendment is really the acid test of the sincerity of the Liberal party in their determination to stand by the words which their leader used at Edinburgh, when he said that he would never consent to tax the same property twice, and that that was a principle for which he was going to fight at all costs. Even if this Amendment be carried, the Clause will be still deserving of our condemnation, and, at any rate, I hope we shall have the satisfaction of seeing the Liberal party stand to their guns for once.


The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) said that one of the characteristics of his party was to be practical, but, in my opinion, he seems to have given us a particularly bad example. What practical purpose can be served by inserting these words it is impossible to conceive. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman wishes that words which are put into this Clause by way of a compromise between two different points of view should be interpreted as showing only one point of view, and that is not a practical suggestion. I will deal with the practical aspect of this matter and the effect it will have in such eases as were stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston. Take the case of the shipping centre with a site value assessed at £62,500 by whom I know not, and the Schedule A assessment by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue at £1,538. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that 5 percent. on the site value alone comes to over £3,000; and does he consider that the site is fully developed when the receipts for rent for the site, plus the building, come to 2½ percent. on the value of the site, without any building at all? The right hon. Gentleman's idea of a full return on site and building is very different from that of most surveyors and of most people accustomed to dealing with land.

of course, if one gives such examples as that, and such examples as were given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir E. Horne), which are perfectly ridiculous examples, if I may say so with respect, one can reduce this Clause to what appears to be a farce; but if, on the other hand, one takes examples which actually occur in practice as regards fully developed sites, one will find that the result is extraordinarily different. It is quite well known among people familiar with values that, in a case where you have the value of the building less than the value of the site, you must have a very grossly undeveloped site.[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have other figures as regards other sites, but I am quite sure of this fact, that, in any case where a building and a site together are let for less than 5 per cent. on the value of the site alone, either the site is valued wrongly or the building and site together are valued wrongly.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the examples given by my right hon. Friend of double taxation were not true analogies, but I would point out that one of the examples which my right hon. Friend gave was the Mineral Eights Duty, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman ever dealt with that analogy, which, it would seem, is a perfectly true analogy. It is upon a subject matter, the mineral, the profits from which are taxed under the Income Tax Acts, and the Mineral Eights Duty is an extra tax upon this particular source of income. It does seem that that is a true analogy, but the question whether what is incorporated in the Clause before the Committee is double taxation or not would seem to be for the moment an academic question. [Interruption.] I am not suggesting that our view may not be one thing and the view of other persons another thing. The whole point of the Clause, and it was expressed quite clearly by my right hon. Friend, is that this Clause is a compromise. It is an arrangement which has been come to—[Interruption.]—and as to which neither we nor right hon. and hon. Gentleman below the Gangway need be in the least ashamed; it only shows that we are both endowed with common sense. [Interruption.] We are practical people, as the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe his party is. As the result of the compromise, an arrangement has been brought out—[Interruption.]—which does carry out two things. It carries out the principle of valuing all the units, and the principle of having some tax upon every unit; and it also carries out the principle of diminishing the effective amount of the tax in accordance with the amount of development which has taken place on the site. In that sense I find it difficult to understand why the right hon. Gentleman is intending to vote against it. Presumably it is because he desires the full tax of 1d. to be effective on the whole of the land value, whether there is development or not. That is the only ground upon which he could vote against this Clause.


I have only one or two words to say in further reply to what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain). His case has been disposed of so effectively by the Solicitor-General that it is not necessary for me to add anything more. The right hon. Gentleman said that our first Amendment was an honest one. In his view, every compromise must necessarily be dishonest. You may state a principle, and you may put it in the form of an Amendment which embodies that principle, but any departure from that in the direction of an opponent with whom you want to effect an arrangement upon that particular question must necessarily be dishonest from his point of view. What about the right hon. Gentleman himself? From his point of view, there is no more dishonest man in politics to-day. For weeks and months he has been fighting against a principle which he opposed. The gyrations, the meanderings, the contortions of the right hon. Gentleman were simply the derision and contempt of everybody in politics. [Interruption.] I listened to the right hon. Gentleman, and hon. Members must listen to me.

The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been forced to make an arrangement. On the face of their correspondence, it was something that neither of them agreed to in principle, but it was necessary for some purpose of their own politically, which they regarded as a more important matter, to enter into this arrangement. There is no man in this House—[Interruption]—there is no man in this House, I repeat, who has less right, in the face of his record of the last 12 months, to taunt anybody.

May I point out—it has already been pointed out by the Solicitor-General—that the right hon. Gentleman himself does not seem to understand the very principle which he is here to advocate—[Interruption.] I will show that that is so. He gives two cases. Obviously, those are not cases of double taxation under this Amendment. Both of the cases he gave were cases, obviously, of under-taxation. The second case was referred to by the Solicitor-General when he referred to a site value of £62,000, 5 percent, of which is £3,100, and a Schedule A figure of only £1,500. That is without any building at all. Obviously, it is an undeveloped site; obviously, it is under-taxed; that particular unit is not contributing to the taxation of the country according to its value. What has that to do with double taxation? The other case he gave, not quite as striking, but striking enough, was a site of £34,460. Schedule A is only £1,360. Five percent. on the site alone would have been £1,700, without a penny-piece upon the building. Obviously that unit ought to be taxed far more than at present. This Amendment will cover both those cases because they are undeveloped. The right hon. Gentleman does not understand the case he is trying to make. This is not a case of double taxation. It is obviously, on the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman himself, a case of under-taxation which will be remedied by this Amendment.


I can actually give the right hon. Gentleman a case where there is double taxation. I agree with what he said just now. I will not interrupt him now if he will allow me a few minutes at the end.


I think I was justified in sitting down, apart altogether from being anxious to show every courtesy to the hon. Gentleman. He himself admits that these are not cases of double taxation. The right hon. Gentleman has been badly briefed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to have supplied him with better figures. As a matter of fact, the whole thing has been grossly exaggerated. I was very much struck by a speech we heard about the Peabody Buildings and the Guinness Buildings and the Trust. They were to pay £20,000 a year. Obviously those are fully developed. That means that the sites alone of all these buildings are worth £38,000,000. It is preposterous. It shows the kind of exaggeration that has been used in the country where you cannot check the figures, while, if they are used here, there is someone who is ready to put them right. The same thing applies to other cases. Instead of giving these very big cases, which affect a few rich corporations as a rule, let us take a case which affects a multitude of people. Let us take the case of a site of the value of £1,000 and a shop built on it worth another £4,000. That is £5,000. Four times Schedule A will be roughly £1,000. That would be a fully developed site. What will happen there? Under the Bill as originally drawn there would have been a charge of £4 3s. 4d. That has been exaggerated, to begin with. Under this Amendment there will be a charge of 10s. 5d.

You may say that to that extent we have given away the principle. Does anyone mean to say to me that, in the conflict of politics, in the conflict of the House of Commons, it is an illegitimate thing, an outrage on the conscience, that, when you are fighting for the full establishment of a principle, you should be prepared to compromise after seven-eighths of the demand is conceded? When you come to an under-developed site where the site is so valuable and where the building is obviously not adequate to the site—that is the sort of case that has been given by the right hon. Gentleman—there, of course, the tax will be higher, but, when you come to a fully developed site, that is the position that will occur. There are lawyers on both sides of the House. Many a time they appear in the courts and fight for something which they regard as complete justice for their client. Does it mean that when they settle an action for a variety of reasons—[Interruption.] I have never concealed from the House or the country why I was anxious to have a settlement—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway are jeering as if it was something I was revealing for the first time. I was anxious, as I said here a week ago, for a settlement for reasons which I regard as paramount. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway are equally anxious that there shall be no settlement for exactly the same reasons. Can anyone in his senses imagine that their indignation is about the charging of 10s. 5d.? They want to sit on the benches opposite. They thought that their opportunity had come at last. There was all this indignation and this talk about conscience as if nothing had anything to do with this particular Amendment! ulterior motives are prompting hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen, and they have no right to complain—Interruption. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have no right to criticise if those who regard the whole field of politics, who regard the great ultimate issues which are hanging upon the traditions of this House, and those who are in responsible positions, weigh and balance the whole thing, just as the right hon. Gentleman weighed and balanced the whole thing when he compromised with Lord Beaverbrook, and when he sold his principles.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose——[Interruption.]


It would assist the conduct of the proceedings if hon. Members would retrain from making interruptions.


I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to quote any speech or any words of mine showing any principles that I compromised or departed from in any shape or form.


I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he says that he did not compromise any principle when he made that arrangement, why did he not say so before, and not wait for six months? [Interruption.] He was either fighting for principle when he was opposing Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermere, or he was abandoning principle when he made the arrangement. He can choose the dilemma. He made an arrangement when there was a division of opinion inside his own party, in order to reconcile two conflicting parties, two conflicting sections, two conflicting principles. Having done that in his own party, he has no right to impute motives to anyone else. [Interruption.] I promised the hon. Member on the back bench that I would give him a couple of minutes, although I have a few more words to say. I say, without any hesitation, that this is an arrangement which, in my judgment, is a fair one. It is a reconciling of the principle which the right hon. Gentleman contends for, that there should be a universal tax, with the principle which we would have preferred, that it should have been upon the basis of development. So far, in relation to double taxation, we would point out that so far as fully developed property is concerned it is reduced to a minimum. I say that that is a perfectly fair arrangement.

Sir W. BRASS rose——[Interruption.]


The hon. and gallant Member is entitled to speak.


The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) told us that land was not fully developed if the Schedule A assessment of the building on it could not produce when multiplied by four the equivalent of the site value. I will give him one example from the City of London. The assessment under Schedule A is £93,000. Four times £23,000 is £92,000 The ground rent is £9,319 a year which at 20 years' purchase, or five percent., the figure which

the right hon Gentleman took, gives £186,380. The site value of that land on the amount of four times Schedule A assessment is £92,588 so that the full one penny will have to be paid on £93,792. In the City of London you cannot erect a building high enough, under the Building Acts, to be able to produce a sufficient Schedule A assessment to equal a site value like that.


May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if his ideas on double taxation are based on his statement that the figures that I gave would have worked out at £48,000,000?

It being half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 4th June, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

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

The Committee divided; Ayes, 247; Noes, 289.

Division No. 351.] AYES. [10.31 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut. Colonel Castle Stewart, Earl Of Fielden, E. B.
Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles Cautley, Sir Henry S. Fison, F. G. Clavering
Albery, Irving James Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R.(Prtsmth, S.) Ford, Sir P. J.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Forestier-Walker, Sir I.
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox, Univ.) Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh) Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton Galbraith, J. F. W.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) Ganzoni, Sir John
Aske, Sir Robert Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover) Chapman, Sir S. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Astor, Viscountess Christle, J. A. Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Atholl, Duchess of Clydesdale, Marquess of Gower, Sir Robert
Atkinson, C. Cobb, Sir Cyril Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. Cohen, Major J. Brunei Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) Colfox, Major William Philip Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Colman, N. C. D. Greene, W. P. Crawford
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Colville, Major D. J. Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Balniel, Lord Cooper, A. Duff Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Courtauld, Major J. S. Gritten, W. G. Howard
Beaumont, M. W. Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Bellairs, Commander Cariyon Cowan, D. M. Gunston, Captain D. W.
Betterton, Sir Henry B. Cranborne, Viscount Hacking, Rt. Hon. Dcuglas H.
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Crichton-Stuart. Lord C. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Bird, Ernest Roy Crookshank, Capt. H. C. Hammersley, S. S.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Hartington, Marquess of
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. Dalkeith, Earl of Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Boyce, Leslie Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey Haslam, Henry C.
Bracken, B. Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Davies, Dr. Vernon Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Brass, Captain Sir William Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Briscoe, Richard George Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Broadbent, Colonel J. Dawson, Sir Philip Hills, Major Ht. Hon. John Waller
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Dixey, A. C. Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Buchan, John Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Eden, Captain Anthony Howard-Bury. Colonel C. K.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm Edmondson, Major, A. J. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Burton, Colonel H. W. Elliot, Major Walter E. Hurd, Percy A.
Butler, R. A. England, Colonel A. Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Butt, Sir Alfred Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Everard, W. Lindsay Inskip, Sir Thomas
Campbell, E. T. Falle, Sir Bertram G. Iveagh, Countess of
Carver, Major W. H. Ferguson, Sir John Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Kindersley, Major G. M. Oman, Sir Charles William C. Somerville, A. A, (Windsor)
Knox, Sir Alfred O'Neill, Sir H. Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Lamb, Sir J. Q. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Lambert, Rt. Han. George (S. Molton) Peake, Captain Osbert Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Lane Fox, Rt. Hon. George R. Penny, Sir George Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby) Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Perkins, W. R. D. Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Leighton, Major B. E. P. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) Power, Sir John Cecil Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest Pownall, Sir Assheton Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Llewollin, Major J. S. Pybus, Percy John Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Ramsbotham, H. Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Lockwood, Captain J. H. Rawson, Sir Cooper Thompson, Luke
Long, Major Hon. Eric Reid, David D. (County Down) Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Lymington, Viscount Remer, John R. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
McConnell, Sir Joseph Rentoul, Sir Gervais S. Todd, Capt. A. J.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness) Reynolds, Col. Sir James Train, J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y) Tryon, Rt- Hon. George Clement
Macquisten, F. A. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Turton, Robert Hugh
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Robinson, Sir T, (Lanes, Stretford) Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Makins, Brigadier-General E. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Wallace, Capt, D. E. (Hornsey)
Margesson, Captain H. D Ross, Ronald D. Warrender, Sir Victor
Marjoribanks, Edward Rothschilo, J. de Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. Wayland, Sir William A.
Meller, H. J. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Wells, Sydney R.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Salmon, Major I. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Millar, J. D. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart Winterten, Rt. Hon. Earl
Monsell, Eyres, Com, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. Withers, Sir John James
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Savery, S. S. Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome Womersley, W. J.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst) Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Skelton, A. N. Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Muirhead, A. J. Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Smith, R. W. Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Smith-Carington, Neville W. Sir Frederick Thomson and Lieut.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) Smithers, Waldron Colonel Sit A. Lambert Ward.
O'Connor, T. J. Somerset, Thomas
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Church, Major A. G. Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff-, Cannock) Clarke, J. S. Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M. Cluse, W. S. Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Groves, Thomas E.
Alpass, J. H. Cocks, Frederick Seymour Grundy, Thomas W.
Ammon, Charles George Cove, William G. Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Angell, Sir Norman Cripps, Sir Stafford Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Arnott, John Daggar, George Hall, Capt. W. p. (Portsmouth, C.)
Attlee, Clement Richard Dallas, George Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Ayles, Walter Dalton, Hugh Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) Harbord, A.
Barnes, Alfred John Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Barr, James Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Batey, Joseph Day, Harry Harris, Percy A.
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) Denman, Hon. R. D. Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Devlin, Joseph Haycock, A. W.
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Dudgeon, Major C. R. Hayday, Arthur
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Duncan, Charles Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Benson, G. Ede, James Chuter Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Edge, Sir William Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Birkett, W. Norman Edmunds, J. E. Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Blindell, James Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Herriotts, J.
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret Elmley, Viscount Hicks, Ernest George
Bowen, J. W. Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Foot, Isaac Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Broad, Francis Alfred Freeman, Peter Hoffman, P. C.
Brockway, A. Fenner Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Hollins, A.
Bromfield, William Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) Hopkin, Daniel
Bromley, J. George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn) Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Brooke, W. George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Brothers, M. George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) John, William (Rhondda, West)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Gibbins, Joseph Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley) Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Buchanan, G. Gill, T. H. Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)
Burgess, F. G. Glassey, A. E. Jones, Rt. Hon Left (Camborne)
Caine, Hall-, Derwent Gossling, A. G. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Cameron, A. G. Gould, F. Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Cape, Thomas Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Carter, W, (St. Pancras, S. W.) Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Charleton, H. C. Gray, M liner Kelly, W. T.
Chater, Daniel Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Kinley, J. Mort, D. L. Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Kirkwood, D. Muff, G. Sinkinson, George
Knight, Holford Muggeridge, H. T. Sitch, Charles H.
Lang, Gordon Murnin, Hugh Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Nathan, Major H. L. Smith, Lees-. Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) Naylor, T. E. Smith, Tom (Pontetract)
Law, Albert (Bolton) Noel Baker, P. J. Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Law, A. (Rossendale) Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Lawrence, Susan Oldfield, J. R. Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Sorensen, R.
Lawson, John James Owen, Major G, (Carnarvon) Stamford, Thomas W.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Palin, John Henry Stephen, Campbell
Leach, W. Paling, Wilfrid Strauss, G. R.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) Palmer, E. T. Sullivan, J.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Sutton, J. E.
Lees, J. Perry, S. F. Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)
Leonard, W. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Lewis, T. (Southampton) Phillips, Dr. Marion Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Lindley, Fred W. Picton-Turbervill, Edith Thurtle, Ernest
Lloyd, C. Ellis Pole, Major D. G. Tillett, Ben
Logan, David Gilbert Potts, John S. Tinker, John Joseph
Longbottom, A. W. Price, M. P. Toole, Joseph
Longden, F. Quibell, D. J. K. Tout, W. J.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Townend, A. E.
Lunn, William Rathbone, Eleanor Vaughan, David
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Raynes, W. R. Viant, S. P.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Richards, R. Walkden, A. G.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Walker, J.
McElwee, A. Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) Wallace, H. W.
McEntee, V. L. Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) Watkins, F. C.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston) Ritson, J. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
McKinlay, A. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich) Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
MacLaren, Andrew Romeril, H. G. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) Rosbotham, D. S. T. Wellock, Wilfred
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Rowson, Guy Welsh, James (Paisley)
MacNeill-Weir, L. Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
McShane, John James Salter, Dr. Alfred West, F. R.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) Westwood, Joseph
Mander, Geoffrey le M. Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) White, H. G.
Manning, E. L. Sanders, W. S. Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Mansfield, W. Sandham, E. Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
March, S. Sawyer, G. F. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Marcus, M Scott, James Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Markham, S. F. Scurr, John Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Marley, J. Sexton, Sir James Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Marshall, Fred Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Mathers, George Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Matters, L. W. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Maxton, James Sherwood, G. H. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Messer, Fred Shield, George William Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Mills, J. E. Shiels, Dr. Drummond Wise, E. F.
Milner, Major J. Shillaker, J. F. Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Montague, Frederick Shinwell, E. Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Morley, Ralph Simmons, C. J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on the Clause and on an Amendment moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion.

Question put. "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 286; Noes, 237.

Division No. 352.] AYES. [10.41 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Batey, Joseph Brockway, A. Fenner
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) Bromfield, William
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Bromley, J.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Brooke, W.
Alpass, J. H. Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Brothers, M.
Amman, Charles George Benson, G. Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Angell, Sir Norman Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Arnott, John Birkett, W. Norman Buchanan, G.
Attlee, Clement Richard Blindell, James Burgess, F. G.
Ayles, Waiter Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Bowen, J. W. Cameron, A. G.
Barnes, Alfred John Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Cape, Thomas
Barr, James Broad, Francis Alfred Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Charleton, H. C. Kinley, J. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Chater, Daniel Kirkwood, D. Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Church, Major A. G Knight, Holford Riley, F. F. (Stocktor-on-Tees)
Clarke, J. S. Lang, Gordon Ritson, J.
Cluse, W. S. Lansbury, Rt. Han. George Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) Romeril, H. G.
Cocks, Frederick scymour Law, Albert (Bolton) Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Cove, William G. Law, A. (Rossendale) Rowson, Guy
Cripps, Sir Stafford Lawrence, Susan Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Daggar, George Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Dallas, George Lawson, John James Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Dalton, Hugh Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) Leach, W. Sanders, W. S.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) Sandham, E.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Sawyer, G. F.
Day, Harry Lees, J. Scott James
Denman, Hon. R. D. Leonard, W. Scurr, John
Devlin, Joseph Lewis, T. (Southampton) Sexton, Sir James
Dudgeon, Major C. R. Lindley, Fred W. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Duncan, Charles Lloyd, C. Ellis Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Ede, James Chuter Logan, David Gilbert Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Edge, Sir William Longbottom, A. W. Sharwood, G. H.
Edmunds, J. E. Longden, F. Shield, George William
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Elmley, Viscount Lunn, William Shillaker, J. F.
Foot, Isaac Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Shinwell, E.
Freeman, Peter MacDonald, Rt. Hon. R. (Seaham) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Simmons, C. J.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) McElwee, A. Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn) McEntee, V. L. Sinkinson, George
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston) Sitch, Charles H.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) McKinlay, A. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Gibbins, Joseph MacLaren, Andrew Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley) Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Gill, T. H. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Glassey, A. E. MacNelli-Weir, L. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Gossling, A. G. McShane, John James Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Gould, F. Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Sorensen, R.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Mander, Geoffrey le M. Stamford, Thomas W.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Manning, E. L. Stephen, Campbell
Gray, Milner Mansfield, W. Strauss, G. R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) March, S. Sullivan, J.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Marcus, M. Sutton, J. E.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Markham, S. F. Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Marley, J. Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Groves, Thomas E. Marshall, Fred Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Grundy, Thomas W. Mathers, George Thurtle, Ernest
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Matters, L. W. Tillett, Ben
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Maxton, James Tinker, John Joseph
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Messer, Fred Toole, Joseph
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Mills, J. E. Tout, W. J.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) Milner, Major J. Townend, A. E.
Harbord, A. Montague, Frederick Vaughan, David
Hardie, David (Rutherglen) Morgan, Dr. H. B. Viant, S. P.
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn) Money, Ralph Walkden, A. G.
Harris, Percy A. Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) Walker, J.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville Mort, D. L. Wallace, H. W.
Haycock, A. W. Muff, G. Watkins, F. C.
Hayday, Arthur Muggeridge, H. T. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Murnin, Hugh Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Nathan, Major H. L. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Naylor, T. E. Wellock, Wilfred
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Noel Baker, P. J. Welsh, James (Paisley)
Herriotts, J. Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Hicks, Ernest George Oldfield, J. R. West, F. R.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Westwood, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) White, H. G.
Hoffman, P. C. Palin, John Henry Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Hollins, A. Paling, Wilfrid Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Hopkin, Daniel Palmer, E. T. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph Perry, S. F. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
John, William (Rhondda, West) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas Phillips, Dr. Marion Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Jones, Llewellyn-, F. Picton-Turbervill, Edith Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown) Pole, Major D. G. Wilson, J, (Oldham)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) Potts, John S. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Price, M. P. Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Quibell, D. J. K. Wise, E. F.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Kelly, W. T. Rathbone, Eleanor Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas Raynes, W. R.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Richards, R. TELLERS FOB THE AYES.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Elliot, Major Walter E. Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charlas England, Colonel A. Muirhead, A. J.
Albery, Irving James Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-S.-M.) Newton, Sir D. G. C, (Cambridge)
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Everard, W. Lindsay Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) Falle, Sir Bertram G. Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh) Ferguson, Sir John O'Connor, T. J.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Fermoy, Lord Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Ashley Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Fielden, E. B. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Aske, Sir Robert Fison, F. G. Clavering Peake, Capt. Osbert
Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover) Ford, Sir P. J. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Astor, Viscountess Forestler-Walker, Sir L. Perkins, W. R. D.
Atholl, Duchess of Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Atkinson, C. Galbraith, J. F. W. Power, Sir John Cecil
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. Ganzoni, Sir John Pownall, Sir Assheton
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton Pybus, Percy John
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Ramsbotham, H.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Glyn, Major R. G. C. Rawson, Sir Cooper
Balniel, Lord Gower, Sir Robert Reid, David D, (County Down)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Remer, John R.
Beaumont, M. W. Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Bellairs, Commander Cariyon Greaves-Lord, Sir Waiter Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Betterton, Sir Henry B. Greene, W. P. Crawford Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)
Bevan, s. J. (Holborn) Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Bird, Ernest Roy Gritten, W. G. Howard Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneil
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Ross, Ronald D.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Gunston, Captain D. W. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Boyce, Leslie Hall, lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Salmon, Major I.
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Brass, Captain Sir William Hammersley, S. S. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Briscoe, Richard George Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Broadbent, Colonel J. Hartington, Marquess of Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Savery, S. S.
Buchan, John Haslam, Henry C. Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley) Sinclair, Cot- T. (Queen's U., Belfast)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Skelton, A. N.
Burton, Colonel H. W. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Butler, R. A. Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Butt, Sir Alfred Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Smithers, Waldron
Campbell, E. T. Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. Somerset, Thomas
Carver, Major W. H. Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Castle Stewart, Earl of Hudson, Capt. A. u. M. (Hackney, N.) Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Cautlsy, Sir Henry S. Hurd, Percy A. Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. B.(Prtsmth, S.) Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Cazalet, captain Victor A. Inskip, Sir Thomas Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Iveagh, Countess of Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.) Kindersley, Major G. M. Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston) Knox, Sir Alfred Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Chapman, Sir S. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Christie, J. A. Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Clydesdale, Marquess of Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby) Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Cobb, Sir Cyril Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Thompson, Luke
Cohen, Major J. Brunei Leighton, Major B. E. P. Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Colfox, Major William Philip Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Colman, N. C. D. Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest Todd, Capt. A. J.
Colville, Major D. J. Llewellin, Major J. J. Train, J.
Cooper, A. Duff Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.
Courtauld, Major J. S. Lockwood, Captain J. H. Turton, Robert Hugh
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Long, Major Hon. Eric Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Cranborne, Viscount Lymington, Viscount Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Crichton-stuart, Lord C. McConnell, Sir Joseph Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness) Warrender, Sir Victor
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Macquisten, F. A. Wayland, Sir William A
Cunilffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Wells, Sydney R.
Dalkeith, Earl of Makins, Brigadier-General E. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey Margesson, Captain H. D. Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) Marjoribanks, Edward Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George
Davies, Dr. Vernon Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) Melier, R. J. Withers, Sir John James
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Womersley, W. J.
Dawson, Sir Philip Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)
Dixey, A. C. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Eden, Captain Anthony Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Edmondson, Major A. J. Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

First Schedule (Incumbrances from which Land is not. deemed to be free for purposes of Valuation), agreed to.