CLAUSE 7.—(Charge of land value tax.) (Hansard, 30 June 1931)

HC Deb 30 June 1931 vol 254 cc1155-219 1155

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I beg to move, in page 4, line 38, to leave out the words "relating to exemptions."
In order to explain the significance of this Amendment, I must refer to a Clause which comes later in the Bill, namely, Clause 15, because the whole purpose of this Amendment is to prepare the way and to make it possible for us to move the series of Amendments which appears on the Paper to Clause 15. I should like for a moment to examine the provisions of Clause 15, which maintains the charge of a tax at 1d. in the £, but alters the valuation of the land by subtracting from it either four times the Schedule A valuation, the annual value, or seven-eighths of the land value, whichever is the less. It will be remembered by the House that the original proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not contain any such deduction or subtraction as that. The full charge was to be imposed in every case. The alteration which finds its place in the Clause, as it is now printed in the Bill, was intro- 1156 duced by the Chancellor in order to meet the Liberals' objections to the original Clause. These Liberal objections were expressed in an Amendment which was afterwards withdrawn, or was finally out of order, but which denoted, as we understood, and as I think was generally understood throughout the country, the objection in principle to the idea of double taxation.
Therefore, the first question that arises is: Does this Amendment to Clause 15, in the form in which we now find it, prevent double taxation? The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that it does not. On the contrary, he justifies the double taxation, and claims that he has preserved his principle in this Clause. I am not quite sure what the position of Liberals is upon that subject. Do they or do they not consider that this Clause protects the principle of no double taxation? I understand that Liberals have to some extent withdrawn from the rigidity of their original position, and that, although this Clause may not be equivalent to what they had put down in their first Amendment, they are 1157 willing to accept it in full satisfaction of their claims. Whether that be so or not, we on these benches do not accept this Clause as satisfactory. We still desire that double taxation should be avoided, but it seems to us that we cannot possibly secure that object by any formula which seeks to correlate two such disparate things as the annual value of land and buildings, with the capital value of land alone.
We do not believe that it is possible to do that. The only way which we can see to achieve what we have in mind, namely, the avoidance of double taxation, is to compare like with like and to deduct the annual tax under Schedule A from the annual land tax. That is what we desire to do by the Amendments which we have put down to Clause 15. Without reading to the House the form which Clause 15 would take if our Amendments were carried, I can save time by describing the effect of them. It would be this, that where the land was not agricultural land you would deduct from the charge of the tax the amount of Schedle A, or if Schedule A was greater than the amount of the tax, you would deduct the amount of the tax.

§ Mr. P. SNOWDEN
Schedule A of the site value or with the buildings?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
The whole. That, I think, reproduces, so far as we are able to see it, the original Amendment of the Liberal party. If not, perhaps they will explain what is the difference between our Amendment and their original Amendment. If there is no great difference in principle between us, it might well be that we could alter our Amendments before we come to Clause 15 so as to make them applicable only to Schedule A on the site value. That being the effect of our Amendment to Clause 15, I must explain why it is that we have to move this Amendment to Clause 7. Clause 7 lays it down that the charge of the land tax shall be 1d. in the pound in all cases except those cases which are the subject of exemption. If that be so, our Amendment would be inconsistent with Clause 7. Therefore, we are moving to leave out the words relating to exemption, so that the provisions of Clause 15 as amended by us would govern also Clause 7. Therefore it is obvious that in order to justify this Amendment it is necessary to bring 1158 forward the arguments which we should desire to use in explaining why we do not consider that Clause 15, as now drafted, is at all satisfactory.
On the previous occasion when we were discussing this subject, I brought forward some illustrations to show how the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would work. I showed by those illustrations that in those cases at any rate there would be no very great relief to the taxpayer. The Solicitor-General objected to my illustrations on the ground that they proved that the site was not fully developed. I never said that it was. I expressed no opinion as to whether it was fully developed or not. That was not the point that I was making. I was endeavouring to make the point that if it were the view of Liberals that great relief had been afforded to the taxpayer by the Amendments which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put down, it was a mistaken belief, because in a number of instances, and I gave illustrations to show it, the relief would in fact be very small, if not indeed trifling. My illustrations did show that, and so far as they showed that they showed also that the principle of double taxation still remained on the Bill.
Let us suppose that the Liberals who formerly, as we understood, were arguing in favour of the principle of no double taxation have now modified that view and are taking up a somewhat different position. I am disposed to think that that is so with regard to the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), because I see that in making a speech the other day at Banbury he said: It had been made clear that undeveloped land should bear the new tax in proportion as it was undeveloped. It appears from that statement that the new principle is, not that there is to be no double taxation but that the tax is to be a graduated tax; that it is to be at its full height in the case of undeveloped land and is to come down gradually until it disappears completely when the land is fully developed. That is not the old plan and, apparently, it does not give satisfaction to many Liberals, some of whom, including, I think, the treasurer of the party, are so dissatisfied that they have decided to leave the party altogether. The question that I want to put is: "Are we going to decide, if that be the principle, when land is fully 1159 developed." The Chancellor of the Exchequer decides that land is fully developed when the value of the buildings is four times the value of the land. That is a very arbitrary formula to take. Why should you say that wherever the land is more than a quarter of the value of the buildings, the site is not fully developed? Why four times? Why not five or six times? Even if the Solicitor-General, who is ingenious enough to justify almost anything, can justify the four times, is it really going to be to the interests of the community that you should push this development to the utmost in every possible case?
Does it necessarily follow that the best thing in the interests of the community is that every site shall be put to that use which is commercially most profitable? Surely that would lead to some very extraordinary results if it were put into practice as the result of the operation of the Clause that I am discussing. An illustration was given in a letter to "The Times" some time ago, by a Liberal I think, of a site which was worth over £1,000,000 and he asked what was the sense of insisting that upon that site a building should be put up of the value of £5,000,000. I can see no sense, no justice, no authority for the particular formula which has been adopted in this case, and I shall call upon the Solicitor-General, when he replies, to explain to us how he is prepared to justify that formula. The formula is going to work out very unfairly as between one owner and another. The formula says that the owner is to be punished if his land is not fully developed, and that the land is only fully developed if the buildings upon it are four times the value of the site.
In an earlier Debate upon this or a similar subject a comparison was made between the position of a shipyard and that of a factory making gramophones. That comes back with aggravated force when you apply to it the formula of Clause 15. In the one case you have a factory which can be built of many storeys, which requires no land surrounding it, or hardly any land surrounding it, and which houses a comparatively prosperous trade. In that case the value of the buildings would be a great deal more than four times the value of the site. Compare that with the case of the shipyard, where the buildings, with the 1160 exception of the administrative buildings, are of one storey, and many of them little more than roofs. A shipyard requires ample space in order to carry out its work, yet unless the buildings are worth four times as much as the large area of land which is used, the owner is going to be penalised by this particular formula. Why should he be penalised? Shipbuilding is one of the most depressed trades in the country. Why should the shipbuilder be attacked and penalised because he has developed his land not fully according to the formula, but fully according to the needs of the particular business that he is carrying out on that land? Why should he be penalised because he has done that, when another man who has built the factory which he requires for his needs is not penalised?
There is the issue. It appears to us that any formula, whether it includes five times or four times, is going to give rise to similar anomalies and unfairnesses. We do not believe that it is possible to relate the two things in this way. We believe that if you are attached to the principle of no double taxation the Amendments which we have put down are the only way to achieve that object. We submit to the judgment of the House the general principle that double taxation should be excluded from the proposals, and we hope that we may have the support of the majority of the House when we go into the Lobby.

§ 8.0 p.m.

§ Sir JOHN SIMON
The issue that is raised on this Clause by this Amendment can be stated in very few words. I think the country in the course of the last few weeks has become increasingly clear in its own mind as to what the issue is. There are some who hold the view in this Debate, and who proclaim it, that they see no objection to what has been called double taxation. Nobody put that point of view with more force and candour than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If I may be allowed to say so, he seemed to me to be perfectly right when he claimed that Clause 15 is not a Clause which gets rid of double taxation, but, on the contrary, as he views it, it is a Clause which preserves it. I am not for the moment considering whether the argument in favour of that is good or bad, but there is no doubt about this. 1161 Everybody ought to be content with the proposals of the Bill as now reported to the House if he is prepared to support double taxation, and nobody ought to be prepared to accept the proposals of the Bill as they stand in this regard if he is opposed to double taxation. No doubt, when the Division is taken on this Amendment, those in favour of double taxation will go one way and those opposed to it will go another. It is possible that some will not go at all.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he first explained his scheme of land taxes to the House—I think it was in his Budget speech or in his speech on the Budget Resolutions—told the House quite clearly that what he was proposing was not a scheme on the lines of the Liberal land proposals. He said it would be foolish and irrelevant to attempt to make any comparison between them. He claimed that be was putting forward not only a simpler but a bolder method, based on a different principle. I think he was quite right; I have never had any quarrel with him about it. He claimed the other day, when he proposed the Amendment to Clause 15 which was supposed to meet the difficulties between the Government and some of our hon. Friends on these benches, that although he was making this modification, he was not changing the principle of the Bill a bit. I quite agree. He has not changed the principle in the least. If there were any objections to the principle of the Bill in this regard before he proposed this Amendment, there is just as much objection to the Clause as it now stands. So far as I am concerned, I am confident that those who feel that this is a matter of conscientious scruple—[Interruption.] I hope that due regard will be paid to the conscientious scruples of everybody. I am quite clear that those who feel that this is a matter of conscientious scruple and that they cannot support anything so unjust as double taxation, will act accordingly.
The actual proposal in the Clause is, I think, open to the criticism which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) has just made. It seems a very extraordinary thing to lay down that no land is to be regarded as properly developed by building unless it has got upon it a building which is four times as valuable as the land. That is quite a new principle, and not to 1162 be found in the doctrines of Henry George or any other George. It appears to be a purely empiric test, and manifestly it is bound to work out in an extraordinary way. Let me take just two examples. Let us suppose you have a factory or some business enterprise which is carrying on its work in the centre of a town where land is very valuable and it has got upon that piece of land buildings which are proper and adequate for the purpose of the factory. You may, on the other hand, have a similar enterprise of a similar size and nature with similarly adequate buildings built, more on the outskirts of a town of a smaller size, on a piece of land which will not be so valuable. I am quite unable to see why you should put an extra penalty on the business which is being carried on in one place rather than in another.
This is a plan by which the business which has had to pay more for the land on which it has erected its buildings, and which is carrying that additional burden already, is selected for the purpose of this double taxation, while, on the other hand, the building of a manifestly similar sort, put up for the purpose of an enterprise of an exactly similar kind, on land which is not so valuable, would escape double taxation. I do not believe that is a principle which can possibly be justified by any of the theorists on this subject. I perfectly understand the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) and others, who always say that they want to put a tax on land and that they believe by means of it they can substitute this tax for all other burdens, and greatly encourage industry. There is certainly a very important theoretical argument to be met there, but nobody can pretend that the line can properly be drawn between the case where a building is four times as valuable as the land and the case where it is not.

§ Mr. MacLAREN
indicated assent.

§ Sir J. SIMON
I am very glad to see that my hon. Friend agrees with me on this point of principle. It is not really true that land is only being properly used when it is completely developed if, by being completely developed, you mean when you have built upon it the most expensive building you can think of. It is not in the least true that if you were 1163 to turn the City of London into the City of New York, and put up enormous skyscrapers all over the place, that you would be making a better use of the land. The whole idea that the test of whether land is being adequately developed is to be applied by erecting the most expensive buildings you could put up must be found on examination to be quite unsound. The real truth is that what attracts a great many people in the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that it provides a valuation on which it may be hoped some day to readjust the burden on local authorities. I have always thought that there was a great deal to be said for attempting something of that kind. That, however, is not putting a new burden on enterprise. It is an attempt to distribute the existing burden in a way which is more scientific and more fair and if you could do that and take off some of the burdens on improvements, I think there would be a great deal to be said for it.

§ Mr. MacLAREN
If that proposal were carried through, would the right hon. Gentleman then consider Schedule A being still in force, and local rates on the land, as being double taxation?

§ Sir J. SIMON
I do not think that that in the least arises, and for this reason. Before the change takes place, you have Schedule A on the one hand, and the existing burden of rates on the other hand. If the change takes place, you have Schedule A on the one hand and the existing burden of rates on the other, but differently distributed between the superstructure and the land. You are not adding a new burden at all, and the whole point of this is that you are adding a new burden. That is why I do not feel the slightest hesitation in answering the question in that way. The issue is extremely simple. Right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench have put forward a proposal which is intended to secure that there shall be no double taxation and no additional burdens as the result of this new tax. It has been pointed out that the present line is drawn in the most absurd and unscientific way, and every scientifically-minded man must agree. The issue is that those who really mean that their conscience is affronted and their sense of justice outraged by double 1164 taxation must support this Amendment, and those who do not mean that never should have said that they did.

§ Mr. GRAY
I am sure the House has listened to-night to the clear and sound way in which my right hon. and learned Friend has just stated his case, but when we examine it a little closer we may find that the issue is not quite so simple as he appears to imagine. May I first of all clear up a little misapprehension which appears to arise in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain), who, I think, stated that under the original Liberal Amendment the whole of Schedule A was to be deducted from the Land Tax. If that is the statement which he made, I think, if he will examine our Amendment again, he will find that he is entirely incorrect. All that the original Amendment proposed to try to do was to deduct that portion of Schedule A that related to the site apart from the building. That was the only portion it was proposed to deduct in the original Amendment.
I am not going to trouble the House with the reason why that Amendment, which was ruled out of order at the time it was moved, was ultimately changed for the particular method which is now in the Bill. There were a great many of us on these benches who realised that that Amendment went very much too far. The effect of it would have been, first of all, that land of less than 54 years' purchase would not have paid any tax at all under the Land Tax. I think there is an issue which my right hon. Friend will recognise is more simple and clear than that of what he calls double taxation, and that issue is whether we in this House are in favour of bringing under contribution for tax for the purpose of public revenue those great values in land which are created by the pressure of the community. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir John Simon) really is opposed to that principle, then I know exactly into which Lobby he will go. I must confess that from his previous political record I should be rather astonished if he were not in favour of that principle, because he put his name to a Bill for the valuation of land. I do not know for what purposes he wanted that valuation, if it were not for the purpose of bringing under contribution for the purpose of the State the part of that 1165 value which was able to bear the burden. He appears to regard the rating of land values as different in principle from the taxing of land values.
I suggest to him that there is no difference in principle. There is a difference in practice, and the moment you see the reason for the difference in practice you see the fault behind the proposal which has been put into this present Bill. For rates you have a single tax. You have no other tax. The land taxers, Mr. Henry George, the original land taxer, said you should have a single tax for Imperial purposes, and that tax, he said, should be on the value of the land. I am not concerned to debate that at the present moment, but I am concerned to correct my right hon. Friend, and to bring his ideas into really closer relation with what he calls the principle of double taxation. I am not at all sure whether my right hon. Friend is favourable or unfavourable to what is called double taxation. Personally, I have no hesitation in saying that I regard the phrase "double taxation" as a rather loose phrase, but a convenient phrase. When you are dealing with very complicated problems you do very often require a certain measure of flexibility.
In fact I think that this issue could be settled in a moment, There is no Member of any party in this House who is opposed to all double taxation, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley will never suggest that he is opposed to all double taxation. He cannot resist the fact that, in regard to motor cars, you have a tax on horsepower, a tax on petrol, then the licence and then a tax on imported cars. Motor cars are four times taxed. To the man who pays Income Tax every other form of taxation is double taxation because he pays a tax on his income and then on his sugar and his tobacco and his liquor and so forth. Nobody supposed when that phrase was used in connection with land taxation that we mean any exact definition of that kind. I ask the House for a moment to consider exactly what is in mind. You have a tax under Schedule A, but Schedule A is not a land tax, it is an Income Tax. Even Schedule A itself is not exact; it is collected on problematic income. It may sometimes be real income, but in a great many cases it is problematic. It is in- 1166 come which is estimated and assessed as being the amount that a willing tenant will pay to a willing landlord for the use of the property assessed, in the condition in which it is, and on the purposes for which it is used, or for which, as it is, it can be used and that has no relation whatever to land tax. It is absurd to suggest that under Schedule A you have a land tax, because you have not. You have a tax on the income derived from the use of the property.
That is where the issue arises., and it is an issue which ought not to confuse anybody except those who wish to be confused or who wish to confuse others, because, as the Bill was introduced originally, the effect of the Land Tax was to exact the same amount of tax on the value of a site from the man who was not using his site at all, as from the man who was using it very considerably. I am not concerned to follow the peculiar ramifications of the suggestion that the site must be four times developed in order to be fully developed. I think that that is an entire confusion of thought. The real point is that the relation of the value of buildings to site will depend entirely on the value of the site. If we take for purposes of comparison the Danish valuation, we find that, on the average, in the built-over areas on the edge of Copenhagen, the sites are 17 per cent. of the total value, but when we come to the very valuable sites in the centre of the city, the average percentage is 40. It is quite obvious that the relation of the value of buildings to site at four times the value of the site, will apply so as to wipe out completely the land tax on ordinary sites that are net at high values.
Let me give a simple illustration. Take the ordinary private house built on the developing outskirts of one of our cities where the fair value of the land might be regarded as £200 and the house in most cases will be worth at least £800 to £1,000. It will be found that for Schedule A purposes in most cases it is valued at from £52 to £60. In that case you entirely wipe out the Land Tax. If you have that same house built in the centre of the city, the value will be nowhere near the value in the site. As a matter of fact the effect of this Amendment is not to be regarded so much in relation to the value of the buildings 1167 to the site as in relation to the return which the property is making to the State and the return which it might make. Quite obviously the only return which the value of the site is making to the State is the return on the portion that is developed.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) gave an illustration which was very suggestive. I interrupted him and asked the total value of the building and he said it was £15,000. I think there was £7,000 odd for the site, and he said that it was assessed under Schedule A at £217. There, you have a property valued at £15,000 only paying a return to the community on the basis of £217—less than 1½ per cent. If the owner of that property put that capital into War Loan, he would have had £750 and he would have paid tax at the rate of 4s. 6d. in the pound on £750, and that amount of revenue would be coming to the community. I do not say that there will not be anomalies in taking four times the annual value under Schedule A, but I have examined the subject very carefully, and I am surprised how fairly it works out. There is no method of taxation in connection with which you cannot find odd examples such as those which the very acute intelligence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley introduced in his able speech.
What has been done here, I submit, is what the land taxers have always aimed at doing. What has been invariably the view of land taxers? We have always suggested that you should levy your tax on the site and reduce your taxation upon improvements and upon the whole unit. That, in fact, is what we are doing by this method. I am not sure that part of the Government's troubles has not been due to their timidity. If the Government had introduced a Land Tax of 3d. in the £, it could have wiped out Schedule A altogether, and we should have avoided the difficulty of adjusting a very moderate tax on land value to a high Income Tax under Schedule A. What we have had to do, however, is by some means to adjust the small Land Tax with Schedule A. The more closely we examine the question, the more we realise that. Let me give the House a case in point. It is a site in my own 1168 town where a garage is built. It is a backward site and the garage is almost inaccessible. It is not worth as much on that site as the same building would be worth on another site, and the return which it makes is the annual rent on what it is worth. But the value of the site is very great indeed. Although that property is paying something under Schedule A, no part of Schedule A really belongs to the site. It is not returning what it ought to return. What we are doing under this solution is taking a fairly simple and easy method of adjusting what was admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—in a speech on which we felt we could not wholly congratulate him—to be a Very real grievance in levying this tax at a perfectly flat rate so long as Schedule A remains.
I propose to give three illustrations in London to show what I mean. The first is a site worth £7,000. The total value of the buildings, a block of flats, is £112,000 and that is assessed under Schedule A at £3,000. It would simply pay a minimum of one-eighth penny under our suggestion. Take another case in the centre of London; these are business premises, the site of which is worth £150,000 and the building £400,000; it is assessed for Schedule A at £20,000, and it would pay under the Bill as it is now £291 13s. 4d. against £625 that it would have had to pay under the original Bill. I will take a further interesting case. It is a London hotel, the site value of which is £400,000 and the building only £100,000; it is assessed for Schedule A at only £10,000; it will now pay £1,500 as against £1,666 under the original Bill. What we have done is by a perfectly simple and rough-and-ready, but fair, method to adjust the incidence of this new tax so that in the case of a site that is practically undeveloped or slightly developed, it pays the full amount of tax; and as the return of that site increases and is expressed in that increase in Schedule A, it gets an increasing deduction from the amount of the Land Tax. So you get the tax graduated down to the minimum of one-eighth.
May I say a last word on the question whether our attitude is a surrender? I do not agree for a moment that it is. Nobody ever suggested that there is going to be an absolute specific limit to the amount of tax that can be collected. 1169 I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that every tax that is collected by this House is a substitution for another tax. It is the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer every year to collect a certain amount of revenue and if you take a share out of these great land values you substitute that for some other tax, and, notwithstanding the fact that he has mentioned, namely, that the man who buys the site has to pay more—I admit it, but I have never heard it suggested that a change of ownership was a reason for not levying a tax. In cases that may cause a certain measure of hardship, but I have never heard it-suggested that because property has changed hands that can be brought forward as an argument why a tax should not be levied.
Under this Measure we have graduated the tax. I would quite frankly have preferred to reduce Schedule A in a process by which ultimately it would be wiped out, but in these matters I, as a practical man, am quite content, as long-as I see that I am getting substantial justice, to stand by a proposal of this sort. What we have succeeded in doing by this change in the Bill is to give effective justice to all users of land; we are bringing in a small amount of the tremendous values created in land. My right hon. and learned Friend spoke about this as a charge on industry. Does he not realise that these great land values are all taxes on industry? It is only the fact that you have never used these land values for public purposes that the holders of them have been able to exact these high imposts from industries. The man who wants to develop an industry to-day has to pay an unreasonably high price if he wants land in a particular site in a particular area.
We are entitled to say that there is no surrender of principle on the part of anybody. I say frankly that if my right hon. and learned Friend is opposed to land taxation, he is perfectly consistent in voting against this and other Clauses in this part of the Bill: but if he is one, as I have always thought he was, who did believe in drawing out of these great values in land a contribution to the community, and as a result of doing this bringing the land into swifter use, let me remind him that it is not only the 4s. 6d. that the Chancellor gets, but that there 1170 is the other 15s. 6d. in productive value that goes into the wealth of the community.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
After the most extraordinarily able speech which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Gray) on the principles which should lay behind the theory of land taxation and the way in which they are carried out in this Bill as amended, it would be almost impudence for me to delay the House by giving any further explanation. The hon. Member has so effectively and effectually answered the two right hon. Gentlemen who spoke before, that there seems little left to say. May I, however, make one or two remarks in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) who addressed some questions to me. I should first like to draw the attention of the House to the form of the Amendment that was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, because the object of it was perfectly clear. Nobody can mistake that, but the form of it, I suggest, if one looks at Clause 15, is also perfectly clear. It is not in any sense an attempt to justify some theory of avoidance of double taxation. It is merely an attempt to make perfectly futile the provisions of this Bill. Anyone who thought that it was necessary, in order to avoid double taxation, to set off against unity a tax roughly three times as large, probably, on a basis which was four times as big, would have rather exaggerated ideas of what is necessary to avoid double taxation. The real principle, I gather, for which the two right hon. Gentlemen wish to stand so fast is the principle that when two parties have some difference of opinion, they should never compromise upon it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston surprised me when he suggested that if the Amendment did not meet the views of Members below the Gangway, he would be prepared to compromise.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I said that we had endeavoured in our Amendment to reproduce the effect of the original Liberal Amendment, and that if we had not succeeded in doing it, we would be glad to alter the Amendment.

§ The SOLICITOR - GENERAL
The right hon. Gentleman did not explain to the House that his party are so bank- 1171 rupt of ideas that the best thing they can do is to reproduce the ideas of another party. One gathers that they have failed on this occasion to reproduce them with sufficient accuracy. The words "double taxation" are used in two entirely different senses. There is one sense in which no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) used them, which is the well known sense in which they are used in law in regard to Income Tax, that is to say, a double incidence of the same tax on the same subject matter in the same period of time. That is, of course, an idea against which the courts of this country have always revolted. But the courts of this country have never suggested that two different taxes should not fall on the same subject matter in the same year, and the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley knows that it is a common feature of taxation in this country that one subject matter will bear two taxes in the same year by reason of the difference in the incidence of the two taxes. Let us take an illustration which, I think, is in point. Supposing a tariff were put upon steel. The things which go to make up the value of a house or building in Schedule A are the land, the steel of the structure, the bricks, the stone and the labour, and it is not more double taxation to suggest that the land, as part of the ultimate unit, should be taxed than to suggest that the steel, as part of it, should be taxed. The tenderness of conscience as regards double taxation of right hon. Gentlemen opposite seems to have a limited area of application.
May I now turn to the point which the right hon. Gentleman asked me to deal with, and that was the justification for this formula? It is not suggested, as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford has said, that a formula of this type is scientifically accurate in every case. Nobody would be so foolhardy as to suggest such a thing, but what the formula does do, and does very efficiently, is that as regards any particular site it gives one a measure of the amount of use which the community is getting out of that site. I am sure the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley did not intend to say, though he did say, that Schedule A had some relationship to the cost of a building. He knows, of course, 1172 from his very wide practice and experience in these matters, that Schedule A has no relationship whatever to the cost of the building. What it has a relation to is the rent at which a building may be let from year to year, and that does not necessarily have any relationship to the cost, but it does have a relationship to the value that is being given to the community by the building and the site, and it is on the ground of assessing as near as one can the proportion of the value that four times the Schedule A figure is taken. An example was given by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley of two cases. One of a factory which was in a town and one of a factory outside the town. He said it would be——

§ Sir J. SIMON
I dare say there is nothing in the distinction, but actually I was pointing to the case of a factory which was built on valuable land in the centre of a town and a similar building which was not in the centre of a town; I did not say it was in the country.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not want to be inaccurate. One was on a valuable site, let me say, in the City of London, and the other was on the outskirts, say in the suburbs of London. He pointed out that in those two cases the incidence of the tax can be different. Quite true. Why? Why should the one owner require to have his factory in the City of London? The answer is, because he gets special benefits by having his factory in the City of London. Unless he does so he would be extraordinarily foolish not to move to the suburbs.

§ Sir DENNIS HERBERT
But you cannot move bricks and mortar in a week.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
There is no particular limit of a week. It is a fairly common experience that factories have moved, and are moving, out of the crowded centres where land values are high in order to realise the site value in those crowded centres.

§ Sir J. SIMON
Would the hon. and learned Gentleman mind if I put another point to him? I am willing to listen to the answer. Take an instance, which must be familiar in a very large number of the most important towns in the North 1173 of England. The old established mills are more or less towards the centre of the town. The more recently established mills may, in many cases, be on the outskirts. What I do not quite understand is whether it is the Solicitor-General's advice to the owners of those well-established mills that they should move out.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Certainly not, because I am perfectly confident that the reason they remain there is that they get full value from being there. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I venture to suggest that he would find that the owner of the old established mill in the centre of the town gets a great advantage from his position, and that is why he remains. May I turn to another point in the speech of the right hon. Member for Spen Valley? He was asked by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) as to whether he called Schedule A and rates double taxation. With that charming manner he has he gave an answer, but not to the question. He said in his answer, "There have always been Schedule A taxation and rates, and what I am talking about is putting another tax on"; but that does not answer the question whether Schedule A and rates are at present regarded as double taxation.

§ Sir J. SIMON
That was not the question.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Well, the right hon. Gentleman can look in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning, and I think he will see it is the question.

§ Sir J. SIMON
I am sure the hon. Member for Burslem will confirm me when I say it was not the question.

§ Mr. MacLAREN
As a matter of fact, the question I put was, Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider Schedule A if the policy so advocated, namely, a rate upon land values, was imposed? In that case would he then say there was double taxation?

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
That was what I understood. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer the question now.

§ Sir J. SIMON
I will answer the question for a second time. What was put to 1174 me by my hon. Friend opposite was this. He said to me, "Supposing there was the reform of the rating system" —which I had been referring to— "by which you get a redistribution of rates, so as to relieve improvements and shift the burden more upon the land"—he wanted to know in that event whether I should consider that a reason for abolishing Schedule A, or whether I should say there was double taxation.

§ Mr. MacLAREN
With all respect for the metioulous correctness of the right hon. Gentleman's mind, I am sure he will respect what I say when I ask him not to use words that I did not use. I did not use the word "redistribute." I put a specific ease. If the policy of rating land values in local areas is put into practice, would you then consider you were imposing double taxation, by virtue of the fact that Schedule A was still in existence?

§ Sir J. SIMON
I am much obliged. I am quite content. It means the same thing, and the answer which I gave I can quite easily repeat. I pointed out that the objection that is now raised is an objection to the imposition of an additional tax, and I pointed out that what is being assumed is no imposition of an additional tax, and what I said was that before the suggested change you have got the burden of Schedule A on the one hand and the burden of rates on the other, but after the change is made you have the burden of Schedule A on the one hand and the burden of rates, the same burden—[Interruption]—I said so—the same burden will be redistributed. What I pointed out was that in that case you were not introducing any new and additional burden at all.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Will the right hon. Gentleman be so kind as to answer the question I asked him? Where there are rates and Schedule A on the same hereditament at the same time, does he call that double taxation?

§ Sir J. SIMON
I am quite willing to answer. Money for local burdens has been raised for centuries by means of rates—I am not complaining that it is so raised—and Schedule A has existed for many years, and I am not complaining about that, but what I think is open to very grave challenge is whether you 1175 should put a selective additional burden upon land as land, while leaving the other two things as they are.

§ The SOLICITOR - GENERAL
The right hon. Gentleman has been asked whether he approves of the double taxation of Schedule A and the rates and he is not prepared to answer. It is perfectly clear that if anyone really believes, as a strict theory of law, that in no event must a site unit pay a contribution to the State twice in the same year, no one could possibly approve of having rates and Schedule A charged on the same unit. It is a matter of high and deep principle. If, on the other hand, it is a question of what is the best way to organise the imposition of a land charge of some sort or other on a land unit, to bring about the valuation, not to raise a large revenue, then, apart from the strict theory of double taxation, it becomes a matter in which the incidence of the tax should be so regulated as to cause as little hardship as possible. I believe that the Government, in meeting hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, did an eminently sensible thing. We have achieved our object, which it to get this system started, and we have been able to launch it with their assistance. The fact that we have met them is not an act of which I am in the least ashamed, and I hope that the House, in spite of the self-righteousness of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir, T. Simon), who are so rigid in their interpretation of the correct way in which to carry on the Government—in spite of that I hope the House will approve of this Clause.

§ Major LLEWELLIN
The Solicitor-General, first of all, criticised the Amendment which we are now discussing, and he said that we were attempting to set off against the community—I forget his exact words—something which was four times as much, and was based upon a different subject matter. That is what Clause 15 does. It brings in the relation of Schedule A to this question and the single land tax, so that those criticisms of our Amendment on that score quite obviously fall to the ground. The Solicitor-General asked whether we were prepared to admit double taxation in the case of putting a 1176 tariff upon steel, and the steel being incorporated in the house, whether the extra tax would come on the steel of the house itself? Of course that is not in the least an analogous instance, because the tax on the steel will be paid upon it once for all, and that is not an annual tax which is put upon a subject matter which forms part of the house. You put the annual tax on the value of the house under Schedule A, and the annual tax on the capital value of the site. Therefore, the question of what is taxed before has nothing whatever to do with the point at issue. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that ever factory that was set up, even in the middle-of a town, got larger benefits from being in the centre of the town. The Solicitor-General admitted quite frankly in that argument that the land tax which is proposed is going to be a tax upon factories and upon industry.
I will pass over that argument, and I will deal with another particular point which the hon. and learned Gentleman tried to make. He said that if this tax was found to be burdensome the owners could move their factories somewhere else. That is not always easy to do, because the factories have plants which are erected in a particular building. The suggestion is presumably that the building must be pulled down, or put to some other use, and there would be considerable cost incurred in pulling a building down. It is very little consolation to those engaged in industry to find that the only thing which the Solicitor-General suggests, when this tax is placed upon them, is that they should move elsewhere. One of the results of putting these factories in the country would be that there would be very sparse housing accommodation for the large number of workers who would be employed, and it seems to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman was skating upon very thin ice when he dealt with that particular subject.
The Solicitor-General was in a stronger position when he asked whether Schedule A and the rates did not form double taxation. I say at once that they are a form of double tax, because they arise out of the same subject matter; but it does not follow that you should put a treble tax upon that same subject matter, and that is what you are doing by this particular Bill. We have already got 1177 a double tax, a part of which is taken for the State and another part for the local authority, but here you are taking another part for the State in addition. I do not mind whether you call it double or treble taxation. If it is to be treble taxation I object to it. I was rather astonished when I heard the hon. Member for Mid Bedford (Mr. Gray) say that when he had carefully considered the four times proposal put forward by the Liberal party he was surprised to see how fairly it worked out. That seems to me to be an amazing way of putting forward a scheme of taxation with the full authority of what is left of the Liberal party. The hon. Member for Mid Bedford admitted that the whole of the land taxes of this country would fall upon industry. If that be so then the hon. Member is aiding and abetting a proposal that is going to put a still further land charge upon the industries of this country.
As the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) says, under the new proposals it comes down to the question of how expensive the building is that is put on a particular piece of land. It may well be that the better equipped factories and buildings in this country are those that are built more cheaply, so long as; they can carry out the purposes for which they are built and have not a large amount of additional capital sunk in them. I have in mind a factory in my own constituency, which is only a one-storey factory. It builds a large number of the omnibuses which are running on our streets in London, and it has a considerable area of land arount it. I am glad to think that that company runs a large playing field, as well as recreation grounds, for the men whom it employs there. The whole of that is, of course, one land unit, and, even under the amended Clause which excludes sports grounds, it cannot be expected that the Commissioners will say that the whole of that land unit is a sports ground. The result would be that it would pay that factory well to sell off all the ground which it at present uses for sports grounds. The Solicitor-General smiles, but does he think that the Commissioners can really divide a land unit up in that way? Certainly there is no such provision in the Clause as it at present 1178 stands. Therefore, it will certainly pay that factory to sell off this land, which is really surplus from the point of view of direct production, and then it may be able to get down its Schedule A assessment so that it will pay a tax of one-eighth of a penny instead of a penny in the pound.
9.0 p.m.
We are criticised about our rigid principles in regard to double taxation and our conscientious objections to it, but it was not we who first of all put this upon a conscientious basis; it was the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who, when invigorated with the air of Scotland, first started to put this question upon conscientious lines. I must say that the present position of the Liberal party rather reminds me of the young girl who came back to her mother after a very unfortunate incident, after having had a child which was fatherless, and who said, when asked by her mother why it was, "It is all right, mother, it is only a very little one." It seems to me that the Liberal party to-day are excusing their attitude here on exactly the same principle, that, after all, this one-eighth of a penny in the pound is only very small. That is the excuse, at any rate, that they give here to the Mother of Parliaments, and I suppose it is the excuse that they will give to the constituencies which sent them here. For our part, we object to the whole of this double taxation, and we object more particularly when we find that it is going to operate as unfairly as we believe this amended Clause of the Government will operate with respect to various houses in this country. It seems to me to be absolutely fortuitous whether a house happens to have that value which will bring it suddenly down to a tax of one-eighth of the taxation of the house or factory next-door. If a tax like this offends a large number of people, and if there is no reason for making a difference between one house and another, that is a reason why such a proposal should not receive the sanction of this House. Perhaps it is impossible to hope, now that the Solicitor-General has dealt so kindly with his Liberal colleagues, but, apart from that, I had hoped that those who put this double taxation on conscientious grounds would at any rate consider that those grounds should not be 1179 entirely abandoned when it seemed inconvenient to them to adopt them by their votes in this House.

§ Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS
I desire to refer in particular to one point that was made by the Solicitor-General. Although I have the greatest admiration for the way in which he has conducted the Debates in this Chamber and upstairs since he became a Member of the House, I must say that I do not think he has quite the knowledge of factory sites, and the reasons why they are there, that he has of the law and of procedure in the House of Commons. When he said that factories which were in the centre of cities would not remain there unless they had very good reason for doing so, and it was to their advantage, I could not help entirely-disagreeing with him. In many cases these older factories in the centre of cities are divorced from railway and canal accommodation. They are carrying on their business where they were built, probably many years ago, and they are getting no more value from the name of the towns in which they are than if they were new factories on the outskirts, where there were railway or canal facilities, and where the land may have been cheaper than that on which they were originally built. They are there because they were put there—[Interruption]—before they were in the centre of a city. They were put there, perfectly rightly and properly, by the people who were developing the town at that time, and they cannot possibly afford to move. If they were to move, they would have to scrap all the bricks, mortar and machinery that they have, and would have to put up new buildings on the outskirts, which at the present time is absolutely impossible for them.
I do not think that hon. Members opposite realise the terrible position in which most industrialists in this country are at the present time. They are entirely unable to raise money for new buildings. [Interruption.] The Solicitor-General seems to be taking all his information on these matters from the hon. Member who is the one-taxer. It is very difficult to speak when these committee meetings are going on on the other side of the House. The fact does remain, although hon. Members opposite may not realise it, that in many big industrial centres 1180 in the north the lactones, works and mills have no spare cash whatsoever for rebuilding. Most of them, I say quite frankly, are in the hands of their bankers. They are carrying on on the good will of their bankers, or because the bankers cannot afford to let them go. Good will does not enter much into business, and probably it is because the bankers cannot afford to see the companies crash. The fact remains that they have not the money themselves to go outside, where they could probably find more convenient sites, with railways or waterways, which would help them to bring in their raw materials and get away their finished product.
Can they go to the public and raise money at the present time? No, because there is no confidence whatever in this country, largely because of the present Government. It is really wicked to say that these people have any advantage whatever from being in the centre of the town. I say that it is a disadvantage, because it is the name of the town that carries on. If they say that their goods come from Sheffield, it does not matter whether they are in the middle or on the outskirts of Sheffield; the town name remains equally good. Speaking particularly of the city which I represent at the present time, if these premises were pulled down and money could be found for rebuilding, there is no one who would come in and buy these sites in the centre and build upon them, because of the wretched condition to which our poor city has been reduced. This tax will be a further burden upon overburdened industry.
There is another point about double taxation on which I feel very strongly indeed, and which has never been answered by the Solicitor-General or his allies, and that is the question of the double taxation on ground rents, feu duties or chief rents, whether in Yorkshire, Lancashire or Scotland. You have these investments which have been made, not by the people who have developed the land, but by people who have purchased the right to receive ground rents for 800 years as an investment in the open market in competition with Consols, or Great Western debentures, or anything else. They pay their Income Tax and their Super-tax upon it, and yet under this proposal they 1181 will have to pay double taxation upon their investment. If they had bought Consols, they would have paid 4s. 6d. in the pound. If they bought ground rents, they would have to pay an extra 2½d. Income Tax. I remember the outcry in 1904 when the Income Tax was put up 2d. in the pound. It was then an important matter, but it is not a question of the amount. It is a question of this extra Income Tax on ground rents of 2½d. in the pound, for which there is absolutely no justification in, fairness whatever. That has never been answered by the allies of the Government below the Gangway. The eighth of a penny is a nominal tax put on in order to get this through and if, through the action of the allies of the Government, in a short time they become independent of their allies by an election or two, what is to prevent the eighth of a penny becoming a penny or twopence? And they will have sold the pass.

§ Mr. ATKINSON
I should like to give my answer to one or two questions that have been asked. To my mind, beyond all question we already have double taxation of land if buildings are upon it, and I do not suppose that any party who has the pleasure of paying those taxes has the faintest doubt about that. May I point, out why I think at is so unfair even as it is? Supposing you have a house on a plot of land which happens to be your own. You pay two taxes assessed in precisely the same way already. You are assessed under Schedule A on the annual value and you are rated, again on the same basis, upon the annual value or, to be strictly correct, on what a hypothetical tenant would pay and, whether you are in fact getting any income out of the house or land or not, you still pay. I was fool enough a few years ago to buy a small house on the river front. It is furnished. For two years I have been trying to let it, but I cannot. Does that make any difference? I am assessed under Schedule A and have to pay on the theoretical annual value of the house and land although it brings in nothing at all. Again, I am rated on the same hypothetical value. If I had put that £1,200 into some investment, I should only be assessed once on what it brings in. If the investment ceases to pay, I should not pay at all. You only pay Income Tax on it if, in fact, it brings in 1182 an income. Therefore, already land and buildings are in this unfortunate position that, whether they bring anything in or not, they are taxed twice as compared with other investments which are only taxed once, and only then if, in fact, they bring in a return.
You are going to pick out these two forms of property and put an extra tax on one of them. In other words, land is going to be taxed three times. There is nothing else that is taxed even twice. This talk about motor cars is futility. You pay a tax on the petrol and you pay your licence duty on the car. That is called double taxation. To my mind, it is not so at all. It is not a tax on the same thing. The Solicitor-General actually, in a serious Debate, talks of a tariff on steel and calls it another instance of double taxation. It is a purely optional thing. You are not bound to use the imported steel, to begin with. If it is paid, it is only paid once and for all time, and it has not yet been proved that the purchaser pays that tax and not the producer. Many of the best authorities believe it is divided. But to suggest, with a pleasant smile, that that is a fair analogy to this taxation year by year upon something which is already subject to double taxation is, to my mind, rather futile. Then an hon. Member below the Gangway actually said, with such emphasis that hon. Members opposite seemed to think it must be true, that Schedule A is not a tax upon land at all, but upon what is got out of it. Surely it is just as much a tax upon land as your Income Tax is upon your investments. There it is not a tax upon the capital value of your investment, but upon the income that you get out of it. So here your Schedule A is in precisely the same way a tax upon the income that you get out of it, or are supposed to get out of it, and there is no conceivable difference of principle at all between the taxation of investments and the taxation of land under Schedule A.
The last speaker referred to the position of rent charges on chief rents. I am not quite sure that the real position there is fully appreciated by everyone. There are two kinds of rent issuing out of land. There is the rent which we commonly speak of as the rent charge, which is paid under a long lease—say 999 years. There is also the rent, which is, I think, more properly called the chief 1183 rent, which is payable in perpetuity. In Cheshire it has never been the custom to lease land for long periods. It is sold in fee but subject to a perpetual annual rent, precisely the same figure that you would be paying if it had been leased for 999 years. As far as I can see, it is only the rent that is payable under the lease that is taxable. At any rate, there is no power on the man who owns the land to make any deduction in respect of a chief rent. If he is paying a rent under a 999 years lease, he is given power to deduct the proportionate part from the rent that he is paid, but, if he holds the land in perpetuity subject to chief rent, there is no power to deduct at all, and I cannot make out from this Bill whether, in valuing the land in the case of it being subject to a chief rent, that is a matter which the valuer is permitted to take into consideration in getting at the value. In trying to arrive at the real value of land which is subject to a chief rent, any valuer would say, "This land is subject to a perpetual payment of so much and that must come into consideration in fixing the value."
We are told in one of the Schedules what matters are to be considered, and cheap rent is not mentioned as one of them. At the same time, I think the Solicitor-General ought, if he has not already done so, to give his mind to that point and make it clear whether it is a matter which is to be considered. If it is not, the man who holds land subject to a chief rent is in an unfortunate position compared with his neighbour who may hold land under a 999 years' lease. In the one case the payer can deduct from the rent charge, and in the other he cannot. That seems to be an obvious injustice which I do not think was ever intended, and it is one which ought to be put right. I do not think for a moment that it can be disputed that we have already double taxation upon land and buildings, and that they are the only forms of property which are in truth subject to double taxation, and this proposal will impose a third tax upon what is already subject to two taxes.

§ Captain BOURNE
The Amendment which has been moved by my right hon. Friend raises a very much more important point than some of the speeches to which I have recently listened would lead the 1184 House to believe. When he introduced The Financial Resolution on which this particular part of the Finance Bill was founded, the Chancellor of the Exchequer used these words: The taxation of land values may be described as a rent paid to the community for the use of the land, a contribution to the needs of the community by whose existence the value of the land has been so largely created. That is our ease for the proposals I shall now describe. In a sentence we are asking the landowner to 'render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.' "—[OFFICIAL REPOST, 4th May, 1931; col. 51, Vol. 252.] That, as I understand it, is an entirely different attitude towards land taxation from that which has been taken up for a good many years by hon. Members who sit below the Gangway. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is in effect taking up the position that private ownership of land is wrong. He is attempting to differentiate between other forms of investment, and to say that because an individual owns land he is to be liable to a special tax. Hon. Members below the Gangway, as I understand their proposal, have always argued that where it can be shown that an increase in land value is due to the positive action of the community, it is only fair that some of that increased value should come back to the community by way of taxation. The two propositions are completely incompatible. I do not believe that hon. Members of the Liberal party have ever argued that the possession of land in itself is wrong, or that because a man owns land, just as he may own Consols, War Loan, industrial shares or any other form of security, he should for that reason be liable to special taxation over and above the ordinary taxation payable by individuals in this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I understood his speech on the Financial Resolution, and I have seen some hon. Members behind him support him with enthusiasm, is of opinion that land should not be in private possession, and, accordingly, he proposes to put an extra tax upon it in order to clarify the position and penalise the landowner simply because he is a landowner. Those two positions are absolutely incompatible. You may juggle with Schedule A and may say that a certain amount under Schedule A should be deducted from the 1185 tax in order to lessen the burden, but you will not, merely by doing that, get over the point of difficulty.
There is nothing in the proposals of the Government, even in the new Clause 15 which was introduced as a result of an agreement come to last week, that puts this tax upon a purely increment value. I have listened to a very great deal of the Debate on Part III of this Bill, and it seems to me that a very large number of hon. Members on all sides of the House have argued entirely on the grounds of increment duty, and have not attempted to state the actual principle underlying the tax which the Government are bringing before them. The governing principle is that private ownership is wrong. The arguments of many hon. and right hon. Members to whom I have listened have not been that private ownership of land is wrong, but that in certain specific cases landowners have secured very large advantages, due to circumstances over which the landlords themselves have had little or no control, and where the advantage has come either from the action of the community or perhaps from the improvement by some public authority or some public company, such as a railway company in building a line in close proximity to their land, and thereby making it possible to utilise the land for building or other developments.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), in speaking on the new Clause 15, largely based his argument upon the fact that in certain cases the site value of property had risen enormously higher than its development value. His argument was really an argument in favour of Increment Duty. He was not arguing on principle and did not, as far as I heard his speech, attempt to defend the principle, that the ownership of land in itself is wrong and that the land should be the object of taxation. If you apply that principle to land, why should you not apply it to any other form of interest bearing or private security? I cannot see any logic in arguments being put forward by any hon. Member that land in itself is such a very peculiar investment, and must be treated on totally different grounds from anything else. The man who invests his money in some industrial company, such as a company 1186 for the production of gramophones, owes no small amount of his income, if that company is successful, to the mere presence of the community. If it were not for the community, there would be very little demand for gramophones. If it were not for the expenditure by the community on education, there would be still less demand for gramophones. The argument put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by some, if not very many hon. Members, is in favour of taxation, and the penal taxation of any security of any sort or kind which may be held in any private interest.
That is the Socialist's point of view, and, from their point of view, I can understand the Government's wish to defend it, and I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the extreme skill with which he has maintained the principle, while apparently making a concession to hon. Members below the Gangway which in itself is doubtful, and can easily be undone by any future Parliament. The concession he has given is small. The tax is reduced in certain cases. It is easy, and will remain very easy, for a future. Socialist Government to raise the tax from one-eighth of a penny to any sum which they may think desirable. There is only one way in which the principle, for which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon has contended so eloquently, can be carried out. You can do it by capitalising your Schedule A value and deducting it from your assessment of tax. That is not the method of the Government. The Government are far more subtle. They have moved a Clause which, apparently, gives something, but which, in fact, is merely a temporary surrender of a principle, and which preserves intact the principle that land, as such, is to be taxed. That is to be the beginning and the ending of this part of the Act. It does not make one single concession to the theory that site value is something in which the community has a right. I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer again, and I only hope that when people come to discover what has happened they will realise that the Government has won again and that the Liberals have suffered badly in trying to deal with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

1187

§ Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR
I do not desire to give a silent vote on the Amendment, because I am anxious that the House should realise the position of those of us who have taken a very strong view as to the effect of double taxation, and that we should explain the reasons for our vote. I have been endeavouring to ascertain quite clearly what the purpose of the Amendment is. It is a little involved, because it is raised on a consequential Amendment, and if I am in order I should like to read to the House the effect of the Amendment as I understand it. If the words of the consequential Amendment are inserted the effect would be to make Clause 15 read: For the purpose of the charge of the tax, the amount levied in respect of every land unit not being a unit comprising agricultural land shall be reduced by the amount of Income Tax levied thereon under Schedule A of the Income Tax Act of 1918. I think that is the effect. That is the view which I have always understood was the view of the Liberal party. Let us compare the Amendment with the words used by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) at Edinburgh. He stated on that occasion: It is one of the things we discussed as a party and quite unanimously decided that if you are to charge the 1d. tax you must deduct the tax already levied on the site under Schedule A. That seems to me precisely what the Amendment will do. The view that is expressed with regard to double taxation is the view which was very strongly held by the right hon. Gentleman and other members of the party. I am not at all impressed with the speech made by the hon. Member for Mid Bedford (Mr. Milner Gray), in which he seemed to be arguing against the idea that there was anything wrong in double taxation. The whole point, as I understand it, of the Amendment put down by the Liberal party was to avoid double taxation, and when we listened the other day to the Chancellor of the Excheque he informed us quite definitely that the attitude of the Labour party was that this is to be a special and an additional tax, and if you like a double tax.

§ Mr. P. SNOWDEN
The Liberal party.

§ Mr. MILLAR
I am using the words which the right hon. Gentleman used. Let me quote them. 1188 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June, 1931; col. 540, Vol. 254.] I am quite certain that was not the view which the Liberal party maintained. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in his own speech said: It may be said that we have departed from a certain principle to a certain extent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June 1931; col. 542, Vol. 254.] I am bound to say that I think the country is very confused by the matter, and as far as I can judge the departure is one which is causing very grave anxiety in the minds of many people in connection with the effect of the new Clause. I cannot myself justify the one-eighth of a penny as being an additional tax which should be imposed upon all lands, irrespectively. It seems to me to violate the principle itself. The right hon. Gentleman made it perfectly clear that successive Governments would know how to use that one-eighth of a penny. With regard to the principle which has been adopted in the earlier part of the Amendment which the Government has accepted, namely, the deduction of four times the Schedule A amount, all I can say is that it appears to me to be an arbitrary formula which I do not think has been thoroughly tested out, and I think it will have very extraordinary results in many parts of the country. The fair and just thing is to relieve the sites that are being taxed of the present burden imposed on them under Schedule A. That is a clear and perfectly understandable method.
I am quite certain that when this matter comes to be canvassed at a later date there will be a general feeling that the only way in which you can do justice to the principle which the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) and other hon. Members stand for, is to make it quite clear we are not imposing a double burden, but really trying to relieve the actual improvements, buildings and so on from the taxes which they are bearing, and to secure what, I believe, there is a large amount of agreement that we should secure—an additional contribution from the owner of the unearned increment in land and site values which 1189 is at present escaping taxation altogether. I have always supported the view that there is a case for the taxation of land values upon a fair basis, but as I understand it, the effect of the Bill even with the alterations which have been made does not bring it into relation with the very principles we have stood for in regard to the taxation of land values. I am certain that that view prevails in many quarters. For example, the members of the Scottish Land Values League have sent a circular to hon. Members pointing out how far the Measure departs from their views. I have found that also to be the view of others who are keenly interested in the movement. I feel that the results of this proposal which would involve double taxation of this character would be to injure the movement which the hon. Member for Burslem and others in this House have stood for. I would like to see justice done, and I think a fuller measure of justice would be done under the Bill by relieving the site value from the present burden of taxation which it bears under Schedule A. For these reasons I intend to support the Amendment.

§ Mr. MacLAREN
The Debate this afternoon has been one of the most interesting Debates I have ever listened to in this Chamber. We may say it was the first time that one ever heard a Debate coming down to the ground level of sound economic reasoning. I am afraid the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) has met with rather disastrous results, although with some things that he said I quite agree. The new development which seems to be taking place is this: For years those of us who advocated this policy in the ranks of the Liberal party advocated it without any qualifications or subtractions from the principles governing its operations. Not on one Liberal platform, but on many, have I opposed hon. Members who sit on these benches at by-elections, but on those platforms I was never at any time held up by any qualifications. Apprehension seems to be growing apace. Some Liberal Members are beginning to think that there is something more behind the proposal to tax land value than they ever dreamed.
The new doctrine is to put a certain amount of tax upon what they call increment value, but it must not be too much, just a little. They seem to be thinking 1190 that the Chancellor of the Exchequer by proposing to put on a penny flat rate throughout the country is starting out on this penny proposal with a firm conviction that the ownership of land and the profits arising therefrom privately is wrong. They seem to have made that discovery quite recently. I have said that on hundreds of Liberal platforms throughout the country. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) comes from Scotland. When Englishmen went wrong in logic Scotsmen had to put them right. We start from the premises that the land was never made by private hands, by men, and therefore should never be privately owned; that all men require the use of land; that as it is restricted in quantity and there is an ever-increasing demand for its use, the value which this demand creates should be appropriated by the community. But what is happening now? The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley says that this penny tax is not much and will not affect the man who has got away with the increment value, but they are really more concerned about this innocent penny than they are about the amount proposed to be deducted by way of increment duty. Why? It is because they see that the whole framework of the land Clauses of this Finance Bill is built up on the certain hope that in the near future the valuation which is to be made will be used by future Governments, not to put on 1d. or 2d., but to expand the tax until ultimately, if all goes well, it will absorb the entire rent into the coffers of the State. They are far more anxious about this penny tax than they are about the 25s. upon increment value. And they are quite right.
Let me make clear another little point in connection with the question of double taxation. There are only two bases upon which taxation can fall. It can only be levied upon the value of things produced by labour or upon the value of land. You cannot levy taxation anywhere else, and for hon. Members to come here and talk with considerable apprehension as to the effect of double taxation is really very amusing. For hundreds of years this House has imposed taxation upon the value of things produced by labour. Not one tax, but every tax you have levied, hundreds of taxes, are levied upon the value of things produced by human labour, and to be suddenly alarmed about double taxation 1191 is amusing. If the goods produced by labour are taxed not once but many times there is no reason suddenly to talk about double taxation.
No taxation is levied upon the value of land. Under Schedule A you levy a tax upon the profits, the income, derivable from property in land. Schedule A has no more to do with land value than this Bill has to do with the moon. [Interruption.] The tax under Schedule A is based upon annual value, and there is no man who knows Schedule A or anything of the values of land in this country who will seriously contend that the real value of land is in any sense reflected in Schedule A. Schedule A is only an impost upon an annual valuation; the proposal here is a tax upon capital value. How in the world you are going to make an annual valuation factor fit in or in some way become an additional factor against a capital valuation factor I do not know.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
Does the hon. Member remember that he himself said on the date when this taxation was introduced: I want to remind him [the Chancellor of the Exchequer] 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1931; col. 430, Vol. 252.]

§ Mr. MacLAREN
I am glad the hon. Member has put that question. The right hon. Member who moved the Amendment pointed out the possibility of double taxation, and I am trying to make it 3lear that if this tax was in full operation regard should be had to the effect of Schedule A as it is now drawn, but the difficulty is that an attempt is being made to draft on to this Bill some Amendment which will affect the Measure before it has reached full operation. Therefore my point stands. It is quite clear that regard should be had to Schedule A once you have a land tax in full operation. It is interesting to know that while this House has imposed many taxes upon the things produced by labour—you can count them up, and you may have anything from 50 to 100 various taxes all imposed upon the product of labour—that no tax has been imposed upon land, and it is only when 1192 we come to impose a tax on the value of land that we suddenly hear something about double taxation.
With regard to the formula, which emanated from the Liberal party—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—well I think it did. Let us get it into the proper chronological order, because that is very necessary. The party opposite drew an Amendment, which was ruled out of order by the Chair, and it was in order to accommodate the criticism put forward by the Liberal party that the Government endeavoured to draw up a Clause to meet the desire of that party. It is none the less true to say that the formula- about "four times" was originally devised by hon. Members and right hon. Members in the Liberal party. I want to meet this point, in fairness to the House. When first I saw the idea of giving four times the valuation, I thought it was a wrong proceeding. If you take areas where the land is valued and the tax is in operation, you will very often find that the improvement nearly equals the value of the site upon which it stands. There is no question of four or five times more value than the site. I agree that, even under this formula, you will meet many anachronisms arising under its operation.
I am not trying in any way to be evasive on this matter. In certain area you will find that the value of the site will exceed the value of the improvements standing upon it. In London you will find cases of that kind. Take New York. In reviewing the valuation of New York during the War, I discussed the matter with an expert, and asked him, in regard to some of the highest buildings, "What is the relation of the value of the improvement to the value of the site?" He told me, and that was in 1914, that the highest building in New York to-day is only equal in value, as an improvement, to the value of the site on which it stood. I have no hesitation in saying that, in the London area, the same thing would be found, even if you took away the restrictions. The formula of four times the annual value, when the formula is in operation, will in certain instances give a rough-and-ready justice. Allowance being given for Schedule A, the amount of the tax will fit in, in a rough-and-ready way. Anachronisms will arise, and I want it to be quite definitely understood that, if they arise, they have 1193 not arisen in virtue of anything that has happened from the Government side of this House.
I am sorry that the hon. Baronet, the Member for Ecclesall (Sir Samuel Roberts) is not here, because he rose in his place with impetuosity and spoke with rather an aggressive attitude, but with deep conviction. He asked us: "What is going to be the results "and I thought he based his argument upon the illustration advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley. Let me take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's illustration, because it was akin to the one which the Member for Ecclesall finally used. It was that factory A is in the centre of the town and factory B is on the outskirts of the town. We were told that this tax would come with a heavier hand on the factory on the higher-valued site than upon the factory with the less valuable site. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley seemed to see a harrowing picture behind it. I should like to remind him of what he has overlooked, that, under the Derating Act, the gentleman on the highly-rated site would get a greater relief than the gentleman on the lower-rated site, because he would get 75 per cent. of the valuation, under the Bating and Valuation Act, in which the land and buildings are included. They are the subject of valuation.
The learned Solicitor-General, in reply, said that the owner of a factory in the town, by reason of its remaining there, was receiving certain advantages; otherwise he would go outside. The hon. Baronet, the Member for Ecclesall, denied that, and said that there were certain factories in the centre of Sheffield which, to his knowledge, could not remove, because they had not the money to remove, and that they were receiving no local services to speak of. Therefore, this tax would come as a hardship upon the poor millowner, caught as it were in a site in the centre of the town, and so poor that he could not move. Let us look at that for a moment. It could not possibly happen. These are not merely theories but out of actual practice in valuation. A factory in the middle of a town will be occupying a very valuable site, otherwise its owner would not be called upon to pay 1194 a greater tax. If the site has a high value, the gentleman can realise on his site, and can get out and get another site.

HON. MEMBERS
No!

§ Mr. ERNEST BROWN
What about a shipyard?

§ Mr. MacLAREN
Oh, yes. I am afraid the House is mistaking the proposition of the tax. The tax is to be levied on the capital value of the site. If the site has a poor value, the tax will be small.

§ Mr. BROWN
Will the hon. Member forgive me for interrupting? He seems to interpret the formula as a ratio between the value of the site and the buildings upon it. With a shipyard, it is nearly always the case that the value of a site will not be in the ratio that will enable it to escape.

§ Mr. MacLAREN
The value of the site must be high, and the tax will be determined by the highness or lowness of the value of the site. Therefore, the tax will be no distress to the man who is occupying a site that has a low value. If it has a high value, he will realise and clear out. [HON. MEMBERS: "He cannot!"] We are told that he cannot. That means he is occupying a poor or low-valued site.

§ Mr. BROWN
Take the case of any shipping port you like. Take our own fleet, at Leith. It has two shipyards and ship-repairing works, and it is impossible for them to be moved. The work is there, and the very nature of the work demands a great expanse of land. It cannot be altered. It may be, under this formula, that it will have to pay very heavily.

§ Mr. MacLAREN
The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) is mixing in his mind——

§ Mr. BROWN
It is the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) whose mind is mixed, and not mine. The formula; is not mine. It is one raised between the Solicitor-General and some hon. Friends of mine. It is not my formula and it is not his. It is the formula he has to argue against and not the theory which he is putting forward now. We are not debating the hon. Member's 1195 theories, but what is to be the law of the land, and the fact is that this formula will work out unjustly as between one type of industry and another, and one type of building and another.

§ Mr. MacLAREN
I will not deal with the formula for a moment.

§ Mr. BROWN
Why not? You ought to be denouncing it!

§ Mr. MacLAREN
We were dealing with the point of a factory on a given site.

§ Mr. REID
The site value will have to be so large, that it would pay the owner to pull down the works and rebuild them elsewhere. Unless that happens the hon. Member's argument does not apply.

§ Mr. MacLAREN
Here is a case where we are told that the value of the land is low and that the man is caught there. All that I was saying was that if the value is low his tax will be low.

§ Mr. REID
Will the hon. Member answer the point that I raised.

§ Mr. MacLAREN
I will answer the point and give an illustration. In the heart of the city of Stoke-on-Trent there stands an historic pottery. They make earthenware.

§ Mr. E. BROWN
And other things.

§ Mr. MacLAREN
It abuts straight on one of the main streets of the city, creating a block on what was otherwise a wide thoroughfare. It became a danger to the traffic, which was congested in that quarter. Therefore I and members of the corporation got busy to discover if we could do something to remove this poor gentleman from this wretched; site, which is to be made the subject of tax. We asked him how much he wanted for the land, as we wanted to widen the street for the public safety. He said that he wanted from £10 to £20 per square yard. We made inquiries at the rating office and found that this gentleman was rated at something over £4,000. Then we had measurements taken of the area of his land and the price that he had fixed upon it in negotiating with the corporation, and we found that the land without the factory upon it would have a capitalised value of £400,000. As he was being 1196 robbed of something like £4,000 in respect of rates, he came to the last good Government in this House for de-rating as an industrial hereditament and got a reduction on his reproductive hereditament, and he was then rated at £1,000, although we knew as members of the corporation that for the bare naked land the value of the site was £400,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Did you pay it?"] We did not pay it. That is an example of a factory in the middle of a town. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not get the £400,000?"] No, but I will tell hon. Members what happened. Here is an illustration of a factory developed in the centre of a city. The city grew round about the area and by virtue of the growth of the city the value of the site became £400,000.

§ Sir JOSEPH LAMB
The hon. Member says that the value of the site became £400,000. Did he get the £400,000?

§ 10.0 p.m.

§ Mr. MacLAREN
The hon. Member knows the site very well. What he did do was this. He and a few others got together and said: "MacLaren is bound to get on the scent unless we do something. Therefore, they formed a company and that company have created magnificent shops round the corner. They have allowed the factory enough land to operate upon, and they are making a fortune round the corner in the main road of Stoke-on-Trent. I will not bore the House further. All that I wanted to do was to make a clear, clean-cut statement of the attitude which I and others behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer are adopting in advancing this tax. I do not believe that any human mind can devise any formula that will make Schedule A fit in in any way that will bring anything in the nature of strict justice in its operations. I believe that certain anomalies will arise, but I want to say this, that it is a new revelation to me to find that there is a small section, I am glad that it is small, of the Liberal party who have to-night come forward in their true colours and have broken definitely from the very policy which made their party great in the past. [Laughter.] Yes, and I know it. I want to say this to them, that if they become the apologists for those who are afraid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, at last, likely to 1197 tamper with this vested interest, if they say that they will have a little of it but not a dangerous amount of it; if they say that the morality of the appropriation of land values extends only to the extent of one halfpenny or one penny tax but that immediately it gets to a shilling it becomes immoral; if that is their idea, I say that the new Liberalism is very strongly tinged with the old Toryism.
Let us look at the House this afternoon. For two or three hours we had a long harangue with appeals to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove taxation from the reserves of companies; to remove tax from the money which is wanted to put into capital development. I quite agree, but the question that is always uttermost in my mind if you are to stop taxation of this, that and the other, is where is the taxation to come from I Now, when the most natural form of taxation is proposed hon. and right hem. Members object. In his Amendment to-night the right hon. Member opposite had no very strong ideas about land values taxation, but he moved the Amendment with the sure and certain hope that he would have sufficient disaffected Members of the Liberal party behind him to wreck the Finance Bill. Here is an unchallengable proposition, that the value of land is not created by any individual. The value or rent of land, which we are endeavouring to tax, is treated by the community. That is an unchallengable fact, and the device which we are trying to arrange in the Finance Bill is to differentiate between the value of things produced by honest industry and the value of land. It is in our endeavour to do that that we say to those who have been criticising us that this tax will be no tax on industry. We say, and I wish we could say it a thousand times, every time a critic declares that this is a tax upon industry, that in order to do that he must at the same time say that through all the centuries the landowners have been collecting rent from industry they have been a danger to industry.
All that we are endeavouring to do is to take something from the landowner that he now takes in the form of rent. Landowners for centuries have been the single taxers. If the Government do not collect a tax on rent the landowners will do it continuously, as they have done it in the past. Why do not hon. Members 1198 opposite realise that? Is it that their interests are too near? That is the reply to those who say that a tax on land values is a tax upon industry. It is a tax upon rent, and if it is not ruinous for industry to-day to pay this vast tribute to the landowners, if the vast tribute paid in rent, which rises with the growth of population and the necessities of the congested areas of our cities, is not an appropriation which is endangering civilisation to-day, then we say to hon. Members opposite, when they are criticising us on this proposal, why should our proposals be regarded as a danger to the community? Why should it be said that we are threatening to wreck industry, if by our tax we are imposing a tax not upon industry but upon part of that fund which, whether we like it or not, the landowners continue to exact from industry?

§ Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES
Anyone listening to the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) for the first time might get the impression that that fervid and eloquent peroration was directed to right hon. and hon. Members who sit on the benches below the Gangway on this side of the House, and to trying to persuade them for the first time that they could follow the taxation of site values as an inherent doctrine. Might I remind the hon. Member that years and years ago hon. Members on these benches adopted that as one of their doctrines, and that it is one of their doctrines to-day? It is not right that some of my friends who are taking an independent line with regard to the Amendment which I should have proposed to this House, should be challenged on their action. Their object is the same exactly as that which has been adopted by the majority of the Members on this side of the House. The only question is how that object should be accomplished. Undoubtedly, the principle that the Liberal party has adopted and followed for upwards of 40 years is that sites should be valued, and that sites, as sites, should be taxed, and that there should be no taxation for improvements. So far as this Bill carries into effect this principle, it is welcomed by every hon. Member on these benches. It falls, as has been pointed out during the Second Heading, far short in many respects. It does not provide a complete valuation; not as we understand it, a valuation of the site with its prairie 1199 value. It still has in it some taint also of the valuation of improvements and, at the same time, as we pointed out during the Second Reading, it does undoubtedly impose in itself an additional tax upon the landowners who happen to own the sites.
When the question was placed before us, how that should be met, we were faced with two matters. The first was: Were we or were we not in favour of the taxation of land values, and I think the unanimous answer from these benches was that we were. That being so, were we in favour of the taxation of a penny in the pound upon the capital value of every site? We did try to point out, in the Amendment which was put down in my name and in the name of other hon. Members on this side, that sites at the present time were also bearing a tax, and that the owner had to pay that tax annually, just as he would be called upon to pay this new tax, which is called Income Tax. I disagree, however, with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burslem, and I disagree with the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, when they say that this is Income Tax. It is not. An Income Tax is a tax upon income. Nobody can say that this is a tax upon income. Schedule A is not a tax upon income; it is a tax upon the hypothetical income that a hypothetical person can get from another hypothetical person, whether you make that income or whether you do not make that income. That being so, a part of that tax is borne by the site itself and, because the site is there and the building and improvements are on it, there is a tax, and in so far as there is a tax it is an annual thing.
What we tried to point out from these benches was that the tax proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be preserved as a penny tax upon the capital value of the site, but that any tax already borne by the site or the owner of that site, whatever form it might take, should be credited towards this new tax. That was the form of the Amendment which I suggested. It was mentioned by the hon. Member for Burslem as being then out of order, but that Amendment, unfortunately, was never proposed because, in the meantime, after it had been placed upon the Paper, an agreement was made between 1200 the Government and the hon. and right hon. Members who sit on these benches below the Gangway. That was not our proposal. We meant to have full credit for every payment that was made on the site itself. We were up against another principle, and that was., should we impose upon the public at large another increased valuation which would impose great expense upon the community and would, in the long run, be a useless valuation?
That being so, in order to try to meet that situation, we agreed amongst ourselves that the proper method of dealing with this was to have the formula which was originally proposed by the Solicitor-General. I do not hide from myself that in that formula, in some instances, there were injustices, but, on the whole, through and through, and throughout the country, it may be taken as a fair compromise. You cannot have a a compromise without hurting somebody. [Interruption.] During the 20 years' experience that I had at the Bar I realised it was better to fight for your client than to try to effect a compromise. If you compromised you lost your client, and both sides hated it, but if you fought it out both sides were satisfied. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why do you not fight this out?"] So far as this compromise is concerned I think it is fair and will satisfy everybody. [Interruption.] The only people not satisfied wall be the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself. Neither he nor I have our way completely but, on the whole, I think justice has been done. I am perfectly willing that he should have as much credit as he likes to take unto himself for having won as much as he did upon that compromise, and I take to myself credit for the fact that from every site value at any rate there will be deducted four times the annual site value for Schedule A purposes, and the tax will not be as heavy as otherwise it would have been upon fully developed sites.

§ Mr. CULVERWELL
What about principles?

§ Mr. DAVIES
This is a matter of two principles. [Interruption.] You have every Liberal in favour of a taxation upon a site value. You have also the right hon. Gentleman and all his followers in favour of that. So far we were united. The only question was whether that tax 1201 should fall in addition to another tax or not, and so far as we could we tried to meet that point. The only question is whether that will now work generally for the benefit of the country We on these benches desire to support the right hon. Gentleman in the great step which he is taking in having, once again, the land valued. [Laughter.] Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway may laugh, but this House fought this question for VI days in Committee, as to whether there should be taxation on site values and whether the land should be Valued or not. This House ultimately decided that it should be done, and that decision was carried by a Liberal and Labour majority, as this proposal again will be carried by a Labour and Liberal majority.

§ Mr. E. BROWN
The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) in his interesting speech raised two points on which I shall join issue with him and, as the first of these is not strictly relevant to the Amendment, I shall only deal with it briefly. He said that when Englishmen went wrong in logic Scotsmen put them right. Let me read to him in reference to that dictum the words of one of the ablest and most devoted of Scottish landtaxers about the major issue—the issue as to whether what the Chancellor of the Exchequer first proposed, in the terms in which he proposed it, is the best method to be adopted and is in line with what has been advocated. What does the Secretary of the Scottish League for the Taxation of Land Values say? He does not agree with his fellow-Scot and he speaks for the Scottish League, and not for the English League. The hon. Member opposite speaks for the English League, but these are the words of a Scotsman writing for Scotsmen: The present proposals of the Chancellor penalise landowners, who put the land to the best possible use just as much as it punishes the owners who are holding up the land unduly or making only partial use of it. This in itself, condemns the present proposal and marks the scheme as a political stunt with little or no relationship to sound schemes for the taxation of land value. It is only associated with such schemes in name. With that I agree, and, to put the whole thing in a nutshell, I agree with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in that speech to which 1202 I listened at Edinburgh, and I quote his inimitable words: The Liberal party has been pledged for 40 years to the taxation of site values. It is an old Liberal proposition and we stand by it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Davies) that we do stand by it. [HON. MEM BERS: "Do you?"] Yes, very much so, as some of my hon. Friends opposite, who did their best to prevent me getting to this House will find out later on. They did their best to prevent me getting here, but I am here and now that I here I hope to stay here and to be here when perhaps some of them have gone. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs went on to say: But every proposal depends on the way in which it is applied. He then explained exactly what is the proposal which we are challenging: The Government propose to value all land except agricultural land. Having secured the valuation they propose to put a duty of 1d. in the £ on the capital value of the site. That is equivalent to 1s. 8d. in the £ on the annual value. A penny looks a small thing but it is bigger than it appears. It is a penny on the capital value. That is the tax-gatherer's way of putting it. On that issue the hon. Member for Burslem does not seem to have informed himself as to what has happened, and I noticed a very interesting thing in hi3 speech. He fears another failure, and he and I will agree that another failure in the application of the taxation of land values will kill it for ever. I, too, fear another failure. But, fearing another failure, what does the hon. Member try to do? He tries to do something which is not quite fair. He says that what is now being done in the Bill has nothing to do with the Government, or with the Members sitting behind the Government, but that it is my hon. and right hon. Friends sitting here who have done it. That is not fair. What happened? Issue was joined by my hon. and right hon. Friends below the Gang way on the principle as to whether this should be an additional tax or the substitution of a tax. That is the issue and that is the old Liberal principle which has been stated in pamphlet after pamphlet in arguing the case for the taxation of land values—that if we did by this new method of assessment pro- 1203 ceed to levy the tax it would not be in addition but in substitution. The issue was joined on that principle. What happened? As often happens when two sets of people differ about words, agreement is found by discarding the words and substituting figures. It is so hard to take back words; it is so easy to make a man look ridiculous if you say, "I stand for two, you stand for five; why not make it four?" It is one of the best known methods of compromising when an immovable object apparently meets an irresistible force—I say "apparently."
That is exactly what happened here, and that is why some of us will go into the Lobby to vote for this Amendment. [Interruption.] At any rate, hon. Members opposite are entitled to take their own view and to scoff or mock or oppose, but there is no Member on these benches who is entitled to mock and scoff and oppose. The Amendment proposed from these benches puts into words, read in conjunction with Clause 15, precisely what my hon. and learned Friend tried to do in the Amendment which was in order as a new Clause, but which was not in order as an Amendment to the Clause dealing with reliefs. That was what my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, in my hearing at Edinburgh, said was a point of principle about which he and his friends felt a conscientious scruple, that that, and not this formula, should be the method of raising this tax. It is a clear, straight issue on a point of principle, and as far as I am concerned I would much rather see this particular formula in words in the Bill than I would see what has been done now—this guesswork on arbitrary lines. A man in the street described it to me the other day by saying that as far as he could make out, the formula of the Solicitor-General and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire was: You think of a number, then multiply it by four, and divide it by two, and the result is one-eighth of a penny.

§ Sir ROBERT HORNE
As the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) said, we have had a very interesting Debate. The question is one on which he always speaks with authority and 1204 which always lends eloquence to his statements. I confess that as I listened to what he had to say, I came to the conclusion that his speech was the most destructive criticism of the Clause proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was perfectly apparent that he entirely disagrees with any attempt to let off anybody owning land by any fraction at all. The principle which he announced as the foundation of his own legislation was that which we are accustomed to hear from single-taxers, and indeed he never attempts to disguise it; but he really ought to be standing with those of his brethren who wrote the pamphlet which has just been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). He recognises in the legislation which we have before us not merely a perversion of the doctrine which they espouse, but an operation of it which can have no other result than that of destroying their principle; yet whereas the fundamental principle of the single-taxer is that you must take off the tax upon all forms of improvement and put it upon the land itself, there is no form of taxation which has ever been devised which will fall more harshly on the man who has improved his land than the tax under this Bill. That being so, it is difficult for me to understand how my hon. Friend, with that Scotch logic for which he claims credit, should find himself going into the Lobby in support of this Bill.
But I do not think we need concern ourselves too much with the general principle upon which the land taxers proceed, because that is not the issue we are discussing at the present time at all. The issue with which we are concerned is that raised by the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made to this Bill whereby an empirical method is taken to relieve landholders of a certain portion of the amount which they will have to bear. I am not at all surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have felt that he has got off cheaply after the attitude which the Liberal party took up with so much vehemence only a few days ago. I listened to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Gray) this afternoon, and it is significant that the chief speech made for the official Liberal party was made by a single taxer. While he was 1205 replying to various views which had been urged from these benches I was thinking that he must have entirely forgotten, if he ever took the trouble to read, the speech which his leader made at Edinburgh. He said he did not understand anything of this complaint of a double tax. If he had only read the speech——

§ Mr. GRAY
I think—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] I never said anything of the sort.

§ Sir R. HORNE
I am in the recollection of those who heard the hon. Member. He said he could not understand this complaint about double taxation, because that was so common in this country. Certainly, that is what he said. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who is still the leader of his particular party, has a very clear perception of it, however, and may I remind my hon. Friend his follower, or one who ought to be his follower, of the precise language used by his leader? Heaven knows, leadership cannot be so easy in these circumstances that one would willingly have a follower of the hon. Member's eminence on this particular topic deserting on such an issue. This is what his leader said: We cannot assent as a party"— That was to this proposal. We discussed it, and quite unanimously"— —apparently the hon. Member was involved in that decision— decided that if you are to charge the 1d. tax you must deduct the tax which is already levied upon the site under Schedule A. That is the very Amendment which is proposed, and upon which we are asked to vote. If Schedule A is higher than the tax, then we will take the higher. If, on the other hand, the 1d. is higher than Schedule A we will take that, but we will not levy a thing twice over. That is the very principle which the hon. Member said this afternoon he could not understand anyone putting forward, but it was put forward by his own leader.

§ Mr. GRAY
I do not want to keep on interrupting, but I do want to make it clear that I never made any such statement. May I point out that we are 1206 not under this Bill now levying a penny tax?

§ Sir R. HORNE
I do not know whether my hon. Friend thinks it makes any difference in principle whether it is a 1d. or one-eighth of a penny, especially if he keeps in mind the gibe which is thrown at the Liberal party by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said, "Future Parliaments will look after the amount which will be charged." The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs went on to say: As it stands it is unjust. We have come to the conclusion as a party quite unanimously. There was not a dissenting voice. Where was the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford at that time? All his single tax proclivities were carefully concealed at the party meeting, and we have them disclosed for the first time to-day when, apparently in the agony of trouble, he was brought forward to assist a settlement which might carry them through the day. Then the speech went on: We have come to that decision with our eyes open, and we mean to stand by it whatever the consequences. We have seen what are the consequences, and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has told us what he considers was the compromise. I remember the old domestic quarrel in which it was always held that all you had to do was to make a compromise. In this story the husband said:" My wife and I had a quarrel the other day. The quarrel was over the painting of the parlour. I wanted the parlour painted green and she wanted it painted red. I did not want to dictate to her, and she did not want to dictate to me, and the result was that we came to a compromise." The husband was afterwards asked what the compromise was, and he said that the parlour was painted red. [Interruption.] That is exactly what has happened in the ease of this agreement, for it has been painted red. What happened was a complete success for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman came down to the House and said, "The Liberal party will not have an added tax." But this is an added tax. The Liberal party said, "We will not have a double tax." But this is a double tax. The supposed compromise involves a sacrifice of principle on the part of the Liberal party, and 1207 an entire giving away of everything for which they stood. This one-eighth of a penny is going to represent something in the future which will be added to considerably, and as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has put it, may represent the whole capital value of the land. There is no question that four times the amount of Income Tax under Schedule A, in the vast number of cases, will not cover the amount which will be levied upon a capital value basis. There is no real relationship in principle between the two because everything depends upon the value which is placed upon the land. There is an even worse thing in this form of taxation. It is very likely that the people who will be most heavily taxed under this Bill will be the people with the largest amount of land where the land is valuable. It was suggested by the Solicitor-General that the businesses might be moved to a less valuable site. There are large stretches of ground in my own constituency forming the river frontage where people are engaged in shipbuilding. Are they to get rid of their shipping yards, and where else are they to go for a river frontage?

§ Mr. MacLAREN
These companies will pay no tax if they pay an annual rental for the land which they are using. If the land belongs to them, they will have to set aside an amount in proportion to what they would pay in rent.

§ Sir R. HORNE
I should think that, in nearly every case that I know where shipbuilding is carried on, the yard is owned by the people who build the ships. The result is that, where there are these large spaces of ground, in places where ground is very valuable—and obviously these frontages represent some of the most valuable land in the area—a very heavy burden of taxation is imposed.

Dr. MORGAN
They are either making their profits as landowners or as shipbuilders.

§ Sir R. HORNE
A shipbuilder who is making a profit to-day is not very easy to find. As one knows, a great many of them are organisations which have to depend to a considerable extent upon borrowed money for the carrying on of their industry, and from time to time have to issue debenture bonds in order to raise 1208 money. [Interruption.] I do not understand that interruption; I should imagine that both the industries and the investors of this country have been greatly benefited by the process of issuing debentures upon establishments and shops.

An HON. MEMBER
Rubbish!

§ Mr. SPEAKER
These interruptions do not help anyone.

§ Sir R. HORNE
As far as I am concerned, I have no objection to intelligent interruptions to which I have the opportunity of replying, but I confess I should have imagined that the proposition I have put would commend itself to every person who knows how business is being conducted in this country. I wish the House to observe the kind of result that you get. A tax of this kind upon a shipbuilding yard immediately means that, if you have to issue any debentures for the purpose of raising money to carry on your business, the capital value of the works upon which you can raise such a loan is depreciated by 20 times the value of the tax you are called upon to pay. I know a shipbuilding yard, for example, at the present time, that will have to pay some £600 a year if this tax finally comes into operation. That represents a difference of £12,000 in the capital value of the yard. It means that from the point of view of its sale, Parliament will have reduced the value of that yard by £12,000, and, if they wish to borrow, they can borrow £12,000 less for the purposes of their business. That is under the Bill as it was originally drafted. But these people are the people who will get the least relief from this new Clause, because in a shipbuilding yard it is obvious that the value of the buildings is disproportionate to the vale of the site. No such expensive buildings are put up on these sites as will at all represent, when it comes to a question of four times the Income Tax, any figure that will wipe out the impost that will come upon these great organisations by reason of this tax upon capital value.
What this House is proposing to do, at a time when industry is most burdened, is to add yet another trouble to its existence. I cannot imagine that that can be good policy, and I venture to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will find difficulties coming back upon him through the lack of earning power from 1209 which many of these great industrial organisations will suffer by reason of this taxation. I do not propose to detain the House any further——[Interruption.] Apparently the kind of argument which I have addressed to the House as very difficult to refute. At the same time, I regard it as a perfectly fair argument, otherwise I would not have addressed it to the House. The hon. Member for Burslem is right. There is no ground of principle in this exemption, at all, and, when you examine the way in which it is constructed, it does

1210

§ not begin to have any real merit as a way of meeting the difficulties of the people who will have these imposts to bear and, what is worse still, when you compare the result in one case with another, there is no equality of treatment at all. Legislation of that kind is fantastic and is unworthy of Parliament.

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

§ The House divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 255

1213

Division No. 362.]	AYES.	[10.42 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Duncan, Charles	Lang, Gordon
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Ede, James Chuter	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Edmunds, J. E.	Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.	Edwards, E. (Morpeth)	Law, Albert (Bolton)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Egan, W. H.	Law, A. (Rosendale)
Alpass, J. H.	Foot, Isaac	Lawrence, Susan
Ammon, Charles George	Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Angell, Sir Norman	Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)	Lawson, John James
Arnott, John	George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)	Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Attlee, Clement Richard	George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Leach, W.
Ayles, Walter	George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)	Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Gibblns, Joseph	Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)	Lees, J.
Barnes, Alfred John	Gill, T. H.	Leonard, W.
Barr, James.	Glassey, A. E.	Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Batey, Joseph	Gossling, A. G.	Lindley, Fred W.
Beckett, John (Camberweli, Peckham)	Gould, F.	Lloyd, C. Ellis
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)	Logan, David Gilbert
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	Gray, Milner	Longbottom, A. W.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).	Longden, F.
Benson, G.	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Lunn, William
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Birkett, W. Norman	Groves, Thomas E.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	Grundy, Thomas W.	MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Bowen, J. W.	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	McElwee, A.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	McEntee, V. L.
Broad, Francis Alfred	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Brockway, A. Fenner	Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)	McKinlay, A.
Bromfield, William	Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)	MacLaren, Andrew
Bromley, J.	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)	Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Brooke, W.	Hardie, David (Rutherglen)	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Brothers, M.	Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)	MacNelli-Weir, L.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Harris, Percy A.	McShane, John James
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)	Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)	Haycock, A. W.	Manning, E. L.
Buchanan, G.	Hayday, Arthur	Mansfield, W.
Burgess, F. G.	Hayes, John Henry	March, S.
Burgin, Dr. E. L.	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Marcus, M.
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)	Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)	Markham, S. F.
Calne, Hall-, Derwent	Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)	Marley, J.
Cameron, A. G.	Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)	Marshall, Fred
Cape, Thomas	Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)	Mathers, George
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Herrlotts, J.	Matters, L. W.
Charleton, H. C.	Hicks, Ernest George	Maxton, James
Chater, Daniel	Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)	Messer, Fred
Church, Major A. G.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Mills, J. E.
Clarke, J. S.	Hoffman, P. C.	Milner, Major J.
Cluse, W. S.	Holline, A.	Montague, Frederick
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Hopkin, Daniel	Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Morley, Ralph
Compton, Joseph	Isaacs, George	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Cove, William G.	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Mort, D. L.
Daggar, George	Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)	Muff, G.
Dallas, George	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Muggeridge, H. T.
Dalton, Hugh	Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Murnin, Hugh
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)	Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)	Naylor, T. E.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)	Kelly, W. T.	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Noel Baker, P. J.
Day, Harry	Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Kirkwood, D.	Oldfield, J. R.
Dukes, C.	Knight, Holford	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis	Townend, A. E.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)	Sherwood, G. H.	Vaughan, David
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)	Shield, George William	Viant, S. P.
Palin, John Henry	Shleis, Dr. Drummond	Walkden, A. G.
Palmer, E. T.	Shillaker, J. F.	Walker, J.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Shinwell, E.	Wallace, H. W.
Perry, S. F.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)	Watkins, F. C.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Simmons, C. J.	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Phillips, Dr. Marion	Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)	Wellock, Wilfred
Pole, Major D. G.	Sinkinson, George	Welsh, James (Paisley)
Potts, John S.	Sitch, Charles H.	Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Price, M. P.	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)	West, F. R.
Quibell, D. J. K.	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)	Westwood, Joseph
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson	Smith, Rennle (Penistone)	White, H. G.
Raynes, W. R.	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Richards, R.	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)	Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)	Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Ritson, J.	Sorensen, R.	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)	Stamford, Thomas W.	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Romerll, H. G.	Stephen, Campbell	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.	Strauss, G. R.	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Rowson, Guy	Sullivan, J.	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Salter, Dr. Alfred	Sutton, J. E.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)	Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)	Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)	Wise, E. F.
Sanders, W. S.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)	Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Sandham, E.	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Sawyer, G. F.	Thurtle, Ernest
Scott, James	Tinker, John Joseph	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Scurr, John	Toole, Joseph	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)	Tout, W. J.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.	Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles	Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton	Galbraith, J. F. W.
Albery, Irving James	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Ganzonl, Sir John
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)	Chapman, Sir S.	Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Christle, J. A.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer	Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Aske, Sir Robert	Clydesdale, Marquess of	Gower, Sir Robert
Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Astor, Viscountess	Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Atholl, Duchess of	Cohen, Major J. Brunei	Greene, W. P. Crawford
Atkinson, C.	Colfox, Major William Philip	Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.	Colman, N. C. D.	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)	Colville, Major D. J.	Gritten, W. G. Howard
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Conway, Sir W. Martin	Gulnness. Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)	Cooper, A. Duff	Gunston, Captain D. W.
Balniel, Lord	Courtauld, Major J. S.	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Cowan, D. M.	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Beaumont. M. W.	Cranborne, Viscount	Hamilton, Sir George (llford)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon	Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.	Hammersley, S. S.
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Bevan, S. J (Holborn)	Crookshank, Capt. H. C.	Hartington, Marquess of
Bird, Ernest Roy	Cuiverwell, C. T, (Bristol, West)	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Blindell, James	Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Haslam, Henry C.
Boothby, R. J. G.	Dalkeith, Earl of	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxfd, Henley)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey	Heneage, Lieut.-Col Arthur p.
Bowater, Cot. Sir T. Vanslttart	Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)	Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.	Davies, Dr. Vernon	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Boyce, Leslie	Davies, Maj, Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Bracken, B.	Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.	Dawson. Sir Philip	Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Brass, Captain Sir William	Despencer-Robertson, Major J A. F.	Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Briscoe, Richard George	Dixey, A. C.	Heward-Bury. Colonel C. K.
Broadbent, Colonel J.	Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Dugdale. Capt. T. L.	Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Eden, Captain Anthony	Hurd, Percy A.
Buchan, John	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Elliot, Major Walter E.	Hutchison. Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm	England, Colonel A.	Inskip, Sir Thomas
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston. s. M.)	Iveagh, Countess of
Butler, R. A.	Evans, Capt. Ernest (Weish Univer.)	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Butt, Sir Alfred	Everard, W. Lindsay	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Campbell, E. T.	Ferguson, Sir John	Kindersley, Major G. M.
Carver, Major W. H.	Fermoy, Lord	Knox, Sir Alfred
Castle Stewart, Earl of	Fielden, E. B.	Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Fison, F. G. Clavering	Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Ford, Sir P. J.	Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' ft Whitby)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)	Forestler-Walker, Sir L.	Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Frece, Sir Walter de	Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

1212

1213

Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)	Pilditch, Sir Philip	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest	Pownall, Sir Assheton	Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Liewellin, Major J. J.	Purbrick, R.	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey	Pybus, Percy John	Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)
Lockwood, Captain J. H.	Ramsbotham, H.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Long, Major Hon. Eric	Rawson, Sir Cooper	Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Lymington, Viscount	Reid, David D. (County Down)	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Remer, John R.	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Macquisten, F. A.	Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.	Thompson, Luke
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)	Reynolds, Col. Sir James	Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Margesson, Captain H. D.	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)	Todd, Capt. A. J.
Marjoribanks, Edward	Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stratford)	Train, J.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd	Ross, Ronald D.	Turton, Robert Hugh
Millar, J. D.	Rothschild, J. de	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.	Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)	Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)	Warrender, Sir Victor
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Salmon, Major l.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Morris, Rhys Hopkins	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey. Farrham)	Wayland, Sir William A.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)	Wells, Sydney R.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Muir head, A. J.	Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Nall-Cain, A. R. N.	Savery. S. S.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Newton, Sir O. G. C. (Cambridge)	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John	Withers, Sir John James
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsl'ld)	Skelton, A. N.	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)	Womersley, W. J.
O'Neill, Sir H.	Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n A Kinc'dlne. C.)	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William	Smith-Carington, Neville W.	Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)
Peake, Capt. Osbert	Smithers, Waldron	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Penny, Sir George	Somerset, Thomas
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Perkins, W. R. D.	Southby, Commander A. R. J.	Sir Frederick Thomson and Major
		Sir George Hennessy.

§ Lieut. - Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
I beg to move, in page 4, line 41, to leave out the word "thirty-four," and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty-six."
At this time of the night our only object is to get as many Amendments considered as possible, and it is my intention to move this Amendment in as formal a manner as possible, with only a very few words of explanation of the reasons for it and the effect it will have if accepted. The Bill as it stands at present states: there shall, in respect of all land in Great Britain be charged for the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, and for each subsequent financial year, etc. The tax is to be charged for the year ending 31st March, 1934, which means that it will be charged for the year beginning the 31st March, 1933. That means that the valuation must be completed at the very latest by the end of the year 1932. I suggest that it is almost impossible to get a valuation fairly and reasonably effected in that very short

1214

§ time. To-day is the last day of June, 1931, and even if the Bill became law to-morrow, there would only be approximately 18 months for the valuation. If we carry our minds back to 1910 we find that the valuation which was introduced and made legal in that year was not nearly completed at the outbreak of the War in 1914. Thus three years bad been occupied in valuing something like 75 per cent. of the land. There is not the slightest reason why the valuation now should be effected any more rapidly. If we allow this to go through as it stands at present, it means that the valuation will be effected in a hasty manner, which can only lead to unlimited trouble. For that reason I suggest that 1936 should be substituted for 1934.

§ Captain BOURNE
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Question put, "That the word 'thirty-four' stand part of the Bill."

§ The House divided: Ayes, 290; Noes, 243.

1219

Division No. 363.]	AYES.	[10.55 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Alpass, J. H.	Attlee, Clement Richard
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Ammon, Charles George	Ayles, Walter
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Angell, Sir Norman	Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.	Arnott, John	Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Aske, Sir Robert	Barnes, Alfred John
Barr, James.	Hardle, G. D. (Springburn)	Mort, D. L.
Batey, Joseph	Harris, Percy A.	Muff, G.
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)	Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Muggeridge, H. T.
Bern, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Haycock, A. W.	Murnin, Hugh
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	Hayday, Arthur	Naylor, T. E.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Hayes, John Henry	Noel Baker, P, J.
Benson, G.	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)	Oldfield, J. R.
Birkett, W. Norman	Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Blinded, James	Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)	Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)	Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Bowen, J. W.	Herrlotts, J.	Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Hicks, Ernest George	Palin, John Henry
Broad, Francis Alfred	Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)	Palmer, E. T.
Brockway, A. Fenner	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Bromfield. William	Hoffman, P. C.	Perry, S. F.
Bromley, J.	Hollins, A.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Brooke, W.	Hopkin, Daniel	Phillips, Dr. Marion
Brothers, M.	Hore-Beilsha, Leslie	Pole, Major D. G.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)	Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Potts, John S.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Isaacs, George	Price, M. P.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Pybus, Percy John
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)	Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Quibell, D. J. K.
Buchanan, G.	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Burgess, F. G.	Jones, Rt. Hon. Leit (Camborne)	Rathbone, Eleanor
Burgin, Dr. E. L.	Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)	Raynes, W. R.
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)	Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Richards, R.
Calne, Hall-, Derwent	Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Cameron, A. G.	Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)	Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Cape, Thomas	Kelly, W. T.	Ritson, J.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Charleton. H. C.	Kenworthy. Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Romerll, H. G.
Chater, Daniel	Kirkwood, D.	Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Church, Major A. G.	Lang, Gordon	Rothschild. J. de
Clarke, J. S.	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Rowson, Guy
Cluse, W. S.	Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)	Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Law, Albert (Bolton)	Salter, Dr Alfred
Compton, Joseph	Law, A. (Rosendale)	Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Cove, William G.	Lawrence, Susan	Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Cowan, D. M.	Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)	Sanders, W. S.
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Lawson, John James	Sandham, E.
Daggar, George	Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)	Sawyer, G. F.
Dallas, George	Leach, W.	Scott. James
Dalton, Hugh	Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)	Scurr, John
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)	Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)	Lees, J.	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Leonard, W.	Sherwood, G. H.
Day, Harry	Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Shield, George William
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Lindley, Fred W.	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Dukes, C.	Lloyd, C. Ellis	Shillaker, J. F.
Duncan, Charles	Logan, David Gilbert	Shinwell, E.
Ede, James Chuter	Longbottom, A. W.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Edmunds, J. E.	Longden, F.	Simmons, C. J.
Erwards, E. (Morpeth)	Lunn, William	Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Egan, W. H	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Sinkinson. George
Elmley, Viscount	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Sitch, Charles H.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)	MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Foot, Isaac	McElwee, A.	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	McEntee, V. L.	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)	McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)	McKinlay, A.	Smith. W. R. (Norwich)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	MacLaren, Andrew	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)	Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)	Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Gibbins. Joseph	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Sorensen. R.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)	MacNeill-Weir, L.	Stamford, Thomas W.
Gill, T. H.	McShane, John James	Stephen, Campbell
Gillett, George M	Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)	Strauss, G. R.
Glassey, A. E.	Manning, E. L.	Sullivan, J.
Gossling, A. G.	Mansfield, W.	Sutton, J. E.
Gould. F.	March, S.	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)	Marcus, M.	Taylor. W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Gray, Milner	Markham, S. F.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coins)	Marley, J.	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Marshall, Fred	Thurtle, Ernest
Griffith. F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)	Mathers, George	Tinker, John Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Matters, L. W.	Toole, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.	Maxton, James	Tout, W. J.
Grundy, Thomas W.	Messer, Fred	Townend, A. E.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Mills, J. E.	Vaughan, David
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Milner, Major J.	Viant, S. P.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Montague, Frederick	Walkden, A. G.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)	Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Walker, J
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)	Morley, Ralph	Wallace, H. W.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)	Watkins, F. C.
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)	Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).

1216

1217

Wellock, Wilfred	Williams, David (Swansea, East)	Wise, E. F.
Welsh, James (Paisley)	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)	Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
West, F. R.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Westwood, Joseph	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)	Wilson, J. (Oldham)	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)	Paling.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.	Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)	Llewellin, Major J. J.
Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles	Davies, Dr. Vernon	Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Albery, Irving James	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Long, Major Hon. Eric
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)	Dawson, Sir Philip	Lymington, Viscount
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (t. of W.)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Dixey, A. C.	Macquisten, F. A.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert	Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Astor, Viscountess	Dugdale, Capt. T. L.	Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Atholl, Duchess of	Eden, Captain Anthony	Marjoribanks, Edward
Atkinson, C.	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.	Elliot, Major Walter E.	Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)	England, Colonel A.	Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (l. of Thanet)	Everard, W. Lindsay	Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Balniel, Lord	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Ferguson, Sir John	Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Beaumont, M. W.	Fermoy, Lord	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon	Fielden, E. B.	Muirhead, A. J.
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Fison, F. G. Clavering	Nall-Cain, A. R. N.
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)	Ford. Sir P. J.	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Forestler-Walker, Sir L.	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Bird, Ernest Roy	Frece, Sir Walter de	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Boothby, R. J. G.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.	Galbraith, J. F. W.	O'Neill, Sir H.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Ganzonl, Sir John	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.	Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton	Peake, Capt. Osbert
Boyce, Leslie	Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)	Penny, Sir George
Bracken, B.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Braithwalte, Major A. N.	Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Perkins, W. R. D.
Brass, Captain Sir William	Gower, Sir Robert	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Briscoe, Richard George	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Pllditch, Sir Philip
Broadbent, Colonel J.	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Pownall, Sir Assheton
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Purbrick, R.
Buchan, John	Grenfell, Edward C, (City of London)	Ramsbotham, H.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Rawson, Sir Cooper
Bullock, Captain Malcolm	Gritten, W. G. Howard	Reid, David D. (County Down)
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Remer, John R.
Butler, R. A.	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Butt, Sir Alfred	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)
Campbell, E. T.	Hamilton, Sir George (llford)	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Carver, Major W. H.	Hammersley, S. S.	Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Castle Stewart, Earl of	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Hartington, Marquess of	Ross, Ronald D.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)	Haslam, Henry C.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Salmon, Major l.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Chapman, Sir S.	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Savery, S. S.
Christie, J. A.	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer	Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Clydesdale, Marquess of	Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.	Skelton, A. N.
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George	Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gon. Sir Aylmer	Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)
Cohen, Major J. Brunei	Hurd, Percy A.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Colfax, Major William Philip	Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Smithers, Waldron
Colman, N. C. D.	Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.	Somerset, Thomas
Colville, Major D. J.	Inskip. Sir Thomas	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Conway, Sir W. Martin	Iveagh, Countess of	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Cooper, A. Duff	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Cranborne, Viscount	Knox, Sir Alfred	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.	Lamb, Sir J. Q.	Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.	Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)	Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)
Cuiverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)	Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)	Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Dalkeith, Earl of	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey	Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

1218

1219

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

§ Ordered, That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, he now adjourned."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

§ Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.