Sitting of 11 August 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
North-Eastern Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),— Consideration, as amended, deferred till Friday.

COUNTY COURTS (PLAINTS AND SITTINGS.
Returns ordered, from every County Court in England and Wales of the total number of Plaints, etc., entered in each Court from the 1st day of January to the 31st day of December, 1908, both days inclusive, distinguishing those not exceeding £20, those above £20 and not exceeding £50, those above £50 and not exceeding £100, and those by agreement over £100:
And, of the Sittings of the County Courts in England and Wales holden before the Judges of such Courts in the year 1908 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 283, of Session 1908).— [Mr. Masterman.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  H.M.S. "Temeraire" Accidents.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he?could give any information with regard to the accident on H.M.S. "Temeraire" on Saturday, 31st ultimo, at the Naval Review, and the condition of the sufferers; whether the accident was due to any defect in the gun; and whether similar mishaps were preventible in future?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY {Mr. McKenna): The cause of the accident was that the gun, contrary to regulations, was not sponged and inspected after firing before the next charge was entered.

  New Battleships (Protection of Commerce).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of
  384
  the fact that the armoured cruiser of an improved "Invincible" type to be laid down in November was required for the protection of commerce, he would state whether the vessels of the "Invincible" and "Indefatigable" classes had been designed for a similar purpose?
  Mr. McKENNA: All war vessels that are designed have as one of their alternate objects the protection of commerce, since one of the main purposes for which the British Navy exists is to keep the trade routes open.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: This vessel is no more for the protection of commerce than the other "Dreadnoughts"?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; she will perform precisely the same functions.
  Mr. W. W. ASHLEY: Is it the intention to keep this vessel in home waters, or to send her to foreign stations?
  Mr. McKENNA: As the vessel cannot be built for a considerable time, I think the discussion of that point might be deferred.

  Royal Dockyards (Construction of "Dreadnoughts").
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many slips at the Royal dockyards at Pembroke, Devonport, Portsmouth, and Chatham were adapted for the construction of battleships of an improved "Dreadnought" type?
  Mr. McKENNA: Three, namely, one each at Chatham, Portsmouth, and Devon-port. There are also in addition four slips which are capable of being modified to take these vessels if required.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: How long will the modification take?
  Mr. McKENNA: Not long.
  Mr. JENKINS: Is it the intention of the Government to build at Chatham?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have nothing to say on that point.
  Mr. W. THORNE: How many private firms have slips capable of constructing "Dreadnoughts"?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member will give notice of the question I will inquire.

  New Battleships (Construction by Contractors).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many of the four additional battleships to be laid down on 1st April next were to be built in the Royal Dockyards, and how many by private contractors?
  Mr. McKENNA: The four ships will be contract built.

  Rosyth Dockyard (Water Supply).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked whether there had been any cessation of work at the new Government dockyard at Rosyth on account of shortage of water; and whether immediate steps would be taken to master the difficulty and accelerate the work?
  Mr. McKENNA: There has been no cessation of work, but the rate of progress has been somewhat delayed by shortage of water. Every effort is being made by the contractor to obtain more water.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Why was not this trouble foreseen?
  Mr. ARTHUR FELL: Did not the Admiralty delay the works last year because they were putting down a bore-hole to arrange for the water supply?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will inquire upon that point. The hon. Member must remember that this land was bought by the late Government, who, I am sure, would have made the necessary inquiries.

  Sleeping Sickness.
  Mr. REESasked whether measures were being taken to prevent the spread of sleeping sickness from German East Africa and the Congo to Northern Nyasa-land?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The further investigations which have been made since I answered a similar question of my hon. Friend's on 28th April have failed to reveal the presence in Nyasaland of the tse-tse fly which transmits the disease, and, in these circumstances, there appears to be little risk of the disease spreading from German East Africa and the Congo to the Protectorate. The matter is being closely watched by the local authorities, and, should the occasion arise, they will no doubt take such preventive measures as are possible.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Has a Report been issued in connection with sleeping sickness?
  Colonel SEELY: On the whole question of sleeping sickness, I am not sure. A good many documents have been issued about this very important matter, but I do not know whether there, has been one issued concerning Nyasaland.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Is it not a fact that there have been several cases in Nyasaland?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes. When you have a disease of this frightful character in a district not very far from Nyasaland, sporadic cases may arise; but fortunately the investigations have proved that the tse-tse fly, which is the only method of propagating the disease, does not exist in Nyasaland.
  Mr. REES: Are big game the only hosts of this particular fly?
  Colonel SEELY: That is not so.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the hon. Gentleman have a Paper compiled on the whole subject? It is a very important matter.
  Colonel SEELY: I agree; it is a very important subject.

  St. Helena (Condition of Inhabitants).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked whether the present condition of the inhabitants of St. Helena was satisfactory, or whether they were still suffering from the effects of unemployment and stagnation of trade?
  Colonel SEELY: The situation in St. Helena has not materially altered since I replied to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's inquiry in May last, except that the Governor has now reported that he hopes that it will not be necessary for the Government mill to close down, at any rate until the end of the year, as a large supply of mature leaves has been obtained from a farmer who was not satisfied with the results obtained from his own mill.

  Congested Districts Board, Scotland (Horse Breeding).
  Mr. HUNTasked the Lord Advocate whether he was aware that the stallion travelled by the Congested Districts Board in Skye had the "hairy heels" of

  387
  the Clydesdale breed, which is a sure sign of cart-horse blood, causing the stock of such an animal to be less valuable than those with clean fetlocks; and whether he would withdraw that stallion from that district?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. A. Dewar): I am aware of the fact referred to by the hon. Member, but I am advised that the inference which he draws is not correct. "Hairy heels" are not a sign of Clydesdale breed, but of the absence of Arab blood. It is a characteristic feature of all horses in cold, damp areas. It appears in the native breeds of Noxth-Western Europe, and is always found in the "Highland Garron," the horse which thrives beat and has been found most useful in Highland districts. The Congested Districts Board do not intend to withdraw the stallion.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what he is pleased to call the "hairy heel" of the "Highland Garron" is quite different from the "hairy heel" of the Clydesdale breed?
  Mr. A. DEWAR: I am aware that there are various kinds of "hairy heels," but the particular "hairy heel" of the "Highland Garron" is desirable, and even necessary, in the colder climate. It is supposed to be, and indeed is, an admirable provision of nature to preserve the hoofs of the animals in the cold weather.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the animal provided by the Congested Districts Board has the wrong sort of "hairy heel"?
  Mr. A. DEWAR: If the hon. Member will give notice of the question I will inquire as to the precise character of the heels.

  FINANCE BILL.

    UNITED SERVICE CLUB LEASE.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what were the terms of renewal of the lease of the United Service Club by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests on behalf of the Crown; whether the ground rent was increased; and whether a fine was demanded?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The lease of the United Service Club was renewed in
    388
    1904 for a term of 60 years in consideration of the surrender of a then existing lease (which had 23 years unexpired at £600 per annum), the payment of a premium of £10,000— [Interruption.]— Do hon. Members opposite want to give the answer, or me?— an expenditure of £5,000 in repairs and improvements and an annual rent of £2,560. The premium and rent together represented a rent of £3,000 per annum which was considered the reasonable value of the property after allowing for the value of the unexpired lease. The premium was accepted in reduction of the rent for the convenience of the Club.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: May I ask whether this is one of the cases of blackmail referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir; it is the provision by which the whole of the proved value comes into possession of the country.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Does it make any difference to the club who it goes to: to a private owner or the country?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Does it not make a considerable difference to the community?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Member has anticipated my reply.
    Mr.WILLIAM MOORE:Are the municipalities to get half?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: There is no connection between this and the municipality. The hon. Gentleman is probably not aware that it is Crown property.
    Mr. MacNEILL: May I have the assurance that not one farthing of this money goes to the dukelets?
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the difference between a premium and a fine?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members can continue the discussion on the Finance Bill.

    UNGOTTEN MINERALS.
    Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Prime Minister when the Government Amendments to the Finance Bill with regard to ungotten minerals will be put on the Notice Paper?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that the main clause— the Mineral Eights Duty— can be obtained at the Vote Office. The Amendments consequent on this clause will appear in due course.

    YIELD OF THE LAND TAXES.
    Sir EDWARD TENNANTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that differences of opinion exist as to the yield of the Land Taxes and the cost of collecting them, including the cost of valuation, he will propose the appointment of a Select Committee of this House to take expert evidence on these points?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I do not think that a Select Committee would be in any better position than the Government for making this estimate. But perhaps my hon. Friend will suspend his judgment until he has heard the statement that I am about to make this afternoon.

    HOURS OF RISING OF THE HOUSE.
    Captain CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether, for the general convenience of Members, he could make arrangements for more regular hours of rising when the Finance Bill is under discussion?
    Mr. W. CROOKS: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask whether, for the convenience of the House, we could meet at eleven o'clock in the morning?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know whether by more regular hours the hon. and gallant Member refers to yesterday or the day before, but I am afraid I am not in a position to make the arrangement suggested by him.
    Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House rises sometimes at half-past six o'clock in the morning and sometimes at 12 o'clock at night; and would it not be possible to have a settled hour for rising?
    Mr. MacNEILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to also impress upon his memory the question of the hon. Member below me? Is he aware that it is only in comparatively recent times that this House has met at unseasonable hours, and that it used to discharge its business in reasonable hours— between 10 in the morning and 10 at night; and could we revert to it now?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We used to meet at eight o'clock in the morning.
    Mr. MacNEILL: Better still.

    CROWN LEASES (URBAN PROPERTY RENEWALS).
    Viscount HELMSLEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, what was the practice of the Department with regard to renewals of leases of urban property belonging to the Crown; and whether it was usual to renew the lease at the same ground rent as that originally agreed upon?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The practice of the Commissioners of Woods in granting leases whether on renewal or otherwise, is to require such clear yearly rent to be paid as appears to them to represent the reasonable annual value of the property at the time of arranging for such lease and having regard to the circumstances of the case. If, therefore, the value at the time of arranging for a renewed lease differed from what it was when the original lease was granted, the renewed lease would not be granted at the original rent. Before the grant of a lease the Commissioners are required by the Land Revenue Acts to obtain a sworn certificate from a competent surveyor of the true and fair worth or value of the property.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Is it the intention of the Government to continue this practice which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has described as blackmail?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have already pointed out, in answer to an exactly similar question by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash, that in this case the whole of the profits go to the Crown, not to the private individual.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Are we to understand that what is blackmail when done by a private individual ceases to be blackmail when done by a public Department?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE was understood to reply: I do not regard it as blackmail.

    Metropolitan Police (Day's Rest in Seven).
    Mr. REMNANTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men of the Metropolitan Police Force have been granted the one day's rest in seven promised on the 14th June last?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): The grant of the additional leave

    391
    can only be given as the increase of the force necessary to provide substitutes is made. Steps are now being taken to provide accommodation for training an increased number of recruits, and it is hoped that it will be possible to begin the special augmentation of the force towards the end of October next. The hon. Member will doubtless remember that on the 14th of June I stated that the work of recruiting and training the whole number of additional men would probably occupy about four years.
    Mr. REMNANT: Did the right hon. Gentleman not say that he would commence, or endeavour to commence, giving these men one day's rest in seven at once?
    Mr. GLADSTONE: Obviously an augmentation of the force is necessary, and the new men have to be trained. We are now taking immediate steps to enlarge the accommodation necessary for training. We are losing no time. It is not quite so simple a matter as the hon. Member imagines.
    Mr. REMNANT: I am quite aware of the difficulties of the case; but the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that some rearrangement of the present force is quite possible, by which men can at once begin to get the one day's rest in seven?
    Mr. GLADSTONE: Well, Sir, I do not think that can be done at present. If it can be done it will be done.
    Mr. W. THORNE: How long will it take before the whole of the Metropolitan Police come under this new rule?
    Mr. GLADSTONE: I said about four years.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Four years! A very slow process.

    Old Age Pension Books (Publication of Information).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that a London newspaper published certain information on the 4th instant as to the number of old age pension books not delivered on 1st July; that such information could only have been communicated by a Treasury official; and does he propose to fine the official for a breach of regulations, according to precedent?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My attention has been called to the publication of the information in question. I do not know in what manner or by whom it was communicated to the Press, but inquiry is being made with the view of discovery whether it was communicated by any official. I may, however, add that the information did not reach the Treasury till after the 4th August.

    Customs (Removal of Tobacco).
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the usual monthly permission was given last April to remove tobacco from the Victoria Docks after 4 p.m., he will charge duty at the old rate on tobacco which would have been removed in the ordinary course of business after 4 p.m. on 29th April last?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot see his way to accede to the hon. Baronet's request.

    Cooper's Hill College (Upkeep and Maintenance).
    Mr. RENTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India, what is the cost of the present upkeep and maintenance of Cooper's Hill College; and what steps, if any, are being taken to dispose of, or to develop, this property?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (The Master of Elibank): The net cost of the upkeep of the estate in 1908–9 was £855. The property is in the hands of agents for disposal, but no acceptable offer has as yet been received.

    Madras Government (Transfer of Head quarters of the Godavari District).
    Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Government of Madras proposes to reopen the question of the transfer of the headquarters of the Godavari district from the flourishing port of Coconada to the inland town of Rajalmundrij; that the Government of India has decided that Coconada should continue to be the headquarters; that objections existed on the part of the mercantile community and other townsmen to the proposed change; that in most respects Coconada is the more suitable capital; and whether the Secretary of State will inquire, into the matter?
    The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State is not aware that the "Government of Madras proposes to reopen the question. They were against the transfer when the question was raised some years ago, and the Government of India and the Secretary of State took the same view.
    Mr. REES: May I nevertheless ask that the hon. Gentleman will inquire. I have received information that the matter is being re-opened?
    The MASTER of ELIBANK: Yes, I will make inquiries.

    Irish Councils Bill (Grant to Irish Council).
    Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state the total amount of money the Government were prepared to grant annually to the Irish Council under the Irish Councils Bill?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): If the hon. and gallant Member will kindly refer to the Bill itself and to the statement which I made when introducing it, he will be able completely to answer his own question.

    Newrath Estate, County Meath.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have purchased the estate known as Newrath, situate near Kells, county Meath, from the Church body; whether they have resold any of it to the vendors; and how much land will be available for distribution among the people of the neighbourhood?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have not purchased the lands of Newrath.

    Territorial Reserve.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether sufficient arms, equipment, and ammunition are available for 100,000 Territorial Reserve; and, if not, will he take immediate steps towards making any deficiency good in case of sudden need?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): If the hon. and gallant Member will permit me, I would prefer to postpone the publication of information of the nature required until replies to the? circular letter on the Reserves have been
    394
    received from the county associations, and detailed instructions have been framed.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman foreshadow that time?
    Mr. HALDANE: No.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the desirability of obtaining information as to the number of men able and willing to join cyclist detachments, should occasion arise for their use in the Territorial Reserve?
    Mr. HALDANE: The suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member will not be lost sight of.

    Royal Army Medical Corps.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Secretary of State for War what was the average time that captains and lieutenants of the Royal Army Medical Corps in the British Isles were left in a station without a move during the three years ending 31st March, 1909?
    Mr. HALDANE: The statistics available at the War Office do not enable me to give the required information.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Surely the information is obtainable?
    Mr. HALDANE: The information is no doubt in the various commands, but it would take a great deal of labour to get at it.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Secretary for War how many officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps on the active list were serving in the British Isles on 31st March last; how many of these officers, during the year ending 31st March last, received their full leave of 61 days; how many over one month, excluding those who were granted their full leave; and how many under one month?
    Mr. HALDANE: In reply to the first part of the question, the number is 518. As regards the rest of the question, the details of leave granted to officers are not recorded at the War Office.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to obtain the details? It is a very important matter for the officers who are not receiving what they are entitled to by the regulations?
    Mr. HALDANE: There is no record that I know of as to the exact amount of leave.
    Mr. ASHLEY: In every command the officer has a record of what leave his officers obtain.
    Mr. HALDANE: It may or may not be accurate. At any rate, it would be an enormous trouble to get at it.

    Cabinet Committee and Lord Charles Beresford.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the date at which the Report of the Cabinet Committee which has inquired into the case put forward by Lord Charles Beresford with regard to the readiness for war of the fleets in Home waters will be made public?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that a return will be moved for the publication of this Report to-morrow, and it will then be published without undue delay.

    Lieutenant Shackleton's Antarctic Expedition.
    Mr. ALDENasked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of a fund being started, he will consider the question of making a grant towards the expenses incurred by Lieutenant Shackleton in connection with his recent Antarctic expedition?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This matter is under consideration.

FINANCE [EXPENSES].
[CONSOLIDATED FUND].
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

COST OF VALUATION.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorize the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses or remuneration payable in connection with any valuation of land or premises for the purposes of any duty charged under any Act of the present Session relation to finance."
THE PRIME MINISTER:Such Resolution, Mr.Emmott, as you have just read, even if the Bill had remained in its original form, would have been required, inasmuch
396
as the process of valuation must in any case involve the Inland Revenue in additional cost. But to meet all objections, and to remove all possible hardships, and to facilitate the smooth and rapid working of the Act, the Government have determined to ask the House to sanction the throwing of the whole cost of the valuation upon the State. With that object, extensive Amendments to the five clauses— 16, 17, 18, 22 and 23— which deal with the machinery of valuation, become necessary and have been placed on the Paper. I am not going— I assume it would not be in order, and it would be highly inconvenient to do so— in any detail into a contrast between the original proposals of the Bill in this respect, and those which are now before us, but this seems to be the proper opportunity to give a short summary of the effect of the suggested Amendments from a purely financial point of view.
The original scheme, as I have said, cast upon the owner of the land the duty of ascertaining the total value, and the site value, and where' the land comprised minerals, he was to make a separate valuation of the minerals, and all such valuations made in the first instance by the owner were to be sent in to the Board of Inland Revenue, to be examined by them, and, if necessary, corrected; and any points of difference were to be determined on appeal by Referees appointed by the Crown. The practical effect of these provisions would have been to throw the cost of valuation upon the owner, and the additional expenses incurred through extensions of staff and otherwise by the Inland Revenue was estimated to amount under that scheme to not more than £150,000 a year. The new scheme casts upon the Commissioners themselves the duty of making all valuation of all land in the United Kingdom showing separately the total value, the site value, and, where there are minerals, the value of the minerals. The owner may, if he wishes, himself furnish the Commissioners with a valuation of his own, and the Commissioners are bound to take into consideration any estimate so furnished. For the purpose of making their valuation, moreover, the Commissioners may require all material information within his knowledge to be supplied to them by the owner— a position exactly analagous to that of the Income Tax. For the actual working of the valuation scheme now proposed the country will be divided into valuation I districts about 120 in number. In each

397
district there will be at least one head valuer, and two or more assistants.
For the purposes of supervision and co-ordination there will be a body of travelling superintendent inspectors in the proportion of about one to 12. Those who are familiar with the matter will observe that this machinery is framed exactly on the line of that of the present Income Tax, the value of which has been proved by experience, and which it is intended, as closely as possible, to follow. It is estimated that the whole operation— that is to say, the valuation of the land in the United Kingdom and of the minerals I have described, that operation, which will be a comparatively easy one in Ireland and in Scotland, but less so in England, mainly owing to the existence of the English leasehold system — will be completed for the United Kingdom in the course of three, or perhaps four, years. The cost of this procedure will fall under three different categories. In the first place there will be an initial cost which will fall entirely upon the first and second years, which is estimated at £300,000.
Viscount HELMSLEY: £300,000 a year?
The PRIME MINISTER: No; a total initial cost of £300,000. I do not know precisely how it will be divided, but it will fall between the two years. That will be partly in connection with the issuing of forms, tracing of owners, and preparing the necessary particulars for the valuers to act upon. Here, again, the machinery for the assessing and collecting of Income Tax will be followed, and as far as possible utilised. That is the first item of expenditure which, as the Committee will see, will be of a temporary character. Secondly, the salaries of the officers and the travelling expenses of the valuers themselves within the different districts are estimated— and here I must use round figures— at about £300,000 a year, and of that sum, roughly speaking, £150,000 will be temporary— that is to say, it will cease to be a charge at the conclusion of the valuation at the end of the three or four years, and the remaining £150,000 will be permanent. Finally, there is the cost of Referees. As the Committee will see from the Amendments which will be put on the Paper, we have made a very large change in deference to objections raised both as to the appointment and finality of the decisions of those Referees. I think it will be found that every reasonable
398
objection has been met. As to the cost of the Referees, until we have had some experience it is impossible to put it at a definite figure, but it will not be very large. When full allowance has been made for these items, and a very substantial margin left for possible contingencies, it is the opinion of the Board of Inland Revenue that the total cost, from beginning to end, of the valuation ought not to exceed £2,000,000. I will now briefly consider how much of this cost may be expected to fall upon the current financial year, and at the same time approximately what, during the same period, is likely to be the yield of the taxes to be imposed. As to the cost of valuation during the current financial year, as we have only to provide for one-half of a completed year, it seems safe to assume that the sum needed will not be more than £300,000, that is, £150,000— and I think that is a very liberal estimate— or one-half of the estimated total in respect to what I have called initial or nonrecurrent expenditure; and a further £150,000 for the salaries and expenses during that time of the district valuers. In regard to the estimated yield during the same time of the taxes to which the valuation relates, we have seen no ground for any substantial modification in the estimates already put forward so far as the Increment Tax, the Reversion Duty, and the Undeveloped Land Tax are concerned. The Committee will remember that the figures: £50,000 for the Increment Tax, £100,000 for the Reversion Duty, and £175,000 for the Undeveloped Land Tax, making a total of £325,000. I have left out of consideration the minerals, because, as hon. Members will see by a reference to the Amendment Papers being circulated to-day— I am sorry they were not circulated with the Votes this morning, but it was owing to some error and they are available now.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am told not.
The PRIME MINISTER: At any rate, they were handed in last night; and when those Amendments are available hon. Gentlemen will see that in substitution for Clause 12, tax on what is called ungotten minerals, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, when the time comes, propose a new clause, which will provide for an annual duty of 5 per cent, on mineral rents, not only on royalties, but dead rents and wayleaves, in respect of minerals which are actually in the

399
course of being worked. It is estimated that during the current financial year the yield of this duty of 5 per cent, on mineral rents will be £350,000. If £350,000 is added to the previous figure of £325,000, the total anticipated yield of these new taxes during the current financial year works out at £675,000. As there is a good deal of misapprehension on this question, let me add that the fruit-bearing character and effect of the system of State valuation which we propose to set up will not be confined to the three so-called Land Taxes. We anticipate that it will produce very substantial results in the yield of existing and future Estate Duty. So far, in regard to the Estate Duty, State valuation does not necessarily mean by a professional or expert valuer. The work in the past has been admirably performed within the limits of their resources by the officers of the Inland Revenue, but they have not had the advantage which they will have under the new system I have outlined of the constant daily assistance of the expert professional man. It is the opinion of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that the effect of bringing to bear upon the Estate Duty a really proper and scientific system of valuation will be to yield a very substantial increase of revenue under this head. That has to be taken into account when you are setting the cost of valuation against the yield of the various taxes which bring you in a credit sum on the other side. Let me just recapitulate one or two points. In the first place, what I may call the capital charge, or, to speak more accurately, the non-recurrent charge in regard to the initial cost will fall only in the first and second years, and will never re-appear, and that is the sum of £300,000 to which I referred earlier in my observations. In the second place, about two-thirds, roughly speaking, of the total cost of valuation, which I put at £2,000,000, will also be non-recurrent— that is to say, when the original valuation, extending over three or four years, as the case may be, is brought to an end, we shall be able hereafter, for the purposes of valuation on the occasions upon which the various duties fall to be charged, to content ourselves with the expenditure of about £150,000 a year. At any rate, I think I may safely say that considerably more than one-half, and probably two-thirds, of the £2,000,000 will be a charge that will only fall in the first four years at the outside, and after that it will cease to be a
400
liability of the State. Therefore I think I am justified in saying two things— firstly, that we are dealing here with taxes, as far as the new taxes are concerned with the immediate yield during the current financial year, which will be comparatively small, but which is certainly calculated and destined to increase year by year; and, in the next place, so far as the valuation is concerned, we are dealing with an expenditure which will be comparatively large in the first two or three years, and will afterwards dwindle into a comparatively insignificant amount. The ground has been as carefully examined as is possible in a matter necessarily so speculative and conjectural— and it appears to me, if our estimates are realised, and we have every reason to hope they will be realised, that the general proposal I am now making to the Committee is based upon principles of sound finance, and will deserve the approval of the country.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In rising to follow the very important statement just made by the Prime Minister, I am in a position of very much the same difficulty as that which falls to the lot of the man who has to reply at once on the Budget statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for this is, in fact, a new Budget statement made to the House in the middle of the month of August in substitution of the Budget statement presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the usual time. I should think there has been no more remarkable change of front announced by a Government on an important measure than that which has just been made by the Prime Minister in regard to the Finance Bill. The Prime Minister expressed some surprise yesterday that when it was announced in this House that the Government proposed to transfer the cost of valuation from the land-owning classes of the country to the Exchequer, the announcement was not received with surprise or with effusive gratitude on these benches. It was not received with surprise because, as usual, the Government had confided their intentions to us through the Press a long time before they thought it fitting to make any communication to the House of Commons, and it was not received with any gratitude because there is no occasion for gratitude in the circumstances in which the change is made. From the very first of the discussions on these taxes we pointed out that it was a monstrous injustice to impose upon these classes, quite

401
apart from the merits of the taxes themselves, this enormous cost of carrying out the valuation which the State requires for its own purpose, and we have held strongly the opinion from the first that it was absolutely impossible for the Government to justify in argument, to defend in Debate, or to carry through this House the proposal which they originally placed in their Bill. They mat our representations with a flat denial of their justice. They argued up to the last that it was a slight burden they were imposing upon the landowner in the matter of valuation, and that it was fair and proper it should be imposed upon and paid by him; and up to the very last they refused any kind of concession. They refused even to recognise any reason in our demands, and now the Prime Minister is here to-day in everything but an actual white sheet to recant all the views they have expressed, to admit that we were right from the first, and they have been persistently and obstinately wrong, and to acknowledge now, at the eleventh hour that he is not strong enough to perpetuate the injustice which he contemplated.
I am not going to attempt to discuss in detail the new Budget, which we have not yet seen. It only reached the Vote office since we met this afternoon, and it is obvious we must have the same opportunities of examining it as we had for the rest of the Government proposals; but I should like to make one or two general observations arising out of the statement which the Prime Minister has just delivered. I observe, in the first place, that the cost of the valuation carried out by the Government, who, carrying it out as a whole, can undoubtedly carry it out much more cheaply than separate individuals, many of them small people, can do for themselves, is placed by the Government themselves at £2,000,000. Therefore, on the very lowest estimate, the Government in their original proposal intended to take from the taxpayers £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 in cost for a revenue estimated by the Prime Minis-to amount in the present year to a little over £600,000. What are you to say to taxation which takes from the subject, whether he be liable to the tax or not— and there are many subjects who would be liable to no tax— a sum infinitely greater than that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to receive? Then observe, in the next place, the Government have taken
402
credit to themselves for having been most generous in meeting objections and in dealing with every case of hardship or unfairness which has been brought before them and in scattering relief over the affected interests during the discussion of these Land Taxes. What is the value of the concessions they have made? Let us take the judgment of the Prime Minister upon them. They cost the Government nothing. If they cost the Government nothing they clearly are of no advantage to the taxpayers. All these concessions of which we have heard so much leave the Prime Minister's expectations of revenue exactly where they were at the beginning. Out of his bounty he has yielded and sacrificed nothing on behalf of the Exchequer, and the taxpayers have nothing for which to thank him. Then, I observe, in order to carry out the Prime Minister's new proposal, we are to have created a perfect army of new officials. The country is to be divided up into 120 valuation districts, not one of which is to have less than three officials located in it. There are to be anything from 360 to 1,000 officers, with, I think, about 10 per cent., or perhaps it is 8 per cent., of travelling supervising officers.
The PRIME MINISTER: About 10 or 12 altogether; one each to 12 districts.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, with 12 travelling supervising officers! I agree they are unimportant in the army of a thousand new officials required by the Government.
The PRIME MINISTER: Why does the right hon. Gentleman say a thousand?
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Because the right hon. Gentleman- tells me there will be not less than three in each district.
The PRIME MINISTER: And 120 districts.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The smallest district is to have not less than three. What number is the right hon. Gentleman going to put in the large districts?
The PRIME MINISTER: As far as possible the districts will be equal. My estimate is there will be about 500 officers.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I hope the Committee is reassured as to the merits of the Land Taxes. They only require an additional expenditure of £2,000,000 to collect them, and an additional 500

403
officials to see they are collected. That is pretty good for a beginning, and let me say that, though it is perhaps rash, without further examination, to set my opinion against that of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, if the work of valuation is to be done properly, carefully, and with that accuracy which both the individual taxpayer and the State have a right to demand, I think that the estimate is perfectly and ludicrously absurd. You cannot get competent men of proper standing to do the work and spend all the time that work will require for anything like the figure with which the Prime Minister has been supplied. The Prime Minister tells us that the whole system of referees, the method of appointment and manner of choice, is to be recast. The Government complain that their Budget takes a long time. Why did they not give a little more thought to it before they introduced it? Why, when they had introduced it without sufficient thought, and without knowing what they were doing, and when the impossibility of justifying their proposals was pointed out to them, why, I ask, did they not announce these changes at once, instead of wasting weeks of Parliamentary time before they gave way, not to reason, but to the utter impossibility of carrying out their original proposal? The system of the referees is to be recast! We have been told that the appeal to a court of law which was refused by the original Bill is to be granted. Things grow apace under a Liberal Government, but the country is not yet prepared, even at their instance, to place every man's interest at the mercy not of permanent officials, but of the officials temporarily nominated by the Taxing Department and governed only by regulations framed by that Department— the country is not prepared to give them the right to decide every man's fortune and every man's fate. The Prime Minister, surely, does not suppose that such alterations as he has adumbrated are going to remove our objections to this particular portion of the Budget, and still less to the Budget as a whole. These alterations, granted at the last moment and wrung from them in order that the Government may meet the case which has been presented against their original proposals, we regard as an admission of their defeat and of the obligation under which they have found themselves to recast from top to bottom the proposals which they originally presented to the House.
404
I have not yet said a word on the greatest change of all— the complete withdrawal of that beautiful tax on ungotten minerals— the tax which constituted the gem of the collection, the tax on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer specially prided himself as having been suggested to him by the commons over which he wandered in Wales as a boy, and which was the sublimated essence of the new wisdom in matters of finance. The tax on ungotten minerals has gone, and what have we got in its place— a tax on minerals, which are being gotten. But the defence of the old proposal was that it was to force people to develop their minerals— minerals which they held back, which they did not develop themselves, and did not let others develop. The tax on ungotten minerals was to make the owner work his mine. But now you are going to say to him: "Leave the minerals undeveloped and you will save money. Do not sink a shaft, do not allow anyone to make a bore-hole, and you will have nothing to pay." But once a man begins to work the minerals, either himself or by anybody else, down will come the tax-gatherer and take his share! And what are these minerals? I do not know whether the Government have yet made up their minds as to what are minerals. I have been informed by a very high authority that that is one of the most difficult questions that ever comes before our courts of law, and I am certainly not prepared to undertake to answer in my own language the question what are and what are not minerals, seeing it is a question which it puzzles the courts of law to decide. But some things are obviously minerals, and the first is coal. You are going to put a tax on all coal which is gotten in this country— you are going, in fact, to put a tax on the raw material of everything. The next is iron ore. You are going to put a tax on iron ore gotten in this country— the raw material of one of our greatest industries. And so I might go on. Granite, I believe, is a mineral. You put a tax on all granite that is hewn in this country, as if the granite quarries were so prosperous at the present time, and then the Government goes to Norway and gets its granite there. The granite which is hewn for the Government in Norway pays no tax either here or in Norway, but if any British citizen in the United Kingdom wishes to compete for Government orders he must

405
pay a tax— an Excise without any corresponding Customs Duty on the imported stone.
The CHAIRMAN: We are not now discussing the Resolution on royalties. That will be necessary later on. Neither are we discussing matters which must be dealt with later, when we come to deal with the clauses themselves. We are now dealing only with the financial aspect of the question of valuation, and though it is quite in order to comment on what the Prime Minister said, it is not in order to discuss the new tax.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is always difficult, when a Member of the Government is allowed to make a statement, which is indeed very necessary to be made for the convenience and information of the whole House, but which we are not allowed to discuss at the present moment. But I must conform myself to your ruling, and I shall not complete the case. I must leave the rest of it for another time. But I have said, I think, sufficient for the moment. All I can add is that if I were not afraid to accept for my Friends and for my party the challenge which the Chancellor of the Exchequer threw down in his original Budget, still less am I not afraid to meet the Government on the ground of their transformed Budget and of the preposterous new proposals which they have substituted for their old unworkable ones.
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I do not think I need deal with the political aspect of this Resolution, which has been dealt with by my right hon. Friend, but I should like to say a word on the financial aspect of the question. The Prime Minister has given us a clear statement as to the financial results of these new taxes— or rather, I should say, of these altered taxes— and as far as I can understand him the result of these taxes, in this year ending April, 1910, will be £650,000, and of that one-half will go to local purposes.
The PRIME MINISTER: £675,000.
Sir F. BANBURY: Of that sum one half will go to the local authorities, and therefore the gross result to the Exchequer, before the expenses are deducted, will be some £337,000. The right hon. Gentleman has mixed up the annual tax upon minerals with these other taxes. When, however, the Leader of the Opposition yesterday dealt with what the estimated cost of collection would be, and deducted it from one tax, the right hon. Gentleman
406
told him it was not fair to put the whole cost of valuation upon one tax, and he should spread it over the taxes which are collected. I say to the Prime Minister the same thing. It is not right to put the cost of the valuation on the annual mineral tax when no valuation will be required. The yield of the annual Mineral Tax will be a percentage, we are told, of 5 per cent, upon the actual sum obtained. No valuation is required for that. All that is necessary is that the owners of mineral rights and way leaves and other things which the Prime Minister enumerated should send their amount in in the same way as Income Tax is collected, and no valuation of any sort or kind will be necessary. Therefore, I think I should be perfectly right in saying that you should' take the yield of the annual Mineral Tax from the yield of the other taxes, before you compare the estimate of the taxes with the cost of collection. If that were done, it would show a very considerable deficit as the result of the operation. But I am quite content with the financial view of the case as it was put by the Prime Minister, and, for the sake of argument, I will allow the annual Mineral Tax, though I do not for a moment admit that it should be included. The net result of that is, £337,000 worth of revenue in this year, and, according to the right hon. Gentleman, the cost is going to be £300,000. For the year ending 5th April, 1910, the right hon. Gentleman estimated that the cost will be £300,000, and, therefore, these four taxes, the Undeveloped Land, the Increment, the Reversion, and the Minerals, are going to yield the Government £37,000.
I say that nothing more ridiculous was ever put before the House of Commons by a Minister. But that is not all, because in the course of the next four years, the cost is going to rise from £300,000 to at least £500,000 or £600,000. The Prime Minister told us that the total cost would be £2,000,000, and dividing that by four, you get an annual charge of £500,000, so that in the years following there will be a loss of some £170,000. The Prime Minister says that is not so, because these taxes are going to yield an increase. On what ground does the Prime Minister anticipate that these taxes will yield an increase? Take the Increment Tax. What increment is going to accrue in a year. The valuation will be made this year. What increment is going to accrue between the death of a man next year and the valuation now, or between the death

407
of a man in two years and the valuation now? I venture to say that taking the value of the Land at the present moment there will be no increment, but a decrement. The only land which is showing an increment at the present moment is agricultural land, and that is excepted and will not be included. All the land that will be included, therefore, is at the present moment showing a decrement, and therefore the Prime Minister has no ground for saying that there is going to be an increment. We all know that increment does not accrue in a year or two. There is, it is true, the Prime Minister's statement that land is always going up in value, and that the rise is always progressive and permanent, but a more fallacious statement could never be made.
The PRIME MINISTER: I did not say so.
4.0. P. M.
Sir F. BANBURY: My right hon. Friend quoted it as having been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, but in view of the fact that the Prime Minister now denies it, of course, I accept his word, and will not press it, but that only emphasises my point, that there is no chance of an increase in the next two years in the Increment Duty. Coming to the Undeveloped Land Duty, what chance is there of people being desirous of investing their money in land in the next two, or three, or four years? I have always found that the instinct of a man is not to put his money in the thing which is to be assailed. Land is going to be assailed if this present Government remains in power, and I venture to say that there is not a single man in this House who will put his money into land if he can possibly avoid it if the present Government is going to remain in power, and I am quite sure that there is not a single society which will do so, not excluding the societies owned by hon. Members below the Gangway. How many trade unions will put their money in land? Not one; because they are not more anxious to be taxed in any unjust manner than anybody else. Therefore the Undeveloped Land Duty will show no increase, and it is evident that if it fulfils the prognostications of the Government it will not so increase, because this proposal is going to bring a lot of land into the market, and that will decrease the value of land. Anybody knows that if you have a lot, whether it is of stock or land, thrown into the market at one time it must depress the price. Where, therefore, is the increment going
408
to come from in the case of Undeveloped Duty? The same thing applies to mineral value, because unless there is going to be great increase in the trade of the country, unless there is going to be great development, and people are going to start new industries, I am forced to the conclusion that there will be no increase. Therefore I am forced to the conclusion. that, from the financial pointof view, no proposal more ludicrous was ever put before the House of Commons. Here we are, for the sake of obtaining a net revenue of £37,500, imposing a tax which is going to add 500 officials — a very bad thing — who will always want their salaries increased me moment they have them. In answer to an interruption of mine, the right hon. Gentleman (the Prime Minister) informed me that the Mineral Duty was going to be divided with the municipality. On what basis do we divide with the municipality? Did the community put the minerals into the ground? And if they did not, why should they have a share of it? They have done nothing. They have made no roads and sunk no bore-holes, and have taken no steps to obtain the minerals out of the ground.
The CHAIRMAN: The question of principle does not arise on the Amendment.
Sir F. BANBURY: I accept your ruling. It is fortunate for the Government, because they could not have answered my question. Speaking in no way as a party man, but having had some small experience of financial matters, never in my life could I have conceived it possible that any Government, even a Government headed by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), could have introduced four taxes which were going to cause all this trouble and confusion and the united efforts of which would only bring in £37,500.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: The late Chancellor of the Exchequer told the Committee that that Government proposed to tax coal and minerals. There is, of course, an economic fallacy underlying that observation. It is a fallacy which we have had before, in regard to agricultural land. We have been told that a tax on rent is the same thing as a tax on agriculture. Just as a tax on land is, not a tax on agriculture, a tax on mining royalties is not a tax on coal or on any other mineral. It must fall upon the landowner. The owner of the minerals may, if he likes, argue that that is an injustice to him. I

409
do not think it is. but it is arguable. But it is not arguable that a tax on royalties is the same thing as a tax upon minerals. The hon Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) reproached the Prime Minister with taking into account the yield of the new Mineral Eights Duty. He argued that the Prime Minister was only entitled to take into account £325.000, which is the estimated yield of the new Land Taxes. I do not want to deal so much with that point as to remind the hon. Baronet that there is another most important consideration which he, in his turn, overlooked, and which the Prime Minister reminded him of. It is that this official valuation of land will affect not merely these taxes, but will affect also, and very materially, the yield of the Estate Duties. The capital which passes every year may be taken roughly at about £300,000,000. In the current year it will be rather more. If we take any reasonable multiplier to arrive at the amount of property in the possession of living owners, it is generally agreed by those who have given any attention to the subject statistically that 30 is about the highest multiplier one can take as the rati3 of the property of the dead to the property of the living. If one multiplies £300,000,000 by 30 one arrives at only £9,000,000,000 as the total value of the private property of the people of this country. If we take any other form of estimation we arrive at a considerably higher total. The most conservative estimate is £12,000,000,000. So that you get the difference between £9,000,000,000, arrived at by multiplying out the property of the dead passing i none year, and £12,000,000,000, which is the lowest reasonable estimate one can take as the value. What is the difference? The difference represents, divided by the same multiplier 30, very largely the value of estates which somehow or other escape the attention of the assessor. I think that must be very largely, though not entirely, due to underassessment in the case of landed property. If the hon. Baronet takes that into consideration, if he takes the effect of this official valuation upon the yield of the Estate Duties, he will get a figure, which I will not name, which would more than offset this deduction, which I am rather inclined to agree with him he is entitled to make in respect of the yield of the Mineral Rights Duties, which does not depend upon valuation but upon the declaration by the owner, very much of the same sort as in the case of the Income Tax.
Sir F. BANBURY: In making my calculation as to the net result of the tax, I purposely took the figures of the Prime Minister, but I did not deduct the £350,000 which I thought I ought to deduct.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: My point is that if Estate Duties alone were under consideration, I myself think this valuation would more than pay for itself.
Mr. F. W. LAMBTON: The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) thinks the Prime Minister has exaggerated the yield of the tax. I want to ask a question. He has told us the valuation will take three or four years. Under the Bill, owners will be heavily penalised who do not make a return within 30 days. I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has calculated the total yield of these taxes? If valuation is not completed for three or four years, how is he going to get the taxation out of all of it? Are we going to tax according to value or not? The land is to be valued by 500 gentlemen in the course of four years. How are they going to tax the whole of the land of the country this year and next year before it is valued?
Mr. HAROLD COX: I want to make an appeal to my Friends on this side of the House, after the statement of the Prime Minister, that they will somewhat modify the arguments they have been using in. the House and in the country. I personally am strongly in favour of the Budget, but this is not the Budget. The Budget is a series of measures for raising £16,000,000. These Land Taxes, to which I am strongly opposed, are to raise£37,000. I appeal to my hon. Friends, when they go into the country to support the Land Taxes, that they will explain that they have other reasons than the desire to raise £16,000,000. With regard to the expense, which, I think, must still fall upon the landowner, these Government officials are going to make the assessment with a view to getting revenue. The landowner must defend himself. That may be a fairly easy matter in regard to the owner of a great estate who has an organisation, agents, and so on, and can, more or less, correct the Government estimate, but in the case of small landowners it will be a very difficult thing indeed. They will have to employ skilled advice in order to defend themselves against the Government estimate. My hon. Friend below me very ingeniously, and, to a large extent, quite rightly, pointed out that this valuation would probably assist in getting a truer

411
valuation for Death Duties. That point clearly only applies to the assessment for the total value of the property. People do not pay Death Duties on site values. A site value is a pure abstraction invented by the late Mr. Henry George, and it is only required for the purpose of these novel taxes. As regards Death Duties, it does not exist, and, therefore, from that point of view, we do not want this valuation at all. It may be a good thing that we should have a better valuation of the land of the country; I think it is; but surely we can do that more economically if we take into account the fact that this better valuation would be useful for local as well as for Imperial purposes; and I believe there is no opposition in any part of the House to a proper valuation of the property of the country for local or for Imperial assessment. What there is opposition to is taking out of a man's property a purely metaphysical abstraction and putting a value upon that. That seems to me a purely sporting proceeding, and I presume it is because of its sporting character that the Prime Minister suggests that the final judge shall be called a referee.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I desire to remind the Committee that the Bill with which we have to deal is a Bill to make provision for the financial arrangements for the year, and it is on the basis of that statement that I desire to examine the figures that the Prime Minister has given us. I should also remind the Committee that we have to deal, not with an ordinary year, but with a very exceptional year, in which we have to meet a very large deficit, and what we have to consider is whether the taxes proposed are those which will be the best devised for meeting that deficit. What is to be the expense, of that valuation? The Prime Minister told us, on the authority of his officials, that it is not to exceed £300,000 this year. I do not quite follow how the officials have arrived at that figure on the other figures which he gave us, but I would assume that it is going to be £300,000. He also told us that the yield of the taxes will be the same as though none of the Amendments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been inserted in the Bill. I confess that I am absolutely unable to credit that statement, although I believe it was made in perfectly good faith by the Prime Minister. But I cannot believe that will be the actual financial result of the
412
Amendments made. I think the Prime Minister must have forgotten the immense change made in the Increment Duty. When all increments below 10 per cent, have been absolutely excluded from the tax it leaves nothing from that duty during the present year.
The PRIME MINISTER: The concessions in regard to the Increment Duty are more in respect of the future.
Lord R. CECIL: They will have very little effect on the duty this year. In the same way I cannot believe that the concession as to undeveloped land is going to produce no result at all. But be it so. we have got now the new Mineral Rents Duty clause, and it is quite clear that the valuation has nothing whatever to do with that. It is a duty imposed on rental, and it has nothing to do with the valuation of the land. That is quite plain, as anyone who reads the clause will see. I would ask the attention of the Committee to this point. You must strike that out altogether in considering the balance-sheet of mineral rents due. That leaves a gross yield from the taxes of £325,000 for the coming financial year, for which we are going to pay £300,000. But half of it does not come into the Exchequer at all. Therefore, you are left with about £160,000, which is coming to the Exchequer, and for which you are going to pay £300,000. That is the Prime Minister's estimate for the first year. I am dealing with the expenses of the current financial year. I remember when I was young there was a rhyme which said:—
"When I was young I had no sense,
I bought a shilling for eighteenpence."
The Government propose to spend nearly 2s. on that operation. Now what will they say in answer to that? The Prime Minister told us of the obvious objections that would be made to the financial aspect of this valuation, and suggested that it is necessary for the Mineral Rents Duty. I have endeavoured to explain to the Committee why it has no reference to that duty at all. The Mineral Rents Duty will be levied whether you have a valuation or not. What is the other answer? It is said that there is going to be en increased yield of the Estate Duties. Why have we heard that for the first time to-day? We have been debating the Budget since three or four weeks before Whitsuntide, and this is the first time the Government have said that there is an

413
additional source from which we are going to obtain money from the taxpayers, namely, the new valuation, which will greatly raise the Estate Duties. I think that raises a serious question of order as to whether the Estate Duties can be proceeded with in this Bill at all. It does not appear to me that a Resolution which authorises Estate Duties at particular figures can now be extended by a change in the Bill in regard to valuation, which will increase the yield of the Estate Duties already provided for. Whether it is in order or not, it is a most astonishing proceeding on the part of the Government. That does not deal with the whole case. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Harold Cox) has pointed out that no allowance is made for the cost which will be thrown on the landowners. Probably hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway think that that has nothing to do with national finance, but that is not so, for every penny you take in taxation, whether from the tenant or the landlord, is taken from the resources of the country. You cannot force anyone to spend money on land valuation, or anything else, without diminishing the resources from which you may get the money from the taxpayer. "Whether the landowner spends money in defending himself against the valuation proposed by the Government, or spends it in a direct contribution to the revenue of the country, you are, by forcing him to spend that money, diminishing the resources of the country and imposing a burden on the taxpayer. Therefore, in order to get this miserable £160,000 to pay for "Dreadnoughts" and the defence of the country, and to spare a copper to the aged poor, you are going to spend £300,000 directly, and in addition to that you are going to put a burden on the taxpayer of the country of which we have no estimate whatever. And this is the Budget which the Government and their supporters are advocating throughout the country as a great source of revenue to the people. Well may the Chancellor of the Exchequer say:£
"To deceive the poor is the meanest ofall crimes."
Mr. J. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I think hon. Members, in looking at this Resolution, must do so not only in respect of the present year, but in respect of the effect it will have some years later. The Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) takes a limited view of the operation of the Resolution. He says you must divide the sum of £325,000 by two before you get at the amount of the proceeds to the State in regard to the tax.
414
I do not think that operation by division is at all necessary. The amount to be paid from the yield of the tax to the local authorities may be regarded as another grant in aid, and therefore I think the reasonable outlook is that if we receive £325,000 and give half, for municipal purposes, there is not that distinction which the Noble Lord emphasised in the argument which he has just addressed to the Committee. In regard to the Noble Lord's contention that this is an unfair tax, and that the Resolution dealt with a tax which is unfair in itself, I do not suppose that it would be in order to discuss that matter on this Resolution. My own view is— and I have expressed it on one or two occasions— that these taxes are fair taxes. At any rate, that is not under discussion now. But grant that they are fair or unfair, the fact remains that they are to be levied. How in the world can you levy them without a valuation? The question is, is it right or wrong for the State to make this valuation? I think I am right in saying that every hon. Member opposite a week ago insisted that the State ought to make this valuation, and that the landlord ought not to be called upon to pay. Therefore they are estopped, at any rate, from denying that the State ought to make the valuation. The hon. Gentleman opposite made no complaint as to the method of the valuation. If the valuation is necessary, and if the method of the valuation is correct, all his complaint is that it is a little too cheap. The sum proposed to be spent is not enough, so that our economy is a matter for his contempt. If the valuation be necessary, and if the method foreshadowed by the Prime Minister be correct, it seems to me that this Committee is bound to pass this Resolution in order to make the taxes applicable.
Colonel WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Griffith) began his speech by saying that in estimating the value of the taxes to be imposed we must look to future years. The present Finance Bill deals with the present year only. The hon. Member also made an observation about half of the yield of this tax going to the municipal authorities. That is one of our objections to it. This is a Finance Bill, and not a Local Taxation Bill. I want to say a word or two in reply to the Member for North Paddington (Mr. Chiozza Money) on the question whether a tax upon royalties is or is not a tax upon

415
the coal industry. I have always thought it was considered that mining royalties were a great oppression to the coal industry. I have seen statements made that the royalty was equivalent, or nearly equivalent, to the amount paid for wages to a particular section of workers in connection with the coal industry. But I have also been brought up as an old-fashioned economist to believe that the consumer pays the tax. If the Government put a tax upon mining royalties it is a dead certainty that the tax will eventually find its way to the cost of the coal.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: It is the universal opinion of all economists, old and new fashioned, that a tax on rent falls upon the landowner, and that a tax on royalties falls upon the mineowner.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member will look at the Resolution he will see that this is not a tax on royalties, but on gotten coal.
Colonel WILLIAMS: If you increase or diminish the income a man is getting from anything whatever it is a dead certainty that that man will try to get it out of the consumer. As to the time which the Prime Minister reckons as necessary for the making of this valuation, I would point out that there is an instructive little paragraph in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for last year, which state that the War Office could not obtain possession of a little bit of land in the Island of Malta because it had taken more than two years to value the land of that island. If that is so in the case of Malta, how are you going to value the whole of the land of England in two years? I believe, therefore, the calculation of the Prime Minister is too small.
Sir ALFRED THOMAS: I beg to congratulate the Government, and the Prime Minister especially, upon the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made this afternoon. I congratulate him especially in regard to the question of valuation. We know that valuations differ very much even in the same county. I know that in the county in which I live there are towns where there is a difference of 25 per cent, in the valuation of properties. Therefore one has to pay very much more in taxation than the other. But we are much more pleased with what the Prime Minister has stated with regard
416
to the taxation of royalties. That has been a burning question in Wales for many years past. I have known from one of the valleys an owner getting £40,000 a year by way of royalties and not paying a single sixpence to local taxation. But now that the taxation of royalties is being divided between the State and the local authorities the local authorities would get half. This is a concession for which I must express my gratitude to the Government.
Viscount HELMSLEY: The hon. Member who has just sat down (Sir Alfred Thomas) has expressed his gratitude to the Government, and is surprised that we on this side of the House, do not hasten to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister for the boon which they have conferred. There is nothing to be grateful for because an injustice has been removed, and whether this proposal is a good one or a bad one another reason why there is no particular cause of gratitude is that the Government in putting the cost of valuation upon the Exchequer are, as a matter of fact, putting a large propor-portion of it on the owners of mines, because from the figures the Prime Minister gave the estimated yield of the new tax on mines is to be £350,000, whereas the former estimated yield of the proposed tax on mines was £175,000. Therefore the bulk of that represents really on this reconsideration of the Budget what the mine-owner is going to pay under this system of valuation. So that the tails of the miners are being twisted by the Government in order to pay for this valuation by the State. Therefore there does not seem to be much to be grateful for in that particular operation. A question which I want to ask the Attorney-General, who is present, is what is to be the purpose of the valuation when obtained, over and above the purposes which are apparent under this Act? For instance, is it going to be the purpose of the valuation to use it for the assessment of local rates, because that is most important; because if it is not you are going to have an obvious anomaly. You are going to have one system of valuation in local districts by the local assessment committees and another system of valuation for State purposes by the State. We ought to know whether it is proposed that this system of valuation is going to upset all existing systems, and whether it is to be taken as one cardinal basis on which taxes are going to be levied on all forms of real property in this country. Hon. Members opposite have endeavoured to show that the yield from these taxes

417
over and above the cost of valuation is something which is sufficient to recompense the State for making that valuation.
My hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) made out that the yield over and above would be £35,000; but if we deduct, as we legitimately may, the share which is given to the local authorities, and look at the Mining Tax as if it would yield the same as it was going to yield before this new clause was introduced, we should find that, so far from there being anything coming into the Exchequer at all, there would be a deficit of £50,000. So it seems to me that the argument adduced from this side of the House that it is buying a shilling for eighteenpence is one that cannot by any possibility be controverted, because it is perfectly obvious that you have to increase the yield of the taxes in order to pay this valuation. I do not know that there is anything one can say more than has been said about the number of officials, but I for one, if there was no other ground for objection against this proposal, would certainly advance that objection, which indeed has already been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). I think in every Bill almost which this Government have introduced they have appointed Commissioners or officials of some kind or another. We shall soon be a country swamped and overridden by well-paid officials of the State, and when such very trying and inquisitive duties are to be thrown upon them as is done by these proposals, I venture to say that this is a proceeding which the people of this country will not long submit to. The people of this country are a nation which is very adverse to being overridden by a bureaucracy and officials sent from headquarters, and, to my mind, this is as grave an objection as any of the others that have been or can be alleged against this proposal.
Mr. F. W. VERNEY: I most heartily and cordially congratulate the Government on their most important change of front. A change of front very often means better power of attack as well as of defence, and I think that the Government have gained both one way and the other by their change of front. Perhaps I may be allowed to congratulate the Prime Minister more heartily because I had the temerity, about a month ago, to put down a clause on the Paper devoted entirely to the substitution of a State
418
valuation for an individual valuation. I think that anybody who thought the matter out would come to the same conclusion, that an individual valuation must be made according to the interest of the individual, that is to say, whereas Jones might wish to value his estate high and Robinson might wish to value his estate low, you would not have got a valuation which would be of permanent use to the public at large; and if the intention is— as I believe it now is— to have a new Domesday Book, there was one way of doing that, that is, have a State valuation in order that the country at large, and every interest, might— as I believe it will— decidedly gain the benefit and feel the beneficial results in years to come. In regard to gotten royalties, instead of un-gotten minerals—
The CHAIRMAN: We are not now discussing royalties; we are discussing only the financial Resolution.
Mr. F. W. VERNEY: May I refer to it to this extent, that I hope it is carrying out the same idea, that wealth in their hands is taxed and—
The CHAIRMAN: No; that is not in order.
Mr. F. W. VERNEY: There is one point that I should like to refer to in regard to the valuation itself. Although it will be a State valuation, I sincerely hope that local experts will be taken into confidence and that it may not be a mere central bureaucratic valuation as was hinted at by the last speaker (Viscount Helmsley). I am inclined to agree with the Noble Lord that if that idea was carried cut and if local experts were put on one side the result would be most objectionable. They ought to take into account the enormous differences of different counties and even of different parishes and different districts in the same county. If the work was done from headquarters without regard to local knowledge and experience, then I think we might have a great many of the ills upon us which the Noble Lord just now hinted at as arising from a central bureaucracy operating up and down the country for the purposes of valuation.
Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: The Prime Minister has put forward certain figures with regard to the cost of this valuation. I think it is impossible for anybody to decide what is the cost, but on this side of the House we think that it will cost a

419
great deal more than the amount which has been, mentioned. At all events, we have a great deal of experience of former estimates given by the Government, especially that which was given with regard to old age pensions last year, which were estimated to cost £600,000, and which have cost a very much larger figure; but it would be interesting to know whether the Prime Minister and the Government, in framing these estimates, have consulted the London County Council with regard to the cost of their many years' laborious work which they have had in connection with the valuation of London. If they had consulted the London County Council they would probably find that the factors which they have taken into consideration in framing this estimate have been very ineffective ones. For instance, take the question of the 12 surveyors. We understand from the Prime Minister that 12 surveyors are going to do the work of the whole valuation of the United Kingdom in the space of something like four years. This valuation is a very different kind of valuation from that which is required for the purpose of Death Duties. It cannot be done in an office. You have got to take the gross value of the estate; you have got to ascertain the site value. You have got to take the site value and apportion it almost field by field; and this must necessarily mean that a surveyor must be present on all estates of any material size, and that he must go carefully over the estate itself, rind must work out his valuation item by item, which is a very long process, and one which cannot be done in a few days or even a few weeks. To conceive that 12 surveyors will be able in four years or even in 40 years to do all the valuation detail by detail, estate by estate, field by field, of the whole United Kingdom, is, I venture to say, an absurd undertaking. But the excuse put forward for the cost of this valuation is not so much that the revenue at the present time will compensate the State for the cost, but that we may look forward in the future to an increased revenue which will amply repay the expense to which the State is to be put for this valuation.
The Prime Minister said yesterday in the course of his speech that these Land Taxes would be growing taxes, not in magnitude, but growing in produce, and he believed that they would be found to be a most important and useful and fruitful addition to our fiancial stock. That
420
statement involves one of two alternatives. It means either that the extent of the undeveloped land in this country will increase or that the valuation of the undeveloped land in this country will increase, which is a very strange proposition to put before the House, when we remember the argument that has been put forward from the opposite side that these taxes will bring undeveloped land into the market and convert it into developed land, and will also reduce the value of this undeveloped land which will remain undeveloped. That is not the only inconsistency which we have had in connection with these calculations. With regard to the difficulties of this valuation, the Prime Minister said yesterday that the difficulties had been exaggerated by my Friends on this side of the House throughout the whole Debate on the Finance Bill, and he said that they were to a large extent figments of the Parliamentary imagination. It is really, he said, a very simple problem, and he went on to inform the House that when a landowner wished to dispose of any land to a railway or a public body the process was a very simple one, and was put into use every day in the week. That statement was entirely opposed to the statement put forward by the Attorney-General yesterday afternoon when he told us that the method of valuation which obtained for the purpose of selling land to railway companies or to corporations was a most difficult and expensive process.
The CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether the hon. Member applies his remarks to this Resolution. If not, they are out of order. I do not see their connection with it.
Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: We have been constantly told that the question of valuation is a very simple one, and that valuations can easily be made, and are being done every day. I want to show that these valuations are not so simple a matter as hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to suppose they will be. However, I will not argue that point any further. I should like to give one example of the great complexity which exists in making these valuations— the amount of trouble which they entail and the amount of expense which they involve. There is a small property which was valued some short time ago for the purpose of Estate Duties. The property is something like 82 acres in extent, lying about 25 miles from London. When the valuer was called in, first of all on be-

421
half of the executors, he made a valuation which was something under £8,000. It was based upon 25 years' purchase of the rateable value. That valuation was sent to the authorities at Somerset House— I presume the same authorities as will have to deal with valuation under the present land clauses of the Finance Bill. The valuation, having been sent to Somerset House, was returned with the remark upon it that it was "Insufficient," and that the correct value to be put on this property should be approximately £500 an acre, at which one acre in the neighbourhood of the property had been sold. That was a difference of between £8,000 and something over £40,000. The trustees and executors who were dealing with this property offered to go to arbitration, but the Somerset House authorities refused, and they sent down their own valuer, pursuant to the powers they have under the Act of 1894. Their own valuer made a third valuation, which amounted to something like £15,000. So that we have, first of all, a valuation of £8,000 made by one valuer; secondly, a valuation of between £40,000 and £50,000 made by the Government itself; thirdly, a valuation of £15,000 made by the valuer sent down by the Government; and ultimately a fourth valuation of £10,500, which was the figure eventually agreed upon.
The CHAIRMAN: The argument of the hon. Member really does not apply to the Resolution, which authorises expenditure in connection with the valuation of land.
Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: The point I was making was this: We are asked to pass a Resolution empowering the Government to spend certain sums of money in paying valuers to make certain valuations. That valuation is based on a prior fallacy that it is a very simple process to make valuations, and that it can be done by twelve surveyors.
The CHAIRMAN: The question of four valuations and how they dinered and what they cost does not affect the cost of the one valuation to be made by the Government, and the hon. Member must confine his remarks to the point raised by the Resolution.
Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: The point T wish to make is whether the owners of these various properties will be satisfied with the valuation made by these twelve men of their properties.
The PRIME MINISTER: Who are the 12 men?
Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: The 12 surveyors. I do not know at present who the 12 surveyors will be, of course. We understand that there are to be 12 surveyors who will wander about the country, and who are to go over every person's land, to divide field from field, and to fix the gross value.
The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member is under a total misapprehension. The 12 gentlemen are simply to perform the same duties as the superintending travelling inspectors perform with reference to Income Tax. They are merely to see that there is co-ordination of principle between the different persons in making the valuations. They have nothing to do with making the valuations at all.
Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: Are we to understand that in addition to these permanent officials there are to be other officials who are to take part in this work?
The PRIME MINISTER:: The hon. Gentleman apparently did not do me the compliment of listening to any part of what I said. I explained most carefully mat there are 120 districts; I explained what staff there is to be in those districts and their functions, and what is the relation of these supervisors to the other officials. If the hon. Member will refer to what I said he will see that the matter was perfectly explained.
Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: I gather that there are in each of these districts three persons— one head superintendent and two superintendents under him?
The PRIME MINISTER: They are not superintendents at all.
Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: They are inspectors. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are 500."] Five hundred altogether. The point which I desired to make was that this valuation is not the simple matter' which the Prime Minister has led us to suppose it is likely to be, and that it is not only complicated, but the figure of £2,000,000 which has been put upon it will eventually, in my humble belief, prove to be entirely inadequate.
Sir GILBERT PARKER: The Prime Minister has had a good deal to do with business matters in his long and distinguished experience, and I would like to ask him if he thinks that the expenditure of £300,000 in order to get a return of £75,000, or £27,000 for this first year, is what is called a good business transaction?

423
Secondly, the Prime Minister said that after the four years had elapsed which would be taken for the valuation, and after the £2,000,000 had been spent, we should then settle down to an expenditure, I think, of something over £600,000—a fixed expenditure of £600,000. Even supposing we may get by the expenditure of that £600,000 a revenue of £700,000 or £800,000—which I think is extremely problematical and doubtful—does the Prime Minister think that a good business transaction? By imposing this system of valuation he is laying a burden upon the people who are quite willing to contribute to the revenue of this country, but they are not willing to pay in any case, however just the duty, such an excessive cost for arranging for the collection of that duty, and for the valuation of their land. It is perfectly absurd. The United States, for instance, collects on its hundred thousand millions' worth of goods which it imports between 5 and 6 per cent, for the collection of the duty. We have to pay for the collection by the Revenue Department about 4 per cent. I think that now we are paying something like £2,000,000 for the collection of £60,000,000 of revenue from customs and excise. What are we doing here? We are asking the people who own undeveloped land—people who must contribute to this duty—to pay a sum which would represent probably £3, as the cost of the collection, for every £1 that is to be given as duty. ["Who pays it?"] I do not know who pays it, if not the owner of the land.
The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that the cost of collection is thrown on the owners of the land. We are taking it away from him and putting it on the shoulders of the general taxpayer.
Sir GILBERT PARKER: Surely the landowner pays his share, and a very large share, of the cost involved? But admitting that the burden falls on the whole community in connection therewith, does not the right hon. Gentleman see that the cost of collection is out of all proportion to the fruit of the tax? The right hon. Gentleman cannot give an estimate. What is the use of imposing a heavy burden on the taxpayers of this country if he cannot give an estimate of what will be the probable result when we settle down to the normal expenditure of over £600,000 for setting up the Department which is to collect this duty? I think nobody will be convinced by the
424
statement the right hon. Gentleman has made. Secondly, I do not think that there is a single Member of this House but is firmly convinced that the value, of land will go down immediately after this Budget is passed and this tax is imposed. The depreciation may not be permanent, but for the next few years you will have, instead of an increasing value of land, a decreasing value. You will get a violent disturbance in purchase and sale. You will disturb the market, and you will disturb the confidence of the people. The right hon. Gentleman, I have no doubt, thinks that he will get ultimately from this tax an increase, as the Member for Paddington (Mr. Chiozza Money) said, of the value of land from which the State can collect revenue, but I am not so sure about that, in spite of the testimony of the Member for Paddington. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the Death Duties will increase. People must die, but you cannot insist upon people buying or selling land. If you decrease the value of land you disturb the economic market, and it is absolutely certain that instead of the Chancellor of the Exchequer getting from this new imposition a great increase of revenue, that the increase will be extremely slight, while the price you pay for it will be very great. I should like the right hon. Gentleman, if he does not think my questions too trivial, to give an answer to them.
5.0 P.M.
Mr. LEIF JONES: The arguments of the Opposition to-day are in singular contrast to those we listened to from them for the last few weeks. Throughout the whole of this Budget Debate on the Finance Bill we have had the claim from the Opposition that the valuation should be made by the State, and not by the owners of the land. We have been told that it is exceedingly unjust to put the expense of valuation upon the owner, that it was making the owners their own executioners, and, not content with taxing them with a new tax, that they were getting an additional burden of valuation. The Government has taken the Opposition at their word, and has agreed, and quite properly agreed, I think, to have the valuation made at the cost of the State. That is a concession to those who were pleading against what they thought to be an injustice. I agree I think it was a hardship to condemn the owner to pay the large expenses of valuation, and I am glad, for one, that the Government have come to the decision to

425
have a State valuation made. The Noble Lord (Viscount Helmsley) tells us he has no gratitude to give the Government, and says why should he express gratitude because an injustice is removed. That is a very sternly logical attitude to take. Has the Noble Lord found justice so common that he does not even feel inclined to acknowledge when at last justice is done? For my part, I am always ready to join in a hymn of thanks when an act of justice is at last done. I would venture to recommend that line of conduct as a more gracious one, if not a more logical one, than the present one taken by the Noble Lord.
Another great point was the impossibility of the proposed tax on ungotten minerals. The Opposition have urged that you could tax gotten minerals, that you knew what they were, and the amount they would realise, and that they could be fairly taxed. Again the Government have taken them at their word, and propose a tax on royalties. There is an immediate outcry that it is going to be a burden on the coal industry and the iron industry. I was distressed to hear the hon. Member for Dorset, the Chairman of a Committee on which I sit, and whose teachings I am very ready to follow, saying that the taxation upon royalties would be a burden upon the industry. The hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Chiozza Money) interrupted and said that every economist of note had stated that a taxation of rent and royalties did not fall upon land or upon minerals, and was very different from a taxation on the commodities themselves. I do not think there is any proposition on which economists are more thoroughly in agreement than that. I would ask the Opposition, if they are inclined to follow my hon. Friend, what sort of position they would be in if they say the tax was a burden on the industry, because what about the royalty itself?
The CHAIRMAN: I am continually calling hon. Members to order for discussing this matter. There must be a fresh Resolution about it, and then it can be discussed.
Mr. LEIF JONES: I am very sorry. I was only following the argument used on the other side, and I will leave that part of the subject. The point was made by the Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord R. Cecil) that the yield of the tax was altogether disproportionate, and that it was a mistake to collect this tax
426
at the expense of such a valuation. I think that all through the discussion a mistake has been made in trying to explain the valuation as if it were comparable with the annual return from the tax. After all, as the Prime Minister told us, at least two-thirds of the cost of valuation, and I take it to be correct that the greater part of it, at any rate, is expenditure which will not be recurrent. It is, therefore, in the nature of capital expenditure, and you ought not to compare it to the return of the tax, because the tax, once established, that expenditure suffices in all future years. I think, therefore, it is a fallacious comparison to attempt to set up a comparison between the cost of valuation and of the return in any given year of the tax based upon the valuation.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: We are now considering the means of raising money for the expenses of this year.
Mr. LEIF JONES: That is quite true, but also, considering the means of raising taxes in future years. Undoubtedly, in every Budget that has ever passed through the House, the consideration of the tax in future years has been a point of merit or demerit with the tax proposed. I would refer to the speech mentioned only yesterday, the speech of Gladstone, in 1853, where he laid down the course of our taxation and the future of our financial system for many years to come. It is utterly new and entirely characteristic of the topsy-turveydom in which the Opposition find themselves at the moment, that they should be urging it as an objection against the present Tax that it will in future years be a valuable tax for the financial system of the country. We are entitled to claim that. Another doctrine which seems to me equally extraordinary is that you ought to deduct from the return of this tax to the State that portion of the money which is granted to the local authorities. That is a most extraordinary doctrine. Why is this money being granted to the local authorities? Is it not because the local authorities, as I am sure the Noble Lord has argued, and as I have argued many a time, the local authorities are paying for many services which ought to be paid for by the State. Therefore, when you make a grant from the State towards those purposes, paid for by those localities, and which ought to be paid for by the State, are we suddenly to be told by those

427
who are asking for more money to be given to the local authorities that such expenditure is not State expenditure at all?
Viscount HELMSLEY: Let me explain. That expenditure does not go towards diminishing the deficit in the finances—that is, the £16,000,000.
Mr. LEIF JONES: I take it, if this is an expenditure made by the local authorities which ought to be paid for by the State, we ought to provide it in this financial year. It is as legitimate a part of our expenditure as any other part of our expenditure in the present year. I am surprised that any hon. Member on the other side should say it is not so. My complaint is that the Government have not seen their way to give more even this year. I think the Government have come to a wise decision in throwing the burden of this valuation on the State. I think it is a wise expenditure for them to be making, and I am glad to know that they hope to complete it at a cost of something like £2,000,000.
Mr. WALTER LONG: I want to ask a question of the Prime Minister, whose absence I regret, but I daresay the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will be good enough to pass it on. The announcement which the Government made to-day is one of the most serious we have had made in connection with the whole of these Budget Debates. I confess I listened with some little astonishment to the hon. Member for Glamorgan, who appeared to be very much pleased with the action of the Government. I do not think he quite realised that the immediate effect of this new proposal must be to cause an immense amount of confusion. My hon. Friend behind me, referring to the new proposal, was under some misapprehension as to what its precise effect would be. Of course, with the knowledge at our disposal, we have but the vaguest knowledge of what the Government proposal with regard to valuation is. I doubt whether this new valuation is going to help the hon. Member, who wishes to see the new charge on mining royalties. The real difficulty that arises there is one that will not be covered. I think, as I understand it. that the new system does not differ from the existing system of valuation for Income Tax purposes, so far as machinery is concerned, but it differs in toto from the principle which is affected in the two valuations. I venture to say the Income
428
Tax machinery and principle afford no precedent. Do the Government suggest that they are going deliberately at the expense of the country to have a fourth system of valuation in addition to those in existence, and to produce no connecting link between the two, and putting us in the state of being worse than at present? At the present moment in almost every part of the country, as every hon. Member familiar with the system of local Government must know, there are three distinct and separate systems. We have the county valuation, and the borough valuation, and the valuation made by the valuation committee, and you are going to add a fourth, made by the Government, so far as we know, on totally different principles. We do not know at all what is the plan the Government intend to adopt in the selection of their districts. I do not know what the proposal is. Are we to hear of it in some more definite form. I submit this ought not to be passed from the consideration of the House without our being afforded the opportunity to discuss the method and machinery by which the Government propose to deal with it.
After the speech which we have had from the Prime Minister to-day, and after the speech we have had from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and I thank him for it, I thank him for the admission he made, after those speeches from the Prime Minister and from the hon. Gentleman and others, I do hope, in com-man fairness, and in common honesty in the country, we shall hear no more of those statements of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the cry of the landed classes has been of a selfish kind to escape their contribution to taxation now wanted for certain purposes. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last has emphasised that point, and tried to turn it against my hon. Friend. He said you have no right to complain of the fact that the revenue is small to-day, but will increase. He, with his friends, I do not say necessarily he, though he is largely affected by the action of his friends, and hon. Gentlemen opposite, have been going over the country stating that the intention of the landed classes was to object to their fair share of the Budget, and that it was pure selfishness. Every word we have said has been justified by the action of the Government to-day, and realising that our criticisms have been just, they have been now compelled to abandon their original intention of throwing the burden of this new valuation

429
upon the individual. That is an admission on their part that there has been mo such attempt on ours to escape from -our fair burden. What we have contended all along has been justified by the statement of the Prime Minister, namely, that these new taxes on land have nothing to do either with "Dreadnoughts" or old age pensions, and that they are for a totally different and for ulterior objects. They are created for different purposes. I hope we shall not after to-day's Debate hear any more of those unjust and unfair and cowardly charges which have been made.
Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: I desire most respectfully to suggest to the Prime Minister that his estimate of the cost of this valuation is far from being a correct one. As I understood him, presumably 500 officials are to be employed for making the State valuation and the sum for their expenses, office and travelling expenses and salaries, is put at about £300,000 per year. That is an average of £600 for each official, but that £600 has to include the whole of the Government expenditure on the office. May I point out to the Prime Minister that the salary proposed to be paid to those 500 men, with the knowledge and experience which is required, is very much less, I do not know that it will be more than half, of what is at present paid to the assessors who are sent down from Somerset House to perform this work. Therefore, it is quite impossible that, for that money, the Government can obtain men with the necessary qualifications and knowledge; and if they do not obtain men of that character, the work will be useless and unsatisfactory. They must also remember that the assessors, to whom at present they pay anything from £700 to £1,200 a year, are merely valuing the annual rental, occasionally hypothetical I agree, but always with the assistance of the local authority; whereas those who are required for this purpose will have to value, not only the capital value of these estates, but to take out the site value, which it will be extremely difficult to estimate, even by those most competent to do it. I submit therefore that the sum of £300,000 is a ridiculous amount to suggest as the cost of this valuation, unless, indeed, the valuation is to be of no great value, or is to be made by men without the necessary experience and practical knowledge. I am sure the Prime Minister will admit that it will not be easy to get men with the necessary knowledge for the figure he has
430
named. I believe that this valuation will cost a great deal more than the Prime Minister has suggested, and I am bound to say, as one of those who have always protested against the burden being laid upon individuals, that, if the valuation is to be made, it is perfectly fair that the State should pay for it. From the very first I have seen that the Government would be forced into this position, because I am perfectly certain that a valuation made by individuals in the haphazard way suggested by the Bill would have been absolutely useless.
The only other remark I would make is that in formulating this scheme of valuation and in dividing the country into districts, I am extremely sorry to see no indication in the Prime Minister's statement of any desire to take advantage of the existing machinery in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman knows how good that machinery is, and how admirable is our system of valuation; and I would suggest to him, as an economist, that he would value Scotland much more economically if, instead of dividing the country into districts and treating it in the same way as England, he imported some sort of expert assistance into the existing local system. In that way he would get the local knowledge which is absolutely necessary, and the valuation would be much more satisfactory. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that suggestion. As one who has had a great deal to do with valuation in Scotland—I have presided over the valuation court in my own county for many years—I know pretty well what the work is, and as the result of that experience I believe that this valuation would be made much more satisfactorily in the manner I have suggested than by any system of divisional offices which the Government may set up.
Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: I think the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Younger) is well worthy of consideration, not only for the reasons the hon. Member has given, but because I believe it would be more difficult to get the services of so large a number of skilled valuers in Scotland than it would be in England. We have not enjoyed the peculiarities of the leasehold system in Scotland. Perhaps that is one reason to account for the regular valuator being a practically unknown quantity there. It is no doubt fair that the cost of this valuation should be thrown upon the State, but

431
the objection to it is that the work of valuation conducted by the State must necessarily be very costly. It is shown to be very costly by the figures which have been given. But that will not represent all the cost, because if these official valuators nominated by the State are to do the whole of the work it must involve counter-valuing, and there will be cases of appeal. I think that, both by the suggestion made by the hon. Member opposite and by a suggestion which I myself made at an earlier stage of the proceedings, the cost of valuation might be very considerably reduced. In addition to the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite I believe that another alternative would be to have a list of independent recognised valuators—men who do the ordinary valuation and who are recognised as the leaders in their calling. If there was a list of these men in, say, half a dozen centres in Scotland or in each county, and if the valuators were selected by the Treasury and by the individual, I think the work would be done much more cheaply, with much less friction, and with far fewer appeals. We have that system already for the farm valuing, and I do not see why it should not be equally applicable to the present case. Then you would not have the Inland Revenue Department brought into personal contact with the individual. They would nominate their valuer, or, if they could not agree on a valuer, one might be nominated by the Lord President in Scotland, or by a corresponding official in England. In many ways the bringing of the Inland Revenue into direct relations with the individual in these matters is greatly to be deprecated. The power of the Department is enormous, and the only security of the individual is to go to a lawyer at enormous expense. That may be done by an association of owners of property, but I do not know that it is to be desired. The alternative of independent valuers is one which I think ought not to be overlooked by the Government.
I am certain that with regard to many estates the estimated cost of this valuation has been greatly exaggerated. Many of the valuations would be given far better by the estate offices than by any valuator whom you could call in. So far as many of the estate offices are concerned, they would not call in a valuator, because they could give at once a far better valuation than any valuator could give. In such cases that would not involve any expense; but it does not apply to all cases.
Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Has the hon. Member taken into consideration the site value? That is where the great difficulty occurs.
Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: I quite agree; but I am sure that many managers of estates, and even the owners of some, if they came into consultation with two or three good writers, could get out a much better note of the valuation than almost any outsider you could call in. I think, therefore, the State will lose heavily by employing a professional class, who are not nearly so well acquainted with the properties to be valued as those who ordinarily manage them. If it were possible to secure the co-operation of the owners of property, and to have independent valuers instead of State officials, the cost of this valuation, I do not say in all cases, but certainly over the greater part of the area of Scotland, might be considerably reduced. Beyond that pratical advantage, I would urge that, even with an appeal, it is undesirable to increase the enormous powers of a bureaucracy. The remedy of the law is a costly one, which ought to be avoided. I do not think the present relations of the Inland Revenue with the individual are satisfactory, and that is why I urge so strongly that we should not put out of sight the independent valuer.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: You, Sir, have quite rightly ruled that we must not travel into the merits even of all the subjects raised by the Prime Minister in the course of his statement. There is, and must be, I think, a latitude of exposition given to the Minister in charge of a Bill, which cannot be driven to its extreme logical consequences by those who follow or comment upon the Prime Minister's statement. I shall be very brief in what I have to say, because I shall endeavour most carefully to follow the indications which you have let fall, and not deal with subsidiary points indirectly connected with the proposals of the Government. For example, I shall not do more than ask—I shall certainly not dwell upon it—a question which is inevitably suggested by some of the speeches which have been made, as to the principles on which the Government are going to divide among local authorities their share of the various taxes. I do not know whether the Prime Minister could indicate at this stage how he proposes to divide that money, but so far he has not done so, and there is no indication of it on the Paper. My right hon. Friend (Mr.

433
A. Chamberlain) reminds me that this allocation of half the proceeds of these taxes to the local authorities is one of the innumerable afterthoughts of the Government, and therefore, by the nature of the case, there could not be in the Budget, as introduced, particulars of the proposed method. But I beg the Government not to abuse their power of deferring putting on the Paper Amendments which are going to change the whole substance of their proposals. They have already profoundly altered the proposals, and there are indications that they are going to alter them even more profoundly in the future. It is only fair that we should have adequate notice of the character of those changes, and how they are going to be carried out. I do not press the Prime Minister to go into detail now, but if he could indicate the manner in which the various local authorities are to share in the proceeds of these taxes it would be a convenience to the House and to the local authorities themselves.
I do not dwell either upon the economic points raised by the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Chiozza Money). We shall have ample opportunity for discussing the incidence of the tax, of which we have heard to-day for the first time, which is to be placed, not upon ungotten minerals, but upon minerals in process of being gotten. I think the hon. Member will find that the rather narrow economic doctrine which he has laid down will not apply in its admirable simplicity to the tax it is now proposed to introduce. There was, however, another point raised by the Prime Minister and by the hon. Member for North Paddington which is strictly and closely relevant to the Resolution now before us, and that is the effect which the valuation carried out at the cost of the Government will have, not upon the taxes contained in the first part of this Bill, but upon the Death Duties. This, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) pointed out, is the first time we have heard of this expected effect of the new land valuation, and I think we ought to know more about it than the Government have yet vouchsafed to tell us. They are not only constantly altering their Bill, but they are constantly altering their estimates; and as some sort of valuation has always been contemplated by the Bill, the effect of that contemplated valuation on the Death Duties must have been in their mind; but why we have not heard of it or of its effect on the revenue of the pre-
434
sent year and of years to come until it is casually mentioned by the Prime Minister in dealing with a matter which we had supposed was connected only with the taxes in the first part of the Bill, I really do not know. I see, for my part, the value of the argument. I do not believe in it. His argument is to the effect that this valuation now proposed by the Government in this Resolution to meet the deficit is based upon this calculation; that there are various ways of arriving at the total amount of property in the country. We have very precise information of the total amount that passes each year at death. If you multiply that by any reasonable factor you ought to be able to find from the resultant figures what the total value of the national property is, and that that amount should correspond with the results of other calculations provided from other data, and by different lines of argument. There may be a discrepancy between the amount that passes at death and the amount which you would expect to pass at death if you calculate the capital value of the property of the country. But it is not in connection with that amount that the discrepancy occurs. It is not land that escapes Death Duties; that evades the action of the Government. It is those more fluid and flexible forms of property which, I venture to say, will always evade the grip of the tax-gatherer when that grip is drawn too tightly, and if the owners of that particular kind of property think they are singled out for special, exceptional, and unjust treatment. Therefore, I should like to understand upon what the Prime Minister or the Government base their calculations that the new valuation will increase the amount which the Government are going to collect on real property. Real property in this country is a diminished fraction of the total national assets. It is not a fraction of the total national asset which easily escapes the taxes. I was rather surprised when the Prime Minister indicated in his speech that he thought one of the indirect results of the Motion that he was putting before the House was to increase the yield of the Death Duties. He did not at the same time tell us that justice was going to be done to the owners of land in respect of Income Tax. There, again, that injustice is great and is admitted. It is now apparently alleged that the owners of real property have escaped paying their fair share of the Death Duties under one valuation. By all means let the owners of real property pay their proper

435
proportion to the Death Duties in common with all others. But at the same time while you are making your machinery more perfect, do try to see that your system of taxing annual values is made as fair as your method of taxing capital values is made severe. I come to the point which is really most closely relevant to the issue before the House. The Prime Minister has suggested that this valuation has got to do with the Death Duty. That is only a subsidiary consideration. It is mainly regarded by us as an integral part of the machinery for obtaining the three taxes dealt with in the first part of the Bill. It is perfectly clear now—it was not clear before—that the first part of this Bill is not a revenue-raising operation at all, and that the machinery now proposed in this Resolution is not a machinery for raising revenue. The objects of the Government in moving this Resolution are not to get revenue. The object of the Government in moving the portion of this Bill of which this new machinery is to form part is not to get revenue. Their objects are different. They are ulterior. They touch wholly different issues. They are not methods to meet a great national emergency. This Resolution and all the clauses with which it is connected is a plain, obvious mechanism for carrying out some special scheme which the Government—or perhaps not so much the Government as a Member here and there of the Government, and those more extreme sections of the Radical and Socialist party on whom those Members of the Government depend. It is machinery for carrying out their schemes. If any evidence is required of that it is surely provided in the calculations which have been given by the right hon. Gentleman near me, by local Members behind me, and by others who have spoken. For the most part, so far as I can follow the figures, my hon. Friends have been far too lenient to the Government.
Then I should like to ask the Prime Minister, who, I suppose, will conclude the Debate, whether the figures I am now going to read are not correct, or at all events based upon statements, calculations, and estimates of himself or his Government? I exclude from these estimates the new tax which is announced to-day, for the first time, a tax upon un-gotten minerals, because that has nothing whatever to do with this valuation. I do not gather from the Prime Minister that this new machinery called into existence is
436
going to value the amount of the royalties, or the amount that ought to be credited to royalties in cases where royalties are not paid. If they are to do that, the object would be far more easily carried out by the Inland Revenue machinery already in existence. You do not want experts in the valuation of agricultural or urban sites to deal with that kind of property. Therefore I confine myself to the three taxes—the Increment Duty, the Undeveloped Land Duty, and the Reversion Duty. Before I leave the other tax, though I am not going into the merits or demerits of it, I would observe what I do not think the Prime Minister did observe, that the amount is exactly double that he means co extract, and this alteration he mentions without a word of explanation or apology. The amount he is going to get out of this 5 per cent, upon coal rents and other duties is exactly twice what it was said was going to be got out of—I will not say the same source of taxation, because it is quite a different source of taxation—under the original plan which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government was so proud of only a few weeks ago, and which they have now abandoned. But I revert to the three taxes which this Resolution is intended to deal with. I understand that the Increment Duty is Likely to produce £50,000 a year; that the Undeveloped Land Duty will produce £175,000 a year; and the Reversion Duty £100,000 a year.
The PRIME MINISTER: Not for the year, but for the remainder of this year.
Mr. BALFOUR: Very well. That is a total of £325,000, of which I suppose half goes to the local authorities. Half of that sum, namely, £162,500, is to go elsewhere, leaving the other half to go towards the £10,000,000 for building "Dreadnoughts" and for the payment of old age pensions. What is the cost of collecting in this year that £162,000? As I understand it, the Government are going to spend this year £300,000, and that is only for half the year. I presume, therefore, that the rate of expenditure, at any rate for the first two years, will be at the rate of £600,000 per year. You cannot get it less than £600,000, and it may be more. If you take £162,000 from the £600,000 which will be spent, you will find, a real deficit of £438,000. We have, therefore, in order to meet a deficit of £16,000,000, in order to deal with a great national emergency, in order to protect our shores, and to provide for our aged

437
poor—we have for all this been now discussing—for how many weeks in Committee? —proposals, the total result of which will be an increase in the present year to the deficit of £16,000,000 of no less than £438,000! If the Members of the Committee, and the Prime Minister, will look at the cost of the collection of the Inland Revenue taxes, they will find that it costs £1,250,000 to collect a total of £69,750,000, or say, £70,000,000. Under the new system we are going to spend about half that sum, more than half that sum, in order to obtain the minus quantity of no less than £430,000. This is the latest triumph of Free Trade finance!
Mr. CLOUGH: Is that Tariff Reform arithmetic?
Mr. BALFOUR: Does the hon. Gentleman question my figures? I admit I collected them hastily, and they may be wrong, but the figures are those of the Prime Minister, and I am not aware that they are wrong. If the Government are right in their estimates of the cost of valuation—it is quite impossible for me, or I suspect anybody in this House, to speak with precise and expert knowledge upon this subject, and the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down seemed to think that the cost has been exaggerated—but the cost of valuation of the total value I do not think need be a costly operation. The most difficult part of the task is to carry out those curious, elaborate, novel, hypothetical calculations, the full complexity of which I do not think either the country or the Committee fully realise, and which it is suggested that it will need an army of officials, some 600,000—[a laugh]—I mean 500 or 600,—to make. I am afraid I made a slip, but I do not think I clouded the general course of my argument, though I may have added to the merriment of the House. These 500 or 600 gentlemen will have to map out in a most elaborate way every holding in the country, however small, not merely as to its present value as a going concern but as to its valuation in certain hypothetical circumstances which are not realised, which have never been realised, and which will never be realised. I am not positive that this operation can be rationally carried out at all, but certainly to endeavour to carry it out rationally is not an easy business, and not being an easy business it will not be a cheap business. I do not for a moment believe that
438
the Government have not been sanguine in their estimate upon this matter as they have been sanguine in their estimates of the larger financial transactions into which they have led the House. However that may be, is it not perfectly clear now, more clear than ever before, that this part of the scheme is not a Finance Bill, and that the valuation schemes as now proposed are really no part of the Finance Bill at all? I cannot understand how the Government can justify the hitching into the four corners of a Finance Bill elaborate provisions which always, up to the present time, have been regarded as a proper subject for a different and independent measure. It seems to me they are really departing from all constitutional practice in this matter. It seems to me the most amazing way to construct a Finance Bill, and I do not believe—and I do not think it is possible now for anybody on the platform or in the House to maintain—that this part of the Bill is dealing with finance at all. We are not dealing with finance. We are not dealing with the methods for meeting the financial strain to which the country is subject. We are dealing with schemes, be they good or bad, which have not the character of financial provisions, but of social revolution. Social revolution may be an excellent and admirable thing—I am not going to argue that point—but it is a very expensive thing. And you ought not, and it is unwise, to introduce these schemes of social revolution, which cannot produce money, and obviously will not produce money, into a Bill avowedly brought forward on a scale of magnitude and with a glory of exposition as if a great national crisis was being met in a bold spirit. There is no national crisis. We admit your need for money, but this money will not enable you to pay the smallest of your debts. It will not enable you to pay for the new expenditure, and even with all the solidity of Free Trade arithmetic to go upon, you will not pretend that the amount to be put into the Exchequer by this expedient really meets the ordinary new charges which the Government announce to us in the airiest fashion from month to month and from year to year. So far from dealing with our £16,000,000, it deals with nothing at all. I do not care how high you put it. You have got to meet a deficit of millions, and these taxes are going to give you at best thousands. It is for that reason I certainly think we ought to take this view of the whole scheme of

439
the Bill of which the Resolution is a part, and we are bound to record our opposition to it. I do not, of course, in the least deny that, as far as individual hardship is concerned, the proposals of the Government are intended to diminish that hardship. I think the gross injustice of requiring individual owners to value their land has come home at last to the Government, and that injustice they are now trying to remedy. But we cannot consider that in isolation. We have to consider the whole scheme, of which this is part. And, doing my best to consider the whole scheme, I say this is not a true Finance Bill at all. I believe it is unconstitutional and I believe it is unwise, and I shall vote against this Resolution as part of the larger fraction of the Bill which, as I think, is the gravest infraction of those traditional principles on which the sound finance of this country has always been maintained.
The PRIME MINISTER: Very few of those who have listened to our Debate this afternoon can, I think, realise that the Resolution I proposed is an attempt on the part of the Government to remove a hardship which from the very earliest stages of the Debate has been put forward most seriously by the critics of the Opposition to this part of the Finance Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition speaks contemptuously of our proposal. The right hon. Gentleman who sits beside him, the Member for East Worcester (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), was, if I may say so without offence, almost truculently indignant. "No one supposes," he said, "for a moment that by throwing the cost of valuation upon the shoulders of the taxpayer or by substituting a tax on royalties for what we denounced as an absolutely inconceivable piece of folly, namely, the tax upon ungotten minerals—you cannot suppose for a moment that by these concessions you will remove our objections." The object of the Government, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, is only to remove the objections of reasonable people, and in so far as the right hon. Gentleman's objections coincide with those of reasonable people, we are ready to remove them, and so far as they do not, we shall not make any attempt to remove them. What is the gist and gravamen of the criticisms? Let the Committee remember that the House, both on the second reading and in the earlier stages of the Committee upon the Finance Bill, has given its deliberate assent by overwhelming majorities to the creation
440
and levying of these new taxes—Increment Duty, Undeveloped Land Duty, and Reversion Duty, and the other duty which I agree still remains for discussion. But as regards these three, the House has decided they shall be brought into existence and made effective fiscal instruments. It is quite obvious, if that is the case, either you are to have no valuation at all—in which case the whole of the proceedings of the Committee up to this moment are completely stultified and frustrated—and that is the object of some hon. Members who do not take a serious part in our deliberations—or, if you are to have a valuation, the cost must be borne by the State or by the owner of the land. The first alternative being for all reasonable people unthinkable, the choice lies between the other two—
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: You can give it up.
The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Baronet says you can give it up. But suppose you are not going to give it up, and we are not going to give it up—that the valuation must be made by somebody and at some one's cost is inevitable. The Government, having originally proposed it should be made at the cost of the owner, now, in deference to objections well founded, and after carefully weighing them, are asking the Committee to give them authority to put that cost on the shoulders of the taxpayer. That is the proposition that will presently be put from the Chair, and anyone who votes against it will vote against putting the cost of the valuation upon the State. That is the issue, and the only issue, and I think it is well to make it clear at present.
I come now to some of the detailed criticisms made, particularly by the right hon. Gentleman, on my figures. He has demonstrated by a process of arithmetic which used to be more familiar two or three years ago, that we are actually going to incur a deficit in regard to the new taxes, and that, so far from adding to the revenue, we are really increasing expenditure. Let us see what are the facts. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman, by a very convenient process which has been adopted by several of those who preceded him, has committed the singular mistake of confusing the collection of the tax with its subsequent destination and expenditure. It is quite true we have promised to give to the local authorities, in the shape of a grant, a sum which will be equivalent to a half of the net proceeds of the tax.

441
When you are considering what the net proceeds of a tax are you take its gross yield as it comes into the Exchequer, and you put that on one side of the account, and upon the other side of the account you put the cost of levy and collection, and the difference between the two is the net proceeds of the tax. It does not make the least difference for the purpose of the calculation whether the tax is going to the local authority in the shape of a grant-in-aid to ease the expenditure on the Poor Law or whether it is going to bear part of the cost of a "Dreadnought" or to contribute to old age pensions. The right hon. Gentleman began by doubling the proceeds of those taxes—
Mr. BALFOUR (who was indistinctly heard, was understood to say): The amount produced by this tax, so far from meeting any deficit, will not pay for the cost of collection.
6.0 P.M.
The PRIME MINISTER: The point I am on is this, that if you take the yield of these taxes and the cost of collecting them together you will find that they practically bring nothing into the Exchequer. I am trying to show that is an improper calculation. It starts with the fallacy of dealing with the distribution or destination when you ought to be dealing with its levying and collection. The second deduction of the right hon. Gentleman was the whole of the proposed mineral rights, but I cannot in the least degree assent to that, because it will be found that the valuation of minerals is an essential and integral part of this general scheme of land valuation. As regards none of these taxes, certainly not as regards the Increment Tax, you could not levy them unless you valued minerals as well as the land. You will find also, when you come to investigate the working of the Minerals Rights Tax, at any rate, that the valuation, if not absolutely indispensable, is an enormous facilitation of the solution of the practical problems with which the tax-collector will have to deal. I, therefore, consider that we are perfectly entitled in treating these taxes as integral parts of one connected scheme, and bound to take into account the proceeds of the Mineral Rights Duties, as well as of the other duty.
Mr. BALFOUR: As I understand the Resolution before us, it is to authorise any expenses or remuneration payable in connection with any valuation of land or premises for the purposes of any duty. Does that include minerals?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, it does. Land includes minerals.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of order, if land includes royalties does not that entirely alter the ground of your decision restricting myself and other speakers from discussing royalties.
The CHAIRMAN: What the Prime Minister has said is that land includes minerals. I do not quite see how that affects the point of order. What I said was that there must be a Resolution of the House dealing with royalties, and that that was the proper occasion to deal with them.
The PRIME MINISTER: I did not say anything so absurd as that land includes royalties. My proposition is that land includes minerals. When you are having a valuation as is perfectly clear from the earlier clauses of the Bill, which is to be adequate for the purpose of the Mineral Duty, or any one of these duties you must have a valuation. You cannot get on without it.
Mr. YOUNGER: Is it not a fact that the duty which is being laid on royalties has nothing whatever to do with the valuation of minerals along with land?
The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Member examines the clause I think he will find that it is very material. Quite apart from that, what can be the fairness or justice of taking the estimated proceeds of these taxes during the half of the first year in which they will be put into operation and treating that as if it fixed for all time, or even for the immediate or prospective future, what their yield was going to be as against the cost of collection? The cost of collection we are able to ascertain with very much greater precision than the yield of the taxes themselves. Take a tax like the Increment Tax; it depends on the number of transactions that take place in a given year in land, the value of which is increasing. The Reversion Duty depends on the number of leases to which it is applicable which happen to fall in within a given time. Those are necessarily capricious, and you cannot put them down in any definite form as you can an estimate of the salaries and expenses of the officers. Therefore, we are necessarily on much more speculative and conjectural ground in estimating the yield of these taxes in the future than in estimating the cost of collection. I do not

443
hesitate to express the most confident opinion that every one of them will be found in the years to come a tax growing in productiveness, bearing more and more fruit, and bringing more into the Exchequer, and I do not see how anyone who I regards the existing social and industrial conditions of the country, unless some revolution, some unexpected and unforseeable revolution in those conditions should startle us in the immediate future, can fail to perceive that the proceeds of taxes of this kind must tend to be an ever-increasing quantity. They absolutely justify themselves as contributions to the revenue of the present year, and they justify themselves still more, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, as trees which will grow in strength and productiveness in the years to come, and which will help you to meet the growing expenditure of those years, which, unfortunately, we are I obliged to anticipate. The right hon. Gentleman said you are laying down "Dreadnoughts" this year. The real cost of the "Dreadnoughts" arises, not this year, but next year, and the year after, and it is quite as important—indeed, it is even more important—when you are unsettling and, as it were, resettling your system of taxation with a view to the ultimate responsibilities of the country, to look forward to the liabilities you may be called upon to incur next year and the year after as it is for the expenditure of the currant year. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the Government, on that I ground, and on that ground alone, this part of the Finance Bill amply justifies itself as a fiscal instrument. The right hon. Gentleman asks me to throw out some information in regard to possible changes in the Bill as to Income Tax and in regard to distribution of these taxes as between Imperial and local authorities. I cannot say that I feel encouraged to venture upon new ground at this moment on that invitation. Quite sufficient for this afternoon is the Valuation and Mineral Rights Duty. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) may be sure that neither of these matters is being lost sight of, and I hope, in ample time for their deliberate consideration and full discussion, the proposals of the Government will be laid before the House. The reference I made to the Death Duties has greatly shocked the Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord R. Cecil) as a most astonishing proceeding. Is it so very astonishing? Under this Bill as originally framed the
444
cost of valuation was to be borne by the owner. Provisions based on those lines would obviously have no effect on the yield of the Estate Duties. The moment you transfer the duty of valuation of all the land of the country to the State, and set up for that purpose a machinery or authority which has never previously-existed, the very object of which is to ascertain what you have never hitherto ascertained in anything like an accurate or scientific form, namely, what is the value of the land and of each piece separately owned or occupied, is it not perfectly clear that as an incidental result you must get a great deal of new light on the value of estates that are passing? There is no dark or sinister design in it. It is an incidental result of yielding to an eminently reasonable demand. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin will be the first to agree that when a landowner or anybody else who' dies and leaves property which is subject to Death Duties, his representatives ought to pay those duties on the true, and not on the artificially depreciated value, whether the property be land or anything else. If it turns out, as a result of this more complete and more accurate machinery of valuation, that properties that have hitherto, no doubt in perfect good faith, not been estimated at their precise market value are hereafter estimated at a higher value, no injustice is done to anybody. The strict rules of justice are observed, and incidentally the revenue of the State will be satisfactorily increased.
Mr. F. W. LAMBTON: Why should not that apply to personalty as well?
The PRIME MINISTER: I was coming to that. The Leader of the Opposition surprised me by saying that the evasion—I do not like to use such a word—of the Death Duties took place in regard to the more fluid forms of property, namely, personalty. I do not agree. Those are just the forms of property which cannot in this sense of the word escape Death Duties, because they are the things most easily valued. Go to the Stock Exchange lists and any broker will easily tell you the value of the fluid part. The part that is difficult to value and does require expert knowledge is not the fluid, but the immobile, the real property, and it is for that purpose, to fill up that gap, this machinery of valuation, we hope, will prove a useful adjunct to the fiscal engines of the State. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin asked

445
whether we would take the opportunity, in setting up this new system of valuation, to establish some kind of co-ordination between it and the existing system. I entirely agree that steps in that direction ought to be taken, and I was very glad to hear what was said by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. Younger), who is very familiar with valuation in Scotland, as to the importance of associating the Scottish system of valuation, which is a very good and admirable one, with whatever machinery is set up under this Bill. In Scotland we are very much in advance of our less enlightened fellow citizens in England on all these matters. But though I should agree that this co-ordination of different systems of valuation for rating and taxing purposes is not a proper or congruous part of a Finance Bill, it might give rise to objection that the finance Bill was being used for purposes which are alien to its proper scope, and therefore we have not found it possible to introduce provisions of that kind in this Bill, which is strictly confined to purely fiscal objects. We shall not lose sight of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, arid I hope we may be able to make some progress in that direction before many months or years have gone. The other point which I think he put to me was whether the House would have a full opportunity of discussing the new machinery. Certainly. I am sorry the clauses were not circulated this morning, but they are being circulated now. My hon. Friend reminds me that the proposals take the shape of Amendments, as far as machinery is concerned, of the old clauses. They will no doubt be most fully and carefully discussed. The Government have no reason to wish otherwise. The hon. Member for one of the divisions of Durham also asked a question which I think is very pertinent. He said: "If you are going to take three or four years for the valuation of your land, what is to happen to the man whose land is not fortunate enough to fall within the operations of the valuer during the first two years?" It is obvious, of course, you cannot deal with the whole of the land of the country at the same time; in fact, the very nature of the whole scheme shows you cannot complete the valuation within a single year. I have no doubt, having regard to the character of this taxation, that the first subject to which the valuing authorities will give their attention will be the Undeveloped Land Tax, because the Increment Duty and the Re-version Duty are things which are not of
446
so pressing importance. I have no doubt they will give their first attention to that, but we shall make provision in the Bill to the effect that if the site value is not ascertained during the current year the collection and payment of the Undeveloped Land Duty is postponed until the site value has been ascertained. The owner, therefore, in the case put by the hon. Gentleman, has to set off against the misfortune of not having his land valued at the earliest possible moment the saving in interest which he gets through keeping the money in his pocket and not having to pay the Undeveloped Land Duty until the time comes. That, I think, is an arrangement with which the hon. Gentleman ought to be extremely well satisfied. I think I have covered the whole ground traversed during the course of the Debate. I extremely regret that these proposals, which were honestly put forward in the hope, not only of helping and smoothing the working of the Act, but also of facilitating its progress through the House, should have been received, I will not say with ingratitude, but with such scant appreciation on the part of the bulk of those whose demands they were intended to meet. I regret still more that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) has announced his intention of voting against a Resolution which, if negatived, would require us to do a thing which I think inexpedient, namely, to place the whole cost of valuation on the shoulders of the landowners of the country. In those circumstances, I have no hesitation in asking the House to pass the Resolution.
Sir GILBERT PARKER: During the course of his remarks the Prime Minister puzzled everyone, I think, in the House by his reference to the definition of land, which, he said, included minerals. I think it would greatly meet the convenience of the House in considering this Bill if the right hon. Gentleman could arrange to give us a definition of land as the word is used in the Bill and a definition of minerals. We have only in Clause 27 a limited definition of the word "land," and no definition at all, I think, of the word "minerals." A Constituency, like mine, which has cement works, is concerned very deeply in the definition of "minerals," and is very anxious to know whether chalk, for instance, is included as a mineral. I think my question a pertinent one. I am asking the Prime Minister whether he does not think it would be for the convenience of the House if we had a definition of the word "land" and the word "minerals."
The PRIME MINISTER: I can only speak from my recollection, and I am afraid it is somewhat rusty of the law on this subject; but I am strongly of the opinion, and I have no doubt it is correct, that the word "land" includes "minerals," unless the context shows it does not. It is perfectly clear in this Bill the word "land" must be used in its natural and legal sense. I have therefore no hesitation in saying that "land" will include "minerals." "With regard to "minerals," we are on much more thorny ground. I believe whether a particular substance—say, clay—comes within the term "minerals" in an Act of Parliament must depend upon the circumstances. I believe the learned judges have held over and over again that it is quite impossible for a Department to take to itself the power to lay down a definition of "minerals," irrespective of special and particular circumstances.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the new valuation proposals do not constitute a new clause, but that they would be met by Amendments to the existing clause. Could we have that clause reprinted as it will be with the Amendments?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes; I think that is a very reasonable request, and will be convenient.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I want to ask the Prime Minister a question on a point which is not quite clear to me. Apparently, as far as I understand, the valuation is to be made as soon as possible, and upon the basis of that valuation the Undeveloped Land Tax is to be paid. For how long is that valuation to frank the rate of tax upon an undeveloped piece of land?
The CHAIRMAN: That surely does not arise on this Resolution, but on the clause.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I understand some new form of Referee is going to be set up, and I gathered their salaries were included in the estimate. Is the cost of the proceedings before the Referees included?
The PRIME MINISTER: The total cost of £2,000,000 leaves a very large margin, and the cost of the Referees will be included in that. As regards the procedure
448
before the Referees, it is most carefully set out in the clause as it is to be amended.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will anyone going before the Referees and proving his case, showing the Commissioners to have been wrong, get his costs?
The CHAIRMAN: That question is not in order here.
The PRIME MINISTER: It is in the Bill.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Did the Prime Minister include the cost of the quinquennial valuation of the land? There will, of course, every fifth year be a very considerable addition. I was a little confused by two statements the Prime Minister made with reference to the estimate itself. He said, in the first place, that the cost will be £2,000,000, but that only something less than one-third of that will be recurring. If that is something less than one-third, it will be some £600,000. Later I understood the Prime Minister to put it at something from £300,000 to £400,000. Which is correct?
The PRIME MINISTER: I was using very rough figures, and I said the best estimate the Inland Revenue could form at present was that two-thirds of the £2,000,000 would no longer be necessary after the expiration of four years. That would bring it down to about £600,000. They would hope it would not be so much, but we cannot give, and I should not like to pledge myself to any very definite figure. The answer to the other question put by the hon. Member is in the affirmative.
Mr. HOPE: £600,000 a year capitalised is something like the estimate we originally gave, of between £10,000,000 and £20,000,000.
Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: The Prime Minister stated that the object of this Resolution was to remove an objection felt by all reasonable people to the valuation as it was. I think this Amendment of the Bill will really create a very large new grievance. There will be an extraordinary injustice as between one landowner and another. It has already been felt that, under the Bill, those who own land are treated in a less favourable way than the owners of other forms of capital. Now you are going to set up a quite arbitrary distinction between one landowner and another. If a man has his land

449
valued this year and sells it in four years' time, he will have to pay Increment Duty upon it, but another man, whose land is not valued, simply for the convenience of the valuer, for four years will get off the Increment Value Duty altogether. I think that is a very great injustice, and one which calls for deferring the operation of the Increment Value Duty until the whole valuation has been made.
The CHAIRMAN: This Resolution is for the purpose of authorising certain expenses. The hon. Member is now discussing a point which may arise in Committee on the Bill.
Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I would like to say a word on the remarkable estimate given of the cost of valuation. We are told it is only going to cost £2,000,000. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. Younger) gave some pertinent considerations which, I think, show conclusively that the cost will be very much increased. We have had experience of the cost of valuation in the past. The Griffith's valuation in Ireland, authorised under the Act of 1852, cost £325,000, and the rateable value of Ireland under that valuation was shown to be £13,000,000. The cost of the valuation worked out at 2½ per cent, of the rateable value. I have not had time to get at the figures for last year, but the statistical abstract of the previous year shows the rateable value of this country to be £207,000,000, so, on the same basis, the cost of valuation would be over £5,000,000. The Griffith's valuation was a very simple process, being for poor rate assessment. This valuation is clearly of a far more complicated and expensive character. There are two valuations—total and site valuation. The Griffith's valuation was carried out by valuers who accepted a rate of remuneration which would be quite impossible at the present day. Section 36 of the Valuation Act of 1852 authorised the granting to the Commissioner of Valuation—that is the head man of all—of only three guineas per day, and all the rest of the officials were to have not exceeding £l per day. It is quite evident from those figures that the Griffith's valuation was carried out on a far more economical scale of payment than is in any way possible today, and for that reason I think the estimate of £2,000,000 is quite absurd. I will not go into the profit and loss account as between this valuation and the Land Tax, but I would like to point out that hon. Members speaking on this side have only
450
objected to the Mineral Rights Duty as being set off as one of the advantages to be gained by the valuation now being paid by the State. But the Reversion Duty is also quite independent of this valuation, because the Reversion Duty does not depend on the total value of the land, it depends on the value-benefit accruing to the lessor when the lease is determined; it depends on the excess of that over the consideration for the grant of the lease, and as the Reversion Duty is not in any way dependent on this valuation, the advantage to be gained by this valuation must be decreased by the total expected from the Reversion Duty, and that will mean that your balance in the first year will be very much on the wrong side. The Prime Minister declared that those who voted against this Resolution would vote against the valuation cost being put on the State, but I would suggest that in voting against it we are voting against any valuation at all, and it would be perfectly absurd to suggest that by opposing this we are favouring an even more unjust proposal.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: As a point of order, I should like to raise this question. In that portion of the Bill which has been disposed of a decision has been come to as to the time at which the taxes shall come into force. The point I have to submit is this: Is it not possible for us to go back on the decisions already come to by the whole Committee as to these dates—a decision come to under a state of affairs with regard to valuation which it is now clear will be impossible, because it is admitted it is going to take four years to get the valuation, and we shall be placed in a very different position with regard to the taxes coming into operation? Can we be allowed to re-open this question of when the tax shall begin?
The CHAIRMAN: What the Committee has said it has said, unless the various clauses are recommitted.
Mr. G. S. BOWLES: Do the Government propose to bring in a Supplementary Estimate this year for the sum of £300,000 to be actually expended?
The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member had better give notice of that question.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 96.

Division No. 417.]

AYES.

[6.35 p.m.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Hardy George A. (Suffolk)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Acland, Francis Dyke

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Harvey, W. E (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Harwood, George

Rainy, A. Rolland

Armitage, R.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Hedges, A. Paget

Richardson, A.

Barnard, E. B.

Helme, Norvat Watson

Ridsdale, E. A.

Barnes, G. N.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Robinson, S.

Beale, W. P.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Pobson, Sir William Snowdon

Beauchamp, E.

Higham, John Sharp

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Beck, A. Cecil

Hobart, Sir Robert

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets St. Geo.)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Berridge, T. H. D.

Hodge, John

Rowlands, J.

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Holt, Richard Durning

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Bowerman, C. W.

Hudson, Walter

Rutherford V. H. (Brentford)

Brace, William

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Branch, James

Illingworth, Percy H.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Bright, J. A.

Jardine, Sir J.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde's

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Brooke, Stopford

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Sears, J. E.

Bryce, J. Annan

Jones, Leif, (Appleby)

Shackleton, David James

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Jowett, F. W.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Kekewich, Sir George

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Byles, William Pollard

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Simon, John Alisebrook

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Laidlaw, Robert

Snowden, P.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Lambert, George

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Lamont, Norman

Soares, Ernest J.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lehmann, R. C.

Stanger, H. Y.

Clough, William

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Steadman, W. C.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lupton, Arnold

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cowan, W. H.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Summerbell, T.

Crooks, William

Lyell, Charles Henry

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Cullinan, J.

Lynch, H. B.

Taylor, Theodore, C. (Radcliffe)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk, Burghs)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Macpherson, J. T.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Duckworth, Sir James

Ni'Callum, John M.

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

M'Micking, Major G.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Maddison, Frederick

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Tillett, Louis John

Elibank, Master of

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Verney, F. W.

Erskine, David C.

Massie, J.

Vivian, Henry

Everett, R. Lacey

Masterman, C. F. G.

Walters, John Tudor

Falconer, J.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Walton, Joseph

Ferens, T. R.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Mond, A.

Waterlow, D. S.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Findlay, Alexander

Morgan, G Hay (Cornwall)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Morse, L. L.

Whitehead, Rowland

Gill, A. H.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Wilkie, Alexander

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Myer, Horatio

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Napier, T. B.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Gulland, John W.

Partington, Oswald

Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Paulton, James Mellor

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Hall, Frederick

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Hancock, J. G.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Perks, Sir Robert William

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Bowies, G. Stewart

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Ashley, W. W.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry), N.)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Baldwin, Stanley

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Carlile, E. Hidred

452

453

Cave, George

Hills, J. W.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)

Renton, Leslie

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hunt, Rowland

Renwick, George

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Clive, Percy Archer

Kerry, Earl of

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Clyde, J. Avon

Kimber, Sir Henry

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Stanier, Beville

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Starkey, John R.

Dairymple, Viscount

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Doughty, Sir George

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Du Cros, Arthur

Magnus, Sir Philip

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Faber, George Denison (York)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Fell, Arthur

Moore, William

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Gardner, Ernest

Morpeth, Viscount

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Gordon, J.

Newdegate, F. A.

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Winterton, Earl

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Oddy, John James

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Younger, George

Hamilton, Marquess of

Percy, Earl

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster.

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Pretyman, E. G.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

Resolution agreed to: to be Reported tomorrow.

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.—[17th Day.]
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

CLAUSE 11.—(Exemptions from Undeveloped Land Duty, and Allowances.)
(1) Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged in respect of any land where the site value of the land does not exceed fifty pounds per acre.
(2) In the case of agricultural land exceeding that value, Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged so far as the site value of the land is due to the value of the land for agricultural purposes.
(3) Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on the site value of any parks, gardens, or open spaces which in the opinion of the Commissioners are open to the public as of right, or on the site value of any parks, gardens, or open spaces reasonable access to which is granted to the public, where in the opinion of the Commissioners that access is of benefit to the public as contributing to the amenity of the locality, or on the site value of any land which is used for the purpose of games or other recreation where the Commissioners are satisfied that the use of the land is for the benefit of the public or of the inhabitants of the locality, and that the land is so used under some agreement with the owner which, as originally made,
454
could not be determined for a period of at least five years.
The opinion of the Commissioners as to matters arising under this sub-section shall be final and not subject to any appeal.
(4) Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on any land not exceeding an acre in extent valued together with a dwelling-house for the purpose of Inhabited House Duty, and where land consists of or comprises gardens or pleasure grounds exceeding one acre but not exceeding two acres in extent, an allowance shall be given in respect of any Undeveloped Land Duty payable on the land of an amount of duty bearing the same proportion to the whole amount of duty payable as one acre bears to the whole extent of the gardens or pleasure grounds.
(5) Where agricultural land is at the time of the passing of this Act held under a tenancy originally created by a lease or agreement made or entered into before the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, the term of which exceeded one year but did not exceed twenty-one years, Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on the land during the continuance of the tenancy under that lease or agreement.
The CHAIRMAN: The point raised in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) was settled last night.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I propose to call attention to a point which I was stopped raising yesterday, and I wish to point out

455
that the leaving out of the word "agricultural" does exactly concern that point. The point is this: In the case of land which has a building value over the limit of £50 an acre, and yet has a value for agriculture greater still, whether that would be liable to the tax or not depends upon the construction of this sentence, and it would come into the question whether that land was agricultural land or not.
The CHAIRMAN: I think this Amendment, so far as I understand its real meaning, came on with the Debate which was taken last night on the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Chiozza Money), and I think the point which the hon. Member now desires to raise must be raised by some Amendment which will come on later.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask why the word "agricultural" is introduced in this place at all? What is the meaning of it?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson): The meaning is this: If we had not the word "agricultural" there the deduction might be claimed in respect of land which was not agricultural land at all. Nevertheless, a claim for deduction might be made as in the case of agricultural land, and we do not desire that that land should have the benefit of the agricultural exemption.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I venture to suggest that there is a distinction between this Amendment and that of the hon. Member for North Paddington. The Amendment of the hon. Member for North Paddington was to take away the first value of £50 from the site value, and this Amendment is for the purpose of allowing for a deduction from the Site Tax 'of the agricultural value, whatever the agricultural value may be. There is a good deal of land of which the value is over £50 which is bonâ fide let at the present moment for agricultural purposes, and therefore this Amendment is for the purpose of raising the point that agricultural value, so far as it exists and is bonâ fide, should be a deduction from the site value for the purpose of the Development Tax. I submit on that point the hon. Member is entitled to move.
Mr. E. G. PRETYMAN: I really think this proposal does raise quite a distinct point. We understood that agricultural
456
land applied to all land used for agriculture in regard to this particular exemption and if it is not built on, but having had raised a new definition, that land which may be used agriculturally, for some purpose or other, is still not agricultural land, I do submit that this is entirely a different case. The point is, what land should be exempted? The point we discussed before was whether agricultural land should be exempted, but this Amendment raises the point of what land should or should not be regarded as agricultural, and that is the point which the Attorney-General is called upon to answer.
Sir W. ROBSON: I submit not. I have not raised the question of what land is or is not agricultural; I have only said this is limited to agricultural land.
Mr. PRETYMAN: That is exactly the point, as to what is agricultural land.
The CHAIRMAN: I think on that ground I cannot refuse the Amendment. I was not perfectly certain about the matter myself, but I think on that point the Amendment may be allowed.
Mr. JAMES HOPE Mr. JAMES HOPE moved to amend section (2) by leaving out the word "agricultural" ["In the case of agricultural land exceeding that value."]
My point in regard to this Amendment is to bring out the case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), and that is that there are certain descriptions of land of which it may be said that they are agricultural, and at the same time it may be said they are not agricultural, as having a value, with development, other than agricultural. The agricultural value may in some cases be greater than the building value. Take the strip of land round Worthing, laid out in market gardens. There, there is an extraordinary development on market gardens owing to the conditions of climate and soil, and I have no doubt that the value of that land for agricultural purposes is greater than its value for any other purpose. It is near the town, and has a value for building purposes and a site value exceeding £50 an acre. There must be other places where the same thing applies in a lesser degree, and the point is this: If there is land which has an agricultural site value of £100, and it has a building value of £80, will it be altogether exempt, or will it have to pay on the £80 and only the odd £20 be exempted? That is the point I wish to raise, and in order to raise it and clear up the matter I accordingly move.
Sir W. ROBSON: The point raised by the hon. Member is one which arises upon an Amendment which is shortly to be moved by another hon. Member. I think it arises on that Amendment, and not on this Amendment at all. The meaning of the word "agricultural," as I have explained, is quite clear, and the effect of the section will be, if it is not kept in, that land which is in no sense agricultural and which is not particularly deserving of any exemption, but which is a mere rubbish or waste heap, might nevertheless be entitled to claim to be in the possession of an agricultural tenant, and there would be, although there was not any value in that land for agricultural purposes, a claim for an exemption. That is an extension of the agricultural exemption which we do not think should be given. We have to draw the line somewhere, and we think the agricultural exemption should be strictly limited to agricultural land. With regard to the case put by the hon. Member as to what the effect may be on certain very valuable agricultural land—land which may be so valuable that it may be dealt with in relation to site value, but may, nevertheless, become of less value for that purpose than for the purpose of building, I think I shall have to deal with it in a later Amendment. I recognise that the point will arise, and I will deal with it.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As far as I am concerned I am quite content to postpone the point to which the learned Attorney-General has referred, to the later Amendment, where I have no doubt it could be more conveniently considered, arid what I wish to address myself to is the earlier question of whether the words "agricultural land," as here included, are necessary. It is curious that the Government have declined to put in an exemption for agricultural land in those words on many occasions, and though they use the term themselves, they refuse to accept it from us, because they said it would be perfectly simple and easy for anyone to make his urban site agricultural land within the meaning of the law if they accepted our Amendment, but here the Attorney-General lays it down, that if he puts the term "agricultural land" into this section he will exclude any urban land, even if it is used for agricultural purposes.
Sir W. ROBSON: That is not so.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is very desirable that we should understand
458
one another. I will take the extreme illustration put by the Attorney-General, and I think I can make good my point. As I understood him he said: You may have a vacant town plot between houses used only as a rubbish heap, and if you do not put in the word "agricultural," even such a plot as that would get exemption. I think I do not misinterpret him now. Then he thinks that by putting in the term "agricultural" you will keep that land within the full force of the tax, and prevent it getting any benefit from this section (2). What was his argument to my hon. Friend earlier? It was that if you exempted agricultural land such plots as this would be sown with mustard and cress, and would become agricultural land at once. Therefore it is true that the word is quite useless even from his own point of view. Will he look at the definition clause, and he will see there that "The expression 'agriculture' includes the use of land as meadow or pasture land or woodland, or for market gardens, nursery grounds, or allotments, and the expression 'agricultural land' shall be construed accordingly." You have not, there, the extraordinary case of the rubbish heap, on which you have to sow mustard and cress, or vegetable marrow, or any other homely herb, but if you have a vacant plot of land, with a few sheep or cattle grazing on it, then it is agricultural at once. Therefore, if you put in the word "agricultural" here, you do not in the least degree produce the effect which the learned Attorney-General supposes, and the owner of this land who is, according to the Attorney-General's hypothesis, holding it up improperly and covering it with rubbish, has only to make some cultivation of the simplest kind involving any expense and giving some little return, and he at once gets the benefit of the section. I say that under this definition all this land to which the learned Attorney-General alluded can be made agricultural land at once and with ease, and that a great deal of that which is not agricultural land at all can be so treated, while a great deal of land which is bonâ fide and properly used for agriculture will be excluded. Under all these circumstances, I venture to press upon the Committee that the word "agricultural" is either mischievous or quite useless, and it had better be omitted.
Mr. PRETYMAN: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at sections (1) and (2) he will see that the word "agricultural" is quite unnecessary, for it will introduce unnecessary complications.

459
Where the word "agricultural" is wanted is only at the end of the clause, and even in the event which the Attorney-General suggested the only result would be—the only deduction which would follow—would be an agricultural valuation, which in such a case as he refers to would be infinitesimal. This is, after all, a matter of drafting, and under the section as it now stands you are creating complications in the mind of the landlord, you are going to erect an unnecessary duty, and you are going to gain nothing by it, while you will bring this clause into harmony with the previous provisions by simply dealing with land of over £50 an acre, the aggregate value of which in the cases mentioned by the Attorney-General would be exceedingly small. This is not a question of exemption but of machinery and drafting—a question of simplicity—and on that ground, and not on any party ground, or to exempt anyone, I appeal to the Government, in the name of common-sense, to take out this word, because it is unnecessary.
7.0 P.M.
The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): I cannot agree with the view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the object of the two sections. The first section, the one we have dealt with, says you are not to charge the duty in the case of any land where the site value does not exceed £50 an acre. Obviously that may not cover the case of all agricultural land. I know agricultural land, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it well, where the site value for agricultural purposes is far greater than £50 an acre, and which, in a virgin state, will be let for £5 an acre to grow potatoes. There is land near London which is used for growing watercress, and, I believe, so special is its quality, that it sometimes fetches £20 to £25 an acre. That is agricultural land, and that is the case we want to meet.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I quite see that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the only object of section (2) is to exempt land which has an agricultural value higher than £50 an acre, and in that case the word would be perfectly justified, and I should agree wth him. But that is not the object of the clause, and the next Amendment on the Paper, which the Government, I understand, are going substantially to accept, is going to alter the wording of section (2) and to give it the effect which has been claimed for it only
460
two days ago from that bench by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the effect which the Committee has all along understood it is intended to have, namely, that from any land which is subject to Undeveloped Land Duty the agricultural part of the value shall be deducted. We have been told that over and over again, and I understand the Government are about to accept an Amendment to make that clear, and it is on that assumption that I have been arguing. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not intend to allow all agricultural value to be deducted before Undeveloped Land Duty is charged, my argument in this case falls to the ground entirely, and I have nothing more to say on this, but we shall have a great deal to say when the next Amendment comes on.
Mr. HALDANE: But that would apply to agricultural land, and when we come to the Amendment of the Noble Lord (Lord It. Cecil) I shall probably find myself to a large extent in agreement with his view and with the view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The scheme of the clause is perfectly clear. What we are dealing with is, first, the general exemption of land which does not exceed £50 an acre. This further concession is to save agricultural land, and I am certainly not aware of any concession or promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which goes beyond that. I agree there is a good deal to be said for the Amendment of the Noble Lord.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The point I put when I raised a point of order was with regard to land which is used bonâ fide for agricultural purposes, but which at the same time has what I called yesterday an amenity value up to £100 or £200 an acre. I own a little bit myself, and am personally interested. It is bonâ fide let for agricultural purposes at 15s. an acre, and the agricultural site value would be perhaps £20 an acre. There is an amenity value up to £100 an acre. If the Undeveloped Land Tax is to be based upon the £1,000, I suggest that it is only fair that in so far as that land is utilised for the good of the community for bonâ fide agricultural purposes, the agricultural site value should be deducted from the amenity site value, and the Undeveloped Land Tax should be paid on the balance. That is the point I want to raise by the Amendment, and it is on that ground that I. support the Amendment, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in that very clear, concrete case,

461
the Undeveloped Land Duty will have to be paid upon the gross value of £100 per acre, or upon the net value of £100, less the agricultural value of £20?
Mr. HALDANE: If the land is let to a farmer it is presumably agricultural land, and he gets the benefit of the deduction. What the deduction will be will become clear when we get to the next Amendment. The hon. Member forgets the deduction.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am right as to the definition of agricultural land, and in saying that all the town plots that the Attorney-General wishes to rake in will be converted into agricultural land by growing cabbages and mustard and cress?
Mr. HALDANE: Yes, but let the right hon. Gentleman take the case before a referee and see what he says.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is exactly what I want to get at. The right hon. Gentleman now suggests that
we shall take the definition clause before a referee. He is wiser and more prudent than the Government, and will not allow what Parliament has sanctioned.
Mr. HALDANE: He will see whether the land is really what it seems to be, and not a little urban land dressed up with mustard and cress.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: We are dealing with a serious question. We ask why the word "agricultural" is needed here at all. On the very hypothesis of the section deduction is only allowable in the case of land used for agricultural purposes, therefore you get what you want. Why should you put in the word "agricultural"?
The CHAIRMAN: That question has been asked and answered by the Attorney-General.
Question put, "That the word 'agricultural' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 92.

Division No. 418.]

AYES.

[7.10 p.m.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Crooks, William

Henry, Charles S.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cullinan, J.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Alden, Percy

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Higham, John Sharp

Armitage, R.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Duckworth, Sir James

Holland, Sir William Henry

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Holt, Richard Durning

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hudson, Walter

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Elibank, Master of

Illingworth, Percy H.

Barker, Sir John

Erskine, David C.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Barnard, E. B.

Evans, Sir S. T.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Barnes, G. N.

Everett, R. Lacey

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Falconer, J.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Beale, W. P.

Ferens, T. R.

Jowett, F. W.

Beck, A. Cecil

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Kekewich, Sir George

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. George)

Findlay, Alexander

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Laidlaw, Robert

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lambert, George

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Gill, A. H.

Lamont, Norman

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Bowerman, C. W.

Glover, Thomas

Levy, Sir Maurice

Brace, William

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Lewis, John Herbert

Branch, James

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lupton, Arnold

Bright, J. A.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Brooke, Stopford

Gulland, John W.

Lynch, H. B.

Bryce, J. Annan

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hall, Frederick

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Hancock, J. G.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Macpherson, J. T.

Byles, William Pollard

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

M'Callum, John M.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

M'Micking, Major G.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Harwood, George

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Clough, William

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Massle, J.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Monzies, Sir Walter

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hedges, A. Paget

Mond, A.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Helme, Norval Watson

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Cowan, W. H.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Cox, Harold

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Rowlands, J.

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Myer, Horatio

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Napier, T. B.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Tiliett, Louis John

Norman, Sir Henry

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Verney, F. W.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Vivian, Henry

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Walters, John Tudor

Partington, Oswald

Scoft, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Paulton, James Mellor

Sears, J. E.

Waterlow, D. S.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Shackleton, David James

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Sherwell, Arthur James

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Shipman, Dr. John G.

White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Whitehead, Rowland

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Wilkie, Alexander

Rainy, A. Rolland

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Snowden, P.

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Soares, Ernest J.

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Stanger, H. Y.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N)

Richardson, A.

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Steadman, W. C.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Summerbell, T.

Robinson, S.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radciiffe)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Fletcher, J. S.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield>

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Forster, Henry William

Oddy, John James

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gardner, Ernest

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Ashley, W. W.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Baldwin, Stanley

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

Gordon, J.

Percy, Earl

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Pretyman, E. G.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hamilton, Marquess of

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Renwick, George

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bull, Sir William James

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hills, J. W.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Carlile E. Hildred

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Stanier, Beville

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Starkey, John R.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Kerry, Earl of

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Keswick, William

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Clive, Percy Archer

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Clyde, J. Avon

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Lockwood, Rt.-Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Courthope, G. Loyd

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Winterton, Earl

Dairymple, Viscount

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott-

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Younger, George

Doughty, Sir George

Moore, William

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Lane-Fox and Mr. L. Renton.

Faber, George Denlson (York)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Fell, Arthur

Newdegate, F. A.

Mr. CAVE: I beg to move to leave out the words "exceeding that value," and to insert "of which the site value exceeds fifty pounds per acre." If I rightly understand the meaning of the Bill, this is not much more than a drafting Amendment. The section as it stands reads: "In the case of agricultural land exceeding that value," the value referred to being £50 per acre. That may mean the total value, and I want to make it clear that it is site value, so that the land will have the benefit of the exemptions. I think that is the
464
meaning of the section, and therefore I beg to move.
Sir W. ROBSON: I think the words suggested by the hon. Member are a distinct improvement, and the Government will accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Lord R. CECIL: I beg to move, in section (2) to leave out "not" ["Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged"], and to insert the word "only." I do not know

465
whether the Government will accept this Amendment, but if they are going to do so I will not occupy the time of the Committee in stating my reasons for moving it.
Mr. HALDANE: There is no substantial difference between the Noble Lord and ourselves, and we accept the Amendment.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I wish to know whether, if this Amendment is accepted, it will have the effect that I desire it should have. I put the case on a former Amendment, and I will state it very briefly again. A piece of land has a value for agriculture and a value for building, and each is above £50 per acre. The agricultural value is higher than the building site value. That is to say, if let for agriculture it would fetch more than for building. Take it that the agricultural value is £100 per acre, and the building site value £80. Will the owner have to pay on the building site value of £80, or will he be exempt altogether from the tax when the agricultural value is £100? That is my point.
The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): I will read the section as it will stand when the Amendments have been made: "In the case of agricultural land, of which the site value exceeds £50 per acre, Undeveloped Land Duty shall only be charged on the amount by which the site value of the land exceeds the value of the land for agricultural purposes." Therefore the case put by the hon. Member will be as he says.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. CHAPLINhad on the Notice Paper the following Amendment—in section (2), after the word "so," to insert the words "long as the land is used for small holdings, market gardens, nursery grounds, or allotments, nor so."
The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment cannot be moved here, as the point it raises was decided yesterday.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Am I to understand that your ruling is that my right hon. Friend's Amendment is out of order on the ground that the House decided yesterday not to exempt agricultural land?
The CHAIRMAN: Anything beyond what was decided yesterday must come under the Definition Clause.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The point I wanted to put to you is this: That is a very wide exemption, and my right
466
hon. Friend wishes a much more restricted exemption in respect only of a class of agriculture which it has been the special object of this House to promote by legislation and otherwise. The fact that the House has refused to exempt all agricultural land would not, I submit, necessarily prevent us from giving better treatment to small holdings, market gardens, nursery grounds, or allotments.
Mr. CHAPLIN: Do I understand that the moving of this Amendment is precluded absolutely by what has gone before, or am I to understand that it may be moved at another place?
The CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether one purpose of the Amendment is to include in the term "agriculture" something which is not satisfactorily covered by the Definition Clause. That should be left for consideration on the Definition Clause. But I think that is a matter which was practically covered by the decision which we have already come to.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I beg to move, in Section (2), to leave out the words "is due to," and to insert the word "exceeds."
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. G. R. LANE-FOX: I beg to move to insert at the end of section (2), "and in the case of any land hired compulsorily by a county council or by the council of any borough, urban district, or parish under the powers conferred by the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged during the continuance of the term for which such land shall have been so hired." The House well knows that under the Small Holdings Act any land compulsorily hired for the purpose of small holdings can only be resumed by the owner for the purpose of building or development. If this duty is to be charged on undeveloped land, the actual owner wall have to pay the duty, and therefore there will be a direct incentive to that owner to take the land away from the small holders and to build upon it. I do not suppose that the Government want to put any obstacle of that kind in the way of promoting small holdings. The amount of revenue to be obtained is very small, but the section as it stands would have the effect of putting a very great check on the development of small holdings. I hope the Government will consider whether it will be possible to make this concession, for though it may not mean much from the point of view of

467
the revenue, it might be a considerable concession to small holders, and it would make it very much easier for the development of small holdings to go on.
Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. Member {Mr. Lane-Fox) was a Member of the Committee on the Small Holdings Bill. He will remember that the Government were much pressed to accept the view that the landlord ought to have the power to resume the land for the purposes of building. The clause in the Bill was drafted accordingly, giving the landlord the power of resumption. The argument used in favour of the clause was that, after all, the interests of the community in respect of land for housing and for the purposes of industry were paramount to those of agriculture. That was the argument of those who spoke on behalf of the landed interest. The Government were convinced by that argument. The land hired for small holdings may be near a town, and it may be essential for the development of the town that the landlord should be able to resume possession. In that ease we cannot allow that any special exemption should be made in its favour.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The position of the Government really is extremely difficult to follow. They thought it necessary a Session ago to take power to hire land compulsorily from the landlord in order to find allotments, especially in the neighbourhood of large towns. Now in this Session of Parliament they think it necessary to impose a tax on a landlord who has so let his land for the valuable purpose of allotments unless he at once uses the power that is reserved to him to revoke the lease and to enter into possession and build upon the land. Could anything be more absurd than such a quick change of position as that? The Attorney-General's argument, and the only argument by which he sought to defend it, was directed entirely to showing that the landlord had no special claim for exemption. My hon. Friend (Mr. Lane-Fox) did not put it on the ground of the landlord's claim for exemption. He argued that it was foolish to give powers one day to local authorities compulsorily to create these allotments and the next day to penalise the landlord if he did not exercise the power reserved to him of terminating the lease, and the Attorney-General's only justification for putting this pressure upon the landlord was that the
468
land may be urgently required for the development of the town. Of course you can imagine a plot of land which is urgently required for the development of the town; and that plot of land is likely to be obtained for that purpose when that urgent demand arises. The price is far too tempting to allow any landlord to keep it at the low rent which he gets from the allotments, and naturally he exercises the power reserved to him. But if he does not you have got powers to force him. You can expropriate him and hire the land for the purpose for which it is required. The great mass of this land is not thus urgently required for building. It has a building value. It is the old question which we can never get the Government to look in the face. While a certain amount of land is required in the neighbourhood of every growing town, there is a vast deal more land with a building value on which it is possible to build than can be absorbed at any one time or in any short period of years. I suppose there is not one of our big towns around which you cannot find land offered for building. In many cases two pieces of land are owned by one person, and a portion of the land is let in allotments until the other land is absorbed for building. Yet you are going to place a tax upon the man who keeps this land in allotments when it is not required for building and fine him because he serves the purpose, whether under compulsion or voluntarily, which last year you thought of sufficient importance to take compulsory power to oblige him to do.
Mr. HALDANE: If the land is not required for building then he will not be asked to pay on it.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Why not?
Mr. HALDANE: Because the land will not have the value. If it is required for building then it will have the value, and he ought to pay, because it is his duty to the community to make the land available. Therefore there cannot be any hardship under the clause as it stands, and it is consistent with the policy of the Act, which gave a power of resumption. This power is in the nature of a duty if the land became more desirable for building purposes.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do ask the Committee to examine for one moment the statement just made by the

469
Secretary of State for War. His statement is that no land has any value for building purposes unless it is required for building at the moment. That is his statement. That is prodigious nonsense; and everybody except the right hon. Gentleman knows it; and he will know it if he will make the slightest inquiry into the values of land in the neighbourhood of our big towns. There are thousands and thousands of acres all of which have a building value in excess of their agricultural value, but you cannot market them all to-morrow for building.
Mr. HALDANE: I did not say now.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman is shuffling.
Mr. HALDANE: The right hon. Gentleman has put a word into my mouth which I did not use, and then when I correct him he says that I am shuffling. That is not good Parliamentary manners.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not wish to be personally offensive, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to escape from the dilemma on which he has involved himself by altering his ground.
Mr. HALDANE: Do not alter my words.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman is attempting to attach a new meaning. What is his statement? I said that land not now required for building purposes and land remaining in allotments would be subject to this tax, and the right hon. Gentleman denied that, because he said that if it is not now required for building it will have no building value and nothing but an agricultural value. I am within the recollection of the House that this is the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made, and if he did not make that statement he made no answer to me at all. It was the only attempt at justification of the Government's position. That was the statement that no land at any given moment—I will not use the word now—has a building value unless it is required for building at that moment. That statement is nonsense. Everybody knows that there are hundreds and thousands of acres which have a building value, but which are not required for houses now. A small portion of them is required, but that small portion might be any portion. I do not think that we can have any more signal illustration, within the shortest possible compass, of the ignor-
470
ance of the Government of the subject with which they are dealing and of their total misconception of the elementary facts and of the fallacies on which they have based their proposals than were given in the half-dozen sentences of the Secretary of State for War.
Mr. COX: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Austen, Chamberlain) has introduced what appears to me to be unnecessary heat into our discussion. At the same time, I appeal to the Government to reconsider this point. It does not appear to be a very big point, but I really think it is a case where the concession ought to be made. Who is to pay this tax? The owner is to have the land taken away from him compulsorily. He is getting nothing out of it except its agricultural value. The county council are merely a go-between between the owner and the small holder, and the small holder is only using it for market garden purposes, and you cannot expect him to bear the tax. If you are going to put this tax on the owner yon are going to give an inducement to him to exercise his privilege and to throw the land again into the building market, although the county council has quite recently perhaps taken the land for small holdings, presumably because they think it useful for small holdings. I can quite understand the Government being reluctant to give way on various suggestions made from the other side, because they conceive that if they did so they would be cutting away the basis of their tax; but in this case they cannot think that because the thing is strictly limited. It is limited to cases of land which the county council have taken compulsorily, and it is quite clear that those cases will not be greatly extended. There will not be many of them, and therefore we are losing no revenue, and I do think they will be better carrying out the policy of last year if they do allow this small exemption; and I do not suppose that it will cost them a £10 note in the course of the year.
Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBY: I really think that the right hon. Gentleman must have got a little confused between the present value of land for building purposes and the prospective value for building purposes. It is, after all, a simple case. Some land can be built on at once and has got a present value for building purposes, and there is also a large amount of land in this country which would be liable for this Undeveloped Land Tax which has got a prospective building value. If

471
the right hon. Gentleman thinks over the matter he will discover that the greater part of this very land which my hon. Friend (Mr. Lane-Fox) wishes to exempt from this Undeveloped Land Tax is this very land which has got a prospective building value, and which is of particular value at the present time for small holdings and allotments. After all, the moment you get far away from the town and get away from the land which has got a prospective building value, then the land will be too far away to be of service to the railway men and other men employed in the town, and who wish to go out to their allotments. Of course, I consider that all the land held under the recent Acts passed by the Government for small holdings and allotments will have got a prospective building value, and will be liable to a heavy tax under the clause of this Bill. The whole thing is one of those extraordinary confusions of policy of His Majesty's Government. In the first Session of Parliament we were engaged passing a Bill in order to give security of tenure to farmers. In the next Session Parliament was passing a Bill in order to kick the farmers out for the small holders and the holders of allotments. This Session Parliament is engaged in passing a Bill to keep out the small holders and holders of allotments in order to put in cottagers. That is the only way we can explain the action of the Government at the present moment. It is perfectly palpable that is what they are doing. After they have gone through all this cumbrous machinery set up under previous Acts, after having turned out the farmer, having put the county council or the town council to the expense of taking up some land near a town with the prospective building value, and having got all the railwaymen, miners, and men employed in workshops to dig up the land and make it good land to grow their peas and potatoes on it, now you come along and put this tax on that land, because, according to the right hon. Gentleman, it will very shortly be required for building or is required for building, and you will compel the landowner to give all these men notice to quit and spend his £100 an acre on it and turn all these men out.
Sir FREDERICK CAWLEY: I cannot see any difference between a piece of land taken compulsorily by the county council and any other piece of land. The owner of that land is in exactly the same position
472
as any other land-owner. Any other landowner can turn his tenants out for building; and so can the man who has had his land taken compulsorily. He can turn out the tenant of the county council. Of course, if he likes to let the land remain with the tenant for the 38 years while the land is increasing in value he ought to pay the tax on it.
Mr. BALFOUR: Is it the policy of this Committee, or is it not, to allow a man to turn his land to the best account he can for himself, irrespective of what the result may be of so turning it to the community at large? I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Sir F. Cawley) that there is no valid distinction to be drawn between land compulsorily taken for small holdings and land voluntarily used for that purpose.
Sir F. CAWLEY: There is no difference between that land and land taken voluntarily, or any other land let by the landlord.
Mr. BALFOUR: I want to know whether the doctrine laid down by the hon. Gentleman is really the doctrine laid down by the Committee. Is it really the view that the proper use of land by the landlord is to get the biggest income he can out of it? If the Committee are of opinion that directly land is worth more to the community than the same land when used as accommodation land for railway men and other classes, then I agree that this Amendment ought not to be accepted. But I do not think that is the case. Supposing there is a demand for building land by the community that would be satisfied by ten acres in a given year. There are 20 acres available in the district where the cottages are required, so that ten acres may be actually used for small holdings and the remainder may be used for other agricultural purposes. I should have thought the idea would be to keep the small holdings rather than the larger holdings.
Sir F. CAWLEY: It would be an economic question whether a portion of the land would be better used for small holdings, and the other much better used as building land.
Mr. BALFOUR: The landlord is unfortunate who tries to frame his policy on the views expressed in the House of Commons. I have listened to a good many diatribes against land-owners, and the complaint used to be that the land-owners

473
always wanted to make the largest income they could, and I thought that proceeding was called "blackmailing." Not at all. It is "blackmailing" on the platform, but now it is "the highest economic use." Certainly it offers the land-owner an extremely narrow and very difficult path to follow in point of policy without bringing upon his head the condemnation either of Gentlemen below the Gangway, or of Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, who may take the blackmailing view, or of the other school who think the landlord is not doing his duty by the community unless he sells to the highest bidder who comes forward. I do not agree with that doctrine. If the view of the Committee that small holdings are a specially valuable use to which to put land, surely they ought not to add to the natural temptation which already exists of selling land to the highest bidder by the special inducement which the imposition of this tax carries with it. I cannot believe that anybody who votes against this Amendment can seriously go to our big towns and say they are in favour of extending the number of small holdings.
Mr. HALDANE: The right hon. Gentleman has made a speech of great interest, because he has brought out the question of principle. My only criticism upon what he says is this, that the principle which he puts forward as the principle of the clause is not the principle for which we are contending. It is quite true that this tax tends to bring land into the market; but that is not the purpose of the tax, or the only purpose. The purpose of the clause is to tax people on what they have got, what is actually there, the value of the land. The tax is put on the value which the land-owner possesses, whether let in the ordinary way, by voluntary agreement, or whether let to county councils with a resumption clause, such as the Act of last year gives them. The principle of the tax is simply that the person who has got this value at his disposition ought to pay something out of it. That is a principle which I think the right hon. Gentleman in his argument admitted. Whether the land is let to the county council compulsorily and with power of resumption, or whether it is let voluntarily, the person who has got the land seems to be in the same position, and the right hon. Gentleman said, very fairly, that if this arrangement were carried out it would have to be extended to other cases. But we are really discussing a very small and nugatory
474
question, for such land as might be taken is really of very small quantity.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I know of hundreds of acres used in this way.
Mr. HALDANE: There are plenty of other cases in which persons have let their land for other agricultural purposes because they are waiting for movements of population which will enable them to realise a still larger price, but the number of small holdings held under compulsory powers is so small and migratory that I really do not think it is worth while considering it.
Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAM: If the problem has this very minute form, I cannot understand why the Government should deliberately overthrow the work of a public body like the county council. The landlords are suspected of keeping land in market gardens and allotments in order that they may realise a greater future value; but, in the present case, will the Government for a moment deny that a public body like the county council, after looking far and near to find suitable land for small holdings, have acted in the public interest? If the land is to be diverted from the purpose for which it was acquired compulsorily, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he is putting a public body in a position in which it cannot possibly discharge the duties imposed upon it by earlier legislation? The very fact of there being so small an amount of land acquired compulsorily is a reason why the Government should give way, and is a proof that the county councils and other bodies have been at great pains to discover land, which, by its situation, is calculated to fulfil a great public object. I cannot understand the Government's hostility to agriculture, which denies to public bodies the exercise of powers so recently conferred upon them.
Mr. ARNOLD LUPTON: This Amendment is intended to do the Government out of the tax. Nothing is easier than for a landlord to divide his land into small holdings and get exemption from the tax in consequence. The right hon. Gentleman opposite attacked the Secretary for War for saying that the land would not sell as building land because it has not a building value. That is true, but it is a truth which is seldom heard in this House. Landlords may come to an agreement only to sell land for building purposes by the

475
yard, though if that land were put up for sale by auction to-morrow it would only be sold by the acre. I know the whole business. They say that all this building land must not be sold at less than 5s. a yard, though, as a matter of fact, it is only worth £50 an acre.
The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member's observations do not apply to the Amendment before the Committee.
Mr. LUPTON: My point is that the Secretary for War is absolutely right in what he said. This is one of the great causes of the unemployment in this country that we have to-day.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must keep to the Amendment.
Mr. LUPTON: I was trying to answer the points that had been raised by the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire, but since you rule the whole case for the Amendment as put by the right hon. Gentleman I will not continue.
8.0 P.M.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: As I understand it, this is a proposal to exempt land which has been compulsorily taken by the local authority and hired out again in allotments. The question has been asked, and is a very pertinent one, What is the difference between that land and land which the owner has voluntarily allowed the local body to hire out? It is impossible, as a matter of justice, to say that one category of that land should be taxed and the other should escape, because in both those cases the owner had through the local authority permitted his land to be used, or at all events it is being used, for the purposes of these small holdings. There is a further category of land than those two. We find in most of our best-managed estates round most of our large towns—I
myself know a great many instances of it—cases where the landlord himself has laid down for local purposes a considerable strip of land to be used for these small holdings. In those instances the practical point arises, Why should one, category of that land be taxed and the other not? As a matter of equity and justice, it is perfectly obvious that there is no answer to that question, except that such land ought to be treated alike in all those three cases. Therefore it is only possible to support this Amendment on the basis that it ought to be extended, and that it ought to include not merely the land which is compulsorily taken and hired out in the way that is suggested, but also the other land that is similarly used. Of course, those are points that have already been raised in several Amendments on previous days, and they have been refused by the Government. Now, when a case is brought forward, such as is involved in this Amendment, where the particular hardship and the particular grievance—aye, and a step further, the great impolicy of the tax—is shown, and that it is a most impolitic thing to do anything to dissuade landlords from allowing land in the vicinity of towns from being used for a very excellent purpose, the Government find themselves in such a position that they are bound to refuse to accept it. I shall vote for the Amendment, not because I think that that-particular category of land is any more worthy of exemption than many others, but because I think it ought to be exempted, and if there were other Amendments proposed to bring other categories into the same exemption, I should feel myself bound in the same way to-support them.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 204.

Division No. 419.]

AYES.

[8.5 p.m.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckam)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Gordon, J.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Clyde, J. Avon

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Ashley, W. W.

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

Baldwin, Stanley

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cox, Harold

Hills, J. W.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Doughty, Sir George

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kerry, Earl of

Bowles, G. Stewart

Faber, George Denison (York)

Keswick, William

Bull, Sir William James

Fell, Arthur

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Fletcher, J. S.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Cave, George

Forster, Henry William

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gardner, Ernest

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Starkey, John R.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stone, Sir Benjamin

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Pretyman, E. G.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Remnant, James Farquharson

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Moore, William

Renwick, George

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Newdegate, F. A.

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Rutheriord, Watson (Liverpool)

Oddy, John James

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Lane-Fox and Mr. Younger.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Stanier, Seville

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Rainy, A. Holland

Acland, Francis Dyke

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Harwood, George

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Alden, Percy

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Armitage, R.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Richardson, A.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Baker, Joseph A. (Flnsbury, E.)

Hazelton, Richard

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Hedges, A. Paget

Robinson, S.

Barker, Sir John

Helme, Norval Watson

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Barnard, E. B.

Henry, Charles S.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Barnes, G. N.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Higham, John Sharp

Rowlands, J.

Beale, W. P.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Holt, Richard Durning

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Brace, William

Hudson, Walter

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Branch, James

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Bright, J. A.

Jardine, Sir J.

Sears, J. E.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Seely, Colonel

Brooke, Stoptord

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Shackleton, David James

Bryce, J. Annan

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Jowett, F. W.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Kekewich, Sir George

Simon, John Allsebrook

Byles, William Pollard

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Soares, Ernest J.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Laidlaw, Robert

Stanger, H. Y.

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Lambert, George

Steadman, W. C.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lamont, Norman

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Clough, William

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Levy, Sir Maurice

Summerbell, T.

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lupton, Arnold

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Cowan, W. H.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Crooks, Willam

Lynch, H. B.

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Cullinan, J.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Tillet, Louis John

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Macpherson, J. T.

Verney, F. W.

Duckworth, Sir James

M'Callum, John M.

Vivian, Henry

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Walton, Joseph

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

M'Laren H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Wardle, George J.

Elibank, Master of

Markham, Arthur Basil.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Everett, R. Lacey

Massie, J.

Waterlow, D. S.

Falconer, J.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Ferens, T. R.

Menzies, Sir Walter

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Micklem, Nathaniel

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Mond, A.

Whitehead, Rowland

Findlay, Alexander

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Wilkie, Alexander

Fuller, John Michael F.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Gill, A. H.

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Glover, Thomas

Myer, Horatio

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Napier, T. B.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Norman, Sir Henry

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Gulland, John W.

Partington, Oswald

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Hail, Frederick

Pearce William (Limehouse)

Hancock, J. G.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

TELLERS. FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk E.)

Mr. GEORGE RENWICK (for Mr. Joynson Hicks)Mr. GEORGE RENWICK (for Mr. Joynson Hicks) moved to insert, at the end of section (2), the words "Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged in respect of land acquired for the extension or improvement of manufactories or industrial works."
I ask leave to move this Amendment, which I think raises a very important point, because I believe it is well known to all those connected with manufactories and industrial works in this country that in almost all cases when the works are founded more land is acquired for carrying on those works than is immediately required, or, in other words, provision is made for any future extension of such works. It happens invariably in connection with railways that they have a certain amount of land waiting for extension. It happens also in connection with most of our industrial works, such as shipbuilding, ship repairing, glass making, marine engineering, timber yards, and other open-air industries. This land is not immediately required, but it has been acquired at the same price as the land which is being used. I have referred before to a case with which I am personally acquainted, where 18 acres of land were acquired at a very high price, and only eight acres were immediately required. Efforts have been made to sell a portion of the remaining 10 acres, but without avail. It stands to reason that that land in the immediate neighbourhood of a large factory has no site value as far as cottages, workmen's dwellings, or residences of any description are concerned. It has a site value for buildings in connection with the factory, but for nothing else. It would be as absurd to put dwelling-houses upon a site on the banks of the Manchester Ship Canal, or of any other navigable water-way, contiguous to great factories, as it would be to put workmen's dwellings in one of our great squares in the West End of London. Land, especially on the banks of a water-way and in the neighbourhood of great factories, is required, urgently in some cases, and later in most, for the extension of the works; and it is of the greatest importance to our manufacturers and those connected with industrial undertakings that the Government should give their favourable consideration to this Amendment. There is no desire to take undue advantage, but they want to have land already acquired exempted from this tax.
If another argument is required to commend this proposal it was supplied by the Prime Minister this afternoon, when he told us that the valuation will commence with undeveloped land. Therefore we may find manufacturers in this extraordinary position. Take the shipbuilding and the marine engineering industries, both of which are in a state of great depression. Many of our shipbuilding yards have their shares at an enormous discount; they are making no profit; and yet, if this undeveloped land is valued, as no doubt it will be, at the price of the portion of the land which is being used, then notwithstanding the fact that the company is making no income, it will be saddled with this heavy tax. The instance to which I referred is a case in the neighbourhood of Manchester, where there are 10 acres of surplus land. The whole of the land was acquired at £1,250 per acre. It stands to reason that the neighbouring land will probably be assessed at £1,250 per acre. That represents not a few shillings, but £5 2s. 4d. per acre per annum for Undeveloped Land Tax. I do not think the Committee can say that it is either fair or just, or that it will help the industries of the country to place a charge of that description upon such land. This is a real substantial grievance, to which manufacturers in all parts of the country earnestly desire Parliament to give its attention. It is an important matter for towns, whether large or small. Take, for instance, the town of South Shields, which the Attorney-General knows very well. There is no town in the country in greater want of undeveloped land. South Shields is bounded on the east by the sea and on the north by the river. It has large shipyards and ship-repairing yards. Owners of works are most anxious to extend them, but there is no undeveloped land to enable them, to do so. Two of the largest firms have acquired land by purchasing public-houses and dwelling-houses, pulling them down, and diverting roads, in order to extend their works. The serious part of the matter to towns is this. A factory may be of vital interest to a town, and the manufacturer will be face to face with the problem whether it will pay him better to buy up the surrounding property or to remove his factory altogether. If he chooses the latter alternative, there is an immense drop in rateable value to the town, and many people are thrown out of employment. It is for this reason that manufacturers, knowing the difficulty of getting land in many cases when it is

481
wanted, have had the foresight to buy more land than is actually required for the moment. I do not think the Committee has quite grasped this important subject. If the result of this Undeveloped Land Tax is to force land into the market, who is going to buy it? The company owning the land may not be making a profit, and they may be unable to raise further capital. Land speculators will step in, for they will say, "Sooner or later this land will be required by the works to whom it now belongs. We will buy it, and hold it, and then when the company wants it we will make them pay for it." We have been told that this tax is based upon the experience of Germany. It is a curious thing that the very state of things to which I have referred has arisen in Germany. Only last week there was a conference of the National Town Planning Society, at which a representative from Munich said:—
"In Berlin land speculators have acquired all the land purchaseable for a great distance, and before long they will be able to command prices 10, 20, or even 50 times greater than were originally paid for the land."
That is an aspect of the matter which the Government have not anticipated. The original land-owner may have to part with the land, but the Government cannot prevent land speculators in this country, as in Germany, acquiring the land and then, when it is required, demanding 10, 20, or even 50 times the price they paid. For these reasons I submit that this Amendment should be accepted by the Government. We do not want to take any undue advantage, as I have said. I believe that most manufacturers would be perfectly satisfied if the Amendment were limited to land already acquired for the legitimate purpose of the extension of works. If the Government look at it from a reasonable point of view I am sure they must acknowledge that it would be one of the worst day's work this House ever did if it passed an Act injuring the industrial development of the country. I am certain that if an Amendment of this description is not accepted we shall do an irrevocable wrong to many manufacturers and others connected with our great industries. If that is so, it is not the rich land-owner who will suffer, and probably not the owners of factories. It is the working class who will suffer. They are the men who will be thrown out of work by a tax of this description. For all these reasons I commend this Amendment to the favourable consideration of the Government, and I beg to move.
Sir WILLIAM ROBSON: What does the sum of the argument of the hon. Gentleman lead to? He spoke, for instance, of the manufacturer, who would be paying under this tax £5 per acre for land adjacent to his manufactory which he some day would require for the purposes of his business. This would be such a heavy burden, he said, that the manufacturer would be driven to sell his land—already, he says, such a result has happened in Germany—the land will fall into the hands of speculators, and will be no longer available for the purposes of his business, and the working man will suffer! Of course, those are dreadful consequences. But let us look at the premises upon which they are founded. If the manufacturer is called upon to pay £5 an acre for land adjacent to his works, that would mean that the land itself was worth £2,500 an acre. This is on the hypothesis that he is not using the land. If he were using the land, it would be entirely exempt, because it would be used for the purposes of trade or business. But he has bought this land for use; for future possibilities in connection with his business, and he is content to stand out of the interest on £2,500. Manufacturers generally reckon on making more than 4 per cent. They get it more often than the Income Tax Returns show. He is, therefore, standing out of an income of from £100 to £200 per year. Yet, according to the hon. Gentleman, the moment you put on a charge of £5 a year, he cannot hold the land any longer! His business must be without extension, the workman without employment, and the decadence of the district will have set in. That scarcely seems to us a hypothesis that justifies exemption. The Amendment is not by any means one which the Government would be disposed to accept without very very strong reasons being shown. See what it involves. It says that the duty shall not be charged in respect of land acquired for the extension of manufactories or for industrial purposes. "For," means "for the purpose of," and "for the purpose of" is a reference to the intentions of the purchaser of the land. How are we to judge of that? Because land is purchased by a manufacturer, and may be somewhere in the neighbourhood of his works—that, no doubt, is, under ordinary circumstances, very reasonable grounds for supposing that he bought it for extensions, and means to use it for purposes which would give him exemp-

483
tion—but he could use it for other purposes. We cannot test the accuracy of his intentions. We cannot bind him down to carry them out. This is not an Amendment that we could on those grounds possibly accept. I cannot help thinking that hon. Members opposite alarm themselves unnecessarily by drawing these very small burdens as though they were bound to have a result, which undoubtedly in some cases will happen, to make the owner of the land throw his land upon the market a little earlier than he otherwise would. That is the tendency which will operate in some cases, but it is a mistake to suppose that that is the only object of the tax.
Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman, from the nature of his reply, seems to have misread the purport and object of this Amendment. So far as I am concerned, I should support this Amendment just with the same keenness that I support, and have supported, Amendments for the exemption of agricultural land. And on these grounds: that they are both manufactories. Land is the raw material for the manufacture of food. Land is necessary for the building and extension of existing manufactories, and in that sense also it is raw material; and the extension of manufactories, together with the improvement of the condition of agriculture, have both one common result and advantage, among other things, that they provide more employment for the people of all classes. That is an object on which both sides of the House already unquestionably are agreed. That is an object which Members of the Liberal party, quite as much as Gentlemen on this side of the House, are always professing their anxiety to improve so far as means and opportunities allow. What are the objections to the proposal of my hon. Friend? All I can gather from the hon. and learned Gentleman is this. He says: "Oh, but manufacturers may be standing out for future possibilities!" I take the words of the Amendment, "Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged in respect of land acquired for the extension or improvement of manufactories, or other industrial works." Why should he be standing out for an increased price for his land on the chance of his selling it when the very object of his purchase is to use it for extension? "But," says the hon. and learned Gentleman, "even supposing that is so, we cannot bind him to carry out his pro-
484
jects." I should have thought that it was quite unnecessary to have any means, or even the power, to bind him. You cannot have a greater inducement that a man should keep his bargain than his own interest. This land has been purchased because it is necessary and required, or will be necessary in the course of time, for the business in which the man is engaged. I fail altogether to see the reason why there need be any fear of his parting with his land because he might get a higher price for it. So far as I am concerned, I shall give my most hearty support to the Amendment of my hon. Friend. If I did it on no other ground I should do it on these grounds: That this Amendment and the object of my hon. Friend is to improve the position of the various industries in this country, so providing more employment for the people, especially at the present, when one of the greatest difficulties and one of the most terrible problems that we have to face is the enormous lack of employment. I cannot conceive anything more unfortunate than the opposition of the Government to an Amendment of this kind, the effect of which at all events, if carried, would certainly be in the direction of helping and not hindering employment.
Mr. G. N. BARNES: I must say I have very considerable sympathy with this particular Amendment, because it seems to me that the object aimed at is rather to relieve manufacturers who may be otherwise hard hit, and who have to contend with very serious competition. I understand that the object of this particular tax is to bring land into the market from those people who hold it up not for any reason connected with business, but for the purpose of getting an enhanced price, and it seems to me that the particular class of land referred to in the Amendment does not come into that class. The Amendment seems to be right in principle, but at the same time I cannot vote for it as it is framed, because it is open to an interpretation going very much beyond the object stated by the hon. Member who moved it. The Amendment proposed to exempt land which has been acquired for the extension or improvement of manufactories or other industrial works. Thai, of course, would leave it open to any manufacturer to say that 20 acres of land around his works had been acquired for the purpose at some time or another of extending his business. At the same time, I do not agree with the argument advanced by the Attorney-

485
General that the manufacturer, in holding land, is depriving himself of the value he might get in the shape of interest provided that the land was really bought for the purposes of extension. That argument does not apply. I desire to make what I regard as a practical suggestion. I do not see any reason why we should not have some part of this Amendment embodied in the Bill. I think it would come in in sub-section 4, where there is a provision that in the event of one acre of land being held, together with a dwelling-house, that acre should be exempt from taxation. I should like to see some part of this Amendment embodied in the Bill by which a limited and modest amount of land held by a manufacturer for the purposes of his business should be exempt, and if the Amendment was moved in that form I should support it.
Mr. ALFRED MOND: The speech which the hon. Member has just made is of a very practical nature. I certainly felt that the reply of the Attorney-General to the Mover of the Amendment was not altogether convincing. The case of a manufacturer having to buy a larger quantity of land than he actually wants to build upon is well known to those acquainted with industrial enterprise. No one can tell when starting out on a new enterprise how much land he can cover, and no prudent manufacturer would limit himself barely to the land which he required for his warehouses at the time being. Under sub-section (2), section 10, the words are used, "Land which is being used bonâ fide for any business, trade, or industry, other than agriculture." These words are remarkably vague, and it is very difficult exactly to know what they mean. I hope the Attorney-General will give us some interpretation of these words. If these words mean what I think they were intended to, there may be no necessity for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle. I would like to ask the Attorney-General this question: Suppose you have a 10-acre plot of land, and supposing you have a factory occupying half an acre at the end of it, and suppose the rest of the land is not covered with buildings, but is used partly for railway sidings and coal storage and timber storage, is that land land which is being used under the conditions of subsection (2), Clause 10? If it is, that would seem to me to meet the difficulty. It is difficult to find just what you are actually using. If the Attorney-General assures me that this clause means what I think it was meant to mean, then the Amend-
486
ment would be unnecessary. A good deal of such land is utilised by a manufacturer long before he wants to cover it with buildings. I think the Government might very well consider the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Black-friars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes). I quite agree with the Attorney-General that this halfpenny tax probably will not ruin any manufacturers or seriously interfere with them; still, there is no reason why you should not plainly and logically carry out the intention as I understand it in sub-section (2) of section 10. You already exempt land which is being used, and therefore I think you ought logically to extend the exemption further to land which is to be used for similar purposes. The principle underlying the Amendment is a perfectly reasonable one, and I think it should be met with sympathetic consideration by the Government.
Mr. CAVE: I do not want to introduce controversial matters, but I cannot help remarking that when we were dealing with the industry of agriculture we got very little sympathy from the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Mond) or the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes), but when a question is raised dealing with industrial matters in which they are naturally interested we do get a little sympathetic consideration from them. With regard to the Amendment in question, I do not think the hon. Member for Chester's argument with regard to the construction of certain sections quite covers the point. At present the only land which is to be exempt in this connection is land actually used for the purposes of the manufacture. I do not think that a nominal or collusive use such as he suggested would do—
Mr. MOND: I did not mean to imply any collusion. I merely meant land not used for the purpose of building upon it.
Mr. GEORGE CAVE: Not as a merely nominal user. Supposing a manufacturer looks a little ahead. He has a place of business, and he hopes and believes it will grow, and in a short time, perhaps in 5, 10, or 15 years, he will need to extend his business. If he is a wise man he buys more land than he can use at the time, and if he gets a chance he buys the adjoining land, hoping the time will come when his factory will need extension. It cannot be said that that man is holding up land which he ought to sell. On the contrary, he is a

487
wise man, and has prepared for the time when he may want to develop his factory and his business. That man ought to have some consideration, and you should not discourage that kind of prevision and prudence because he has provided for the near future. Surely that case can be met. The Attorney-General will see that the object of this Amendment is appreciated in all parts of the House, and the only question is what is a safe way to meet it without destroying the effect of the tax in the large towns and cities. Would it not be met in this way? The tax might be confined to land bonâ fide required for the purpose of extending a manufactory or place of business, and giving exemption from the tax for a reasonable time only. This exemption might be put, if you like, at 10 years. What I suggest is that where it is proved that land has been bonâ fide acquired for the purpose mentioned in this Amendment, namely, for the extension or improvement of manufactories or industrial works, then the land shall be free from the Undeveloped Land Duty for a period of 10 years from the time it is acquired. I think that meets the object of the hon. Member for Glasgow, and it might be considered in connection with the present Amendment. If the land has been acquired before the passing of this Act, if it passes, in that case the exemption would extend for a period of 10 years from the passing of the Act, so that a man will have time to develop his business. I hope we shall approach this matter in a wholly uncontroversial spirit, and I trust this Amendment will be carefully considered.
Sir JOHN RANDLES: The Attorney-General apparently is of opinion that this tax will not bear very hardly upon manufacturers. That is perhaps true, but the same argument would apply to any of the taxes which it is proposed to place upon people by this Bill. The Increment Tax and the royalties may be of small moment taken individually, but the tendency of them is to pile charges up which cumulatively have a serious effect upon the manufactories and industries of the country. I think the recognition by the Government of the claims of agriculture may fairly be carried into the domain of manufacturing industries generally. It is a fact that about any large works, such as iron works, the manufacturer must take a very large area of land other than that which is immediately required, because he
488
has to provide for an enormous deposit of waste or slag, which must be deposited upon the land somewhere which is undeveloped, and which, so far from being developed, will ultimately be covered with refuse material which may be regarded in the nature of a nuisance. It will be hard lines on the manufacturer if he were compelled to pay a tax upon undeveloped land which really never was intended to be developed, and which was required for such purposes as I have indicated. Further, a manufacturer choosing the site for an iron works must take, not only the 10 or 20 acres on which the works will actually be erected, but he must take a very considerable area of the surrounding land. Probably he might have to buy a whole farm, because his works are going to be something in the nature of a nuisance to the immediate neighbourhood, and the land-owner will not wish to sell 20 acres for this purpose, because so much surrounding land will be spoiled by the immediate continuity of the works. Consequently the manufacturer is obliged to take a larger area than the immediate necessities of his case demand. In view of future development, he may be obliged to take a very much larger area of land than he originally contemplated. I do not know how the Attorney-General will be able to meet our object in the wording of the Bill, but I am quite sure, with a disposition to meet the legitimate requirements of manufacturers, he will be able to find words which will carry out the obvious intention of Members on all sides of the House. I am not sure that the 10 years' restriction which has been suggested would meet the case I have in mind. In cases of large iron and steel works perhaps hundreds of acres are taken which will not be 10 years before they are developed, but may possibly be 20, 30, or 40 years. In fact, it will be almost impossible to develop them by reason of the nature of the industry or occupation carried on. With a disposition to meet such cases and such requirements, I am sure the Government can, if they will, instead of putting hindrances and burdens on manufacturers, do something to prevent an increase of the load which is already upon them. In any foreign countries where they desire to have manufactories, you find, so far from burdens being placed upon industries of this kind, arrangements are made by which taxes and rates are not charged upon manufacturing and industrial undertakings for a long period of years. Exemptions are made in many countries

489
to attract and induce the opening up of manufacturing industries. We are not asking for that, but I think it is a reasonable thing to ask that in the apportioning of burdens some regard should be had to those who are doing all they can under the very difficult conditions of manufacturing industries to compete with other nations which have different tariff arrangements to ours. I think in that way we might relieve to a certain extent the burdens upon our industries.
Mr. W. P. BYLES: I am disappointed to find my hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars and the hon. Member for Chester lending even a partial support to this Amendment. I have only risen because I take a totally different view, and I hope the Attorney-General will not give way one inch to this Amendment. I understand the intention of the Bill is that we should derive some revenue from a tax upon undeveloped land. If that is the principle, surely it is a strong case for imposing the tax upon the kind of land referred to in this Amendment, because the words of it are "land acquired for the extension or improvement of manufactories or other industrial purposes." Land which has been acquired to keep it undeveloped until it is wanted is precisely the kind of land the Government has thought should bear revenue. I think the exemptions with regard to agriculture are all wrong, and see no reason why one industry should be relieved any more than another; but because we have exempted and relieved agriculture, surely that is no reason why we should exempt these manufactories and industrial works. Of course, the tax is an unpleasant burden, and has a slight effect in deterring manufacturers from acquiring land, but that is inevitable with regard to all taxation. You have got the money to raise, and if it is not raised on land surrounding manufacturers' works you will have to put it on something else. I suppose hon. Member's opposite, if they had to do it, would put the tax on those far less able to bear it I sincerely hope the object of the Bill will be kept clearly in view by the Government, and that neither this exemption nor any other will be made.
Mr. PRETYMAN: This Amendment, besides being important in itself, has been rather instructive in the matter of the Debates and the quarters from which it has been supported. The hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Mond) and the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of
490
Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) both look at this tax from a very different standpoint when it affects industries of which they themselves have some knowledge and experience. They then find it is going to injure those industries, and that exemption ought to be granted. We might, on that ground, ask them to have some sympathy for industries which are going to be infinitely more injured than the industries it is proposed to exempt here. [An HON. MEMBEE: "Which?"] Why, the industry of developing building land and agriculture. Do not hon. Gentlemen understand that this tax is going to fall upon the industries of the country as a whole? The hon. Member for Chester was rather inclined to attribute selfish interest to us on this side of the House. I hardly think it comes very well from him to immediately support an Amendment which, clearly in the most direct way affects an industry with which he himself, I believe, is associated.
9.0 P.M.
I can understand the objection of the Attorney-General to accepting the Amendment in the form in which it is upon the Paper, because it is rather wide, but I would suggest, and I think I have the consent of my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Renwick), that, instead of the words upon the Paper, my hon. Friend should withdraw his Amendment and move it again in the following form: "Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged in respect of any land proved to be reasonably acquired for the extension or improvement of manufactories or other industrial works and in the same ownership." That, I think, would prevent any undue stretching of the privilege which would be granted. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) rather suggested a time limit. I am not in favour of a time limit for this reason: We have two distinct objects to serve—First, to exempt all land already acquired for the object of future extensions; and, secondly, to enable manufacturers in the future to carry out the very wise principle, when they buy a site for a factory, always to purchase enough land to allow for reasonable extensions. The House has universally approved of the action of the Admiralty, when it bought the site at Rosyth, in buying a large area of land which would allow for all future extensions. Hon. Members behind me who have spoken, have much more practical knowledge than I have of this question, but they have left out one consideration.

491
It does not only affect the future growth of factories, but also their present construction. It is obvious there are two ways of making extensions. There is the economical and businesslike way of leaving plenty of room in the first instance between the different buildings and departments of the factory to allow for separate extensions, and there is the other way of crowding them all together and then afterwards of having to pull them down to extend them.
It is important to manufacturers that they should be able to put their buildings some distance apart, and that each building should be capable of subsequent extension. Although the extra tax may not be a very large sum in proportion to that which the manufacturer would have to spend in buying his land, it is just one of those factors which tell. It is the last straw which is the burden. When a man is thinking of setting up a factory or works, it is a common thing that there is a very small margin in his mind as to whether it is worth his while and whether he is justified in embarking his capital or not. I do not say that where it is obvious a man must succeed in his enterprise, this tax is going to prevent him buying land or establishing a factory; but, where it is a question whether it is worth embarking in a certain enterprise or not, you cannot afford to introduce any factor, however small and however out of proportion to the total cost, which will act as a deterrent to any man or company in starting a new enterprise and employing fresh labour. It cuts both ways. If the tax is small the relief is small. The measure of relief to the taxpayer is the measure of the loss of the Government; and if the relief to the taxpayer is small the loss to the revenue is small. I am not speaking of this from the point of view of the individual. I very much desire to protest against the suggestion constantly made on the other side of the House that we on this side of the House are here to protect the interests of the individual taxpayer or the owners of property. That is not what we are here for. We are here to look after the interests of the nation as a whole, just as much as the Government; and it is entirely from that point of view we approach this question, from the national point of view, and from the point of view of revenue. The Government will get a great deal more in revenue by encouraging enterprise and industry than by penalising it in the manner 'proposed by this tax. They will get more
492
revenue by encouraging industries to make money, and then getting their revenue out of the money when it is made, than by putting on small harrassing restrictions and taxes of this kind, which will be a burden upon an industry from the very moment it is started and before it has made any money. It will be a deterrent, and will inflict an injury entirely out of proportion to the amount of revenue raised. It is an unbusinesslike proceeding from the pure national point of view of sound finance, and I think the Government would be wise to accept the Amendment, and they ought to be extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for moving it.
Mr. W. H. COWAN: I hope the Government will not give way in this matter. A great deal has been said in the course of this Debate about interested motives. Certain Members are supposed to represent certain interests rather than the interests of their Constituents, and two hon. Members, who have spoken more or less in support of the Amendment, have been twitted by right hon. Gentlemen opposite with being influenced by their personal interest—in one ease that of a manufacturer, and in the other case that of a working man. I am also interested in manufactories, and I have no hesitation in saying, and I know something of the subject, that this small tax cannot have any prejudicial effect upon the extension of any manufactory. And, on the other hand, that contribution, being in the nature of relief for the rates, will facilitate the extension of manufactures, a man who establishes a manufactory looks ahead, and, unless he sees profitable business to be done, is not likely to buy more land to establish a factory than is actually required. If later on ha does buy more land he does so because he is doing a profitable business. There is a sense in which hon. Gentlemen supporting the Amendment are looking ahead; they are looking to the time when the tax has grown up—when the halfpenny has become a shilling, and that is what they fear. Personally I do not fear that; but, clearly, they can only object to this because of the prospect of some enormous increase of this tax. I think if those who are supporting this Amendment would have the straightforwardness to say so, the fact is that is what they are looking forward to, and they do not regard this mineral tax as in any way handicapping their manufactory; what they fear is an increase of the tax.
Mr. RENWICK: I am quite willing to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, but I think I have a right to say a word or two in reply to certain criticisms.
The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we had better put matters in form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Further Amendment proposed, at the end of section (2) to insert the words, "Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged in respect of any land proved to be reasonably acquired for the extension or improvement of manufactories or other industrial works in the same ownership."—[Mr. Renwick.]
Sir W. ROBSON: I do not think this is an Amendment on which the Committee will desire to spend much time, and I therefore propose to deal with it in as few words as possible. I need not repeat the objections I put forward on behalf of the Government to the original Amendment, but I must say I think that the words it is proposed to substitute introduce a very dangerous principle. If the manufacturer really thought it worth his while to purchase land near his works in view of further developments there could be no objection to his keeping it in view of that possibility. But what he will have to prove will be the necessity of buying the land, and of keeping it undeveloped until some future time when he may require it. How is he to prove that it is reasonably required for the extension of his works? It can, after all, only be an expression of opinion; but taking the case put forward by the Mover of the Amendment, I say that if the manufacturer feels that the land is required for the purposes of the future expansion of his works, he would not sell that land because of the extra burden put upon it. If he thinks it worth his while to secure the land in order to keep it, in view of future developments, surely he ought not to object to pay a very small tax upon it. The words of section (2) provided that the land shall be deemed to be undeveloped land if it has not been developed by being built upon, and therefore it will not be subject to the Development Tax.
Sir J. RANDLES: The case I put was that of land not being actually used at the time, but the larger area of land which was being kept in reserve for that purpose.
Sir W. ROBSON: That is the kind of illustration which it is absurd to put before the House. The Question will be a matter for the tribunal appointed to deal with these matters, and not for this House at all. The case of a factory was put which spoils the adjacent land, and which nobody wants, and in that case I should say that land which was subjected to all these disadvantages from the neighbourhood of a factory was certainly exempt. The Amendment, as it is now before the Committee, suggests that litigation of a costly character should be entered upon in regard to a matter which could scarcely be satisfactorily decided by anybody as to whether a manufacturer really does or does not deal with his property for the purposes of future extension of his business. It is only introducng a fresh element of doubt into the matter, and I put it to the Committee that, in view of the very great quantity of business we have to go through, the time has come for a decision on this point.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There is an amazing difference in the capacity of the referees to decide questions, according to whether the Government want them to decide them or not. The Attorney-General has just told us that it would be perfectly easy for a referee to decide what amount of value is reasonable in regard to the disposal of slag turned out from furnaces, but says it is absurd to bring a case of that kind before the House of Commons. We cannot decide it here, but the referee apparently will decide it standing on his head, without any difficulty whatever. But the same referee will be absolutely unable to give a reasonble answer to the question, What is the amount of land which can be reasonably reserved for future development? The arguments are absolutely contradictions one of the other. If the one thing is possible the other is possible; if the one thing is easy, the other thing is easy; and if the one thing will lead to a vast amount of costly litigation, then so will the other. They stand on exactly the same footing, and anything which could be said about one of these operations could equally be said about the other. According to the Attorney-General's earlier observation, no manufacturer would be forced to sell land reasonably required for future extension of his works by the fact of this small tax being imposed. I think that is very probably so, but is that the principle on which the tax is founded? We have had two arguments urged in favour of the

495
tax. One is, you are not making a proper use of your land, and by proper use for this purpose the Government mean that use which is of the greatest benefit, or which they conceive to be of the greatest benefit to the whole community. The other argument is that people hold up their land, and if you fail to force them to build upon it therefore your tax fails to produce its essential object.
I agree that the tax would not in a prosperous concern force the manufacturer to sell his land, but I say it is impossible for the Government to defend a tax imposed on the ground that the best use is not being made of the land when land is being reserved by a landlord for the sake of a higher return which he can get for his capital in the case of the extension of his business. Somebody on that side—I think it was the Prime Minister—spoke with warm approval of the tendency which there is for manufacturers to leave the crowded towns and go further out in the country districts, but he did not seem to think that one of the reasons for their doing so was the very high rates which prevail in our large towns, and which cause the manufacturers starting new factories to find fresh scope for developing and to go to other neighbourhoods where the burdens are lighter. That will not be encouraged, moreover, if the Government put new burdens on land by which they are going to tax such extensions. Would any sane manufacturer starting a factory in one of those new districts, which we must suppose he would not do unless he saw reasonable prospect of a prosperous trade, would he confine himself to buying just that quantity of land which he required at the commencement of his enter-
prise? Would not every sensible man buy at once as much spare land as he thought he would require in any reasonable number of years and as he could afford to pay for, and to hold in the meantime? I say any reasonable man would do that, and that, in fact, the Government know what a reasonable man will do, because part of their argument on the Increment Tax was that it was the covering of the land with these houses which raised the value of the land all round, and, therefore, a man would not content himself with buying at the start just that portion which is required for a start, because he may expect to pay for the land at a very much higher rate later when he wants to develop it. In consequence, any prudent business man starting a new factory in a district where land is valuable would take more land than is wanted at the time, and you tax him because he is not making the best use of it. I say, however, he is making the best use of it, and I say what any prudent man would do in these circumstances is in the interests of the community to have done, and the justification which you have proffered for this tax, that it is a tax on land which is not used to the greatest extent for the advantage of the community, fails altogether when you refuse to accept an Amendment of that kind.
Sir W. ROBSON Sir W. ROBSON rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 66.

Division No. 420.]

AYES.

[9.25 p.m.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bowerman, C. W.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Brace, William

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Bright, J. A.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Duckworth, Sir James

Armitage, R.

Brooke, Stopford

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Bryce, J. Annan

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Everett, R. Lacey

Barker, Sir John

Byles, William Pollard

Falconer, J.

Barnard, E. B.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Ferens, T. R.

Barnes, G. N.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Clough, William

Findlay, Alexander

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Collins, Sir Win. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Beale, W. P.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Beauchamp, E.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Beck, A. Cecil

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Gill, A. H.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cowan, W. H.

Glover, Thomas

Berridge, T. H. D.

Crooks, William

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Gulland, John W.

M'Callum, John M

Shackleton, David James

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Maddison, Frederick

Sherwell, Arthur James

Hall, Frederick

Markham, Arthur Basil

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hancock, J. G.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Silcock, Thomas Bali

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Massie, J.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Scares, Ernest J

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Stanger, H. Y.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Harwood, George

Morse, L. L.

Steadman, W. C.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Haworth, Arthur A.

Myer, Horatio

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Napier, T. B.

Summerbell, T.

Hedges, A. Paget

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Helme, Norval Watson

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Ratcliffe)

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

Norman, Sir Henry

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Henry, Charles 8.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Partington, Oswald

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Higham, John Sharp

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Verney, F. W.

Holt, Richard Durning

Pirie, Duncan, V.

Vivian, Henry

Hope, John Deans (File, West)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Walton, Joseph

Hudson, Walter

Rainy, A. Rolland

Wardie, George J.

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Wason, John Cat heart (Orkney)

Jardine, Sir J.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Waterlow, D. S.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rees, J. D.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Richards, Thomas (West Monmouth)

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Richardson, A.

Whitehead, Rowland

Jowett, F. W.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wilkie, Alexander

Laidlaw, Robert

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Lambert, George

Robinson, S.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Lamont, Norman

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rowlands, J.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lupton, Arnold

Rutherford, V. H. Brentford

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Lynch, H. B.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Sears, J. E.

Macpherson, J. T.

Seely, Colonel

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Fell, Arthur

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Ashley, W. W.

Fletcher, J. S.

Moore, William

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gardner, Ernest

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Newdegate, F. A.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Gordon, J.

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Parkes, Ebenezer

Bowles, G. Stewart

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Bull, Sir William James

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Percy, Earl

Carlile, E. Hildred

Helmsley, Viscount

Pretyman, E. G.

Cave, George

Hills, J. W.

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hunt, Rowland

Remnant, James Farquharson

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Renwick, George

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Kerry, Earl of

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Clyde, J. Avon

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Stanler, Beville

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Courthope, G. Loyd

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Doughty, Sir George

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Younger, George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Du Cros, Arthur

Magnus, Sir Philip

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E. Talbot and Mr. H. W. Forster.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Question put, "That the words 'Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged in respect of any land which proves to be reasonably acquired for the extension or improvement of manufactories or other
498
industrial works in the same ownership' be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 197.

Division No. 421.]

AYES.

[9.35 p.m.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Fletcher, J. S.

Moore, William

Ashley, W. W.

Forster, Henry William

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gardner, Ernest

Newdegate, F. A.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Gordon, J.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

Percy, Earl

Bull, Sir William James

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Pretyman, E. G.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Helmsley, Viscount

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Cave, George

Hills, J. W.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hunt, Rowland

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Stanier, Beville

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Kerry, Earl of

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Clyde, J. Avon

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Courthope, G. Loyd

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Doughty, Sir George

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Younger, George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Du Cros, Arthur

Magnus, Sir Philip

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Renwick and Sir J. Randies.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Fell, Arthur

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Gill, A. H.

M'Micking, Major G.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Glover, Thomas

Maddison, Frederick

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Markham, Arthur Basil

Armitage, R.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Gulland, John W.

Massie, J.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Master man, C. F. G.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Hall, Frederick

Menzies, Sir Walter

Barker, Sir John

Hancock, J. G.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Barnard, E. B.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Barnes, G. N.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Mond, A.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Morse, L. L.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Beale, W. P.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Beauchamp, E.

Harwood, George

Myer, Horatio

Beck, A. Cecil

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Napier, T. B.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Norman, Sir Henry

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Hedges, A. Paget

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Bowerman, C. W.

Helme, Norval Watson

Partington, Oswald

Brace, William

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Bright, J. A.

Henry, Charles S.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Brooke, Stopford

Higham, John Sharp

Pirie, Duncan V.

Bryce, J. Annan

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.J

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Holt, Richard Durning

Rainy, A. Rolland

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Byles, William Pollard

Hudson, Walter

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Rees, J. D.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Jardine, Sir J.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Clough, William

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Richardson, A.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jowett, F. W.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cowan, W. H.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Crooks, William

Laidlaw, Robert

Robinson, S.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lambert, George

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lamont, Norman

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Rowlands, J.

Duckworth, Sir James

Levy, Sir Maurice

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Lupton, Arnold

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Everett, R. Lacey

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Falconer, J.

Lynch, H. B.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Ferens, T. R.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Sears, 1. E.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Seely, Colonel

Findlay, Alexander

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Shackleton, David James

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Macpherson, J. T.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Callum, John M.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

500

501

Silcock, Thomas Bail

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Thorne, G. B. (Wolverhampton)

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Soares, Ernest J.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Stanger, H. Y.

Verney, F. W.

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Vivian, Henry

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Steadman, W. C.

Walton, Joseph

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wardie, George J.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Waterlow, D. S.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Summerbell, T.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Whitehead, Rowland

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wilkie, Alexander

Mr. CAVE: I beg to move in section (3), after the word "any" ["value of any parks, gardens, or open spaces"], to insert the words "common, as denned by the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, or on the site value of any."
The object of the Amendment is to exempt common lands from the Undeveloped Land Duty. There are two reasons why I suggest that commons should not be subject to this duty. One is that even if they could be developed by building it is certainly not desirable that that should take place. Commons are in many oases the lungs of the districts, supplying air space to the adjoining towns and villages. It is therefore decidedly undesirable, even if it could be done, to encourage building on commons for residential purposes, or the putting up of buildings for industrial purposes. The second reason for exempting commons would be enough if the first did not exist. It. is that commons, speaking generally, cannot be developed, even if it were desired to do so. I know that the popular idea is that a common is an open space to which the public can go. The Secretary of State for War knows that that is not so. The position of a common is something very different. As a rule, a common is land belonging to the lord of the manor, over which a certain number of persons have certain common rights. The public have no rights over a common as such. Indeed, there is another kind of common, where nobody has any right at all, save the owner, except for a certain short period of the year. Take the case of Lammas lands. These are lands belonging to a private owner, and enclosed lands over which a certain number of tenants or freeholders in the neighbourhood have the right of pasture only for a few months in the year. Therefore they are in no sense open to the public. As regards these lands the owner, if he wished, could not develop or build upon them, and if he attempted to do so he would at once be met by objections from commoners, who
502
would say, "We have the right of pasturage or other right over this land, and you cannot build upon it." I suggest to the Committee that the inference from that is-obvious. If the owner cannot develop the land, it is not fair or right to put on him a tax in respect of land which he is prevented from developing. That is a simple statement of what I think are the main reasons for the Amendment.
Mr. HALDANE: It is a pleasure, to listen to the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cave), who is always so accurate in putting his case. The Government is in substance in agreement with him, but I think we have done better than his Amendment, and, if we have not, we shall be very glad to consider the point. As the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, it is a popular delusion that a common is a place to which the public have a right of access. The public always come there, but they have no right of access. There are all sorts of curious anomalies which arise under the Inclosure Acts. Let us see what ought to be done. I quite agree with him that it is very unfair to charge a man whom the Inclosure Acts prevent from developing these lands, and that is met by the Amendment on page 36 of the White Paper in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which proposes to take account of rates of communal land. That is only one point, but that is not enough in itself. The second point is this, that wherever the public have access de facto to the land the land should be exempt. The public have no access to communal land, and therefore it is not quite right to say that all land under the Inclosure Acts should be freed in virtue of the public having access; because the public have no right of access, and in some cases they have not even de facto access. Generally they have, but not always. There is an Amendment put down on page 16 of the White Paper in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which will cover this point. He proposes, in Clause 11, page 9, line 23, to leave out "granted to,"

503
and insert "enjoyed by," which brings in de, facto enjoyment. In other words, the view of the Government is that where the land is de facto enjoyed, as the communal land generally is, it should be exempt. But where the public are not admitted to the communal land the land-owner ought not to be exempt.
Mr. CAVE: He cannot develop it.
Mr. HALDANE: He will have valuable Tights over it very often. That is taken account of by the Amendment to which I first referred.
Mr. CAVE: The Amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman referred does not exempt common land from the duty. The Amendment only refers to valuation.
Mr. HALDANE: That is just what I want to point out. The measure of the exemption of the land-owner would be the deduction from the value of the communal rights in the valuation. You ex elude the common rights, and thereby you reduce the valuation. That is exactly the scientific way of dealing with the case.
Mr. PRETYMAN: He cannot build.
Mr. HALDANE: That is taken into account in the valuation. It is deducted in the valuation. It is perfectly absurd to give a man exemption for what he does enjoy. The scientific plan is to deduct from the amount of valuation the burden on him by these restrictions.
Mr. YOUNGER: He only gets that deduction if the Commissioners decide.
Mr. HALDANE: Surely the hon. Member would not have the valuation at his own sweet will. We will come to the question of the Commissioners later on. A tribunal of some sort assesses the re ductions to be made from the value of the land by virtue of the existence of the communal right. I maintain that that is right. The second point is, Ought there to be an exemption by virtue of the fact that the public have access to the land? The public, as has just been pointed out, sometimes do not have access to the land, and there fore there ought not to be exemption in these cases. The hon. and gallant Gentle man opposite (Mr. Pretyman), who stands for the divine right of property in this House—
Mr. PRETYMAN: My objection has nothing to do with the divine right of pro-
504
perty. My objection is to a tax which is imposed upon undeveloped land with the idea that it could be developed and is not developed, being levied on land which cannot be developed.
Mr. HALDANE: I thought I had explained ad nauseam that that was not so, and that by the subsequent Amendment to which I have referred standing in the name of the Government there would be reduction from the valuation for this reason. I may be very dense and stupid in expressing myself, but I can only state those things as distinctly as I can, and I cannot state them any more than three times over. I come to the second point, of the land which is subject to exemption by reason of the public having access. We know that in some cases, as the hon. Member for Cambridge has pointed out, the public have no access to the land, but wherever the public are de facto allowed to enjoy access to the communal land that land is proposed to be exempted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment on page 16 of the White Paper. I think that these two ways of dealing with the matter deal with it more scientifically than the proposition of the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment. The Government agree with him in the substance of it; we only want to get it into the right form. It appears to me that these two Amendments do put it into the right form, and that is why we prefer that way of doing it. If, in the course of this discussion or between now and the time these Amendments come on, it can be pointed out that there is anything not covered which is really legitimate to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member we shall be glad to consider it; because what we think he has at the back of his mind in this matter is thoroughly reasonable, and we agree with it.
Mr. CHAPLIN: I was greatly pleased when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Haldane) said he would favourably consider the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave), and that he was going to give something a great deal better. That sounded so agreeable that I was going to congratulate my hon. and learned Friend, but as the right hon. Gentleman proceeded in his speech, I confess that I thought that there was very little for my hon. and learned Friend to be grateful for. What I gather from the

505
right hon. Gentleman is this, that where there is no right of access to the common on the part of the public then there is to be no exemption. I am not inclined to quarrel very violently myself with that, but the point on which I understood my hon. and learned Friend to sum up the whole of his case was this, that where the owner has no power of developing the land then he ought to be exempted from the tax.
I do not understand that the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to make that concession, and I gather that the owner who cannot develop his land—which was the one point on which my hon. and learned Friend laid chief stress, and on which the right hon. Gentleman is going to give my hon. and learned Friend something better and something more than he asked for— is still to be taxed. It seems to me that if this is the admirable concession which is so much better than the Amendment we have to thank the right hon. Gentleman for nothing at all.
Mr. STEWART BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War has explained to us that in theory and principle the Bill of the Government is in agreement with the object of my hon. and learned Friend, for he appeared to take the view that the Amendments to which he referred as standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer contain the principle of the present Amendment. As I understand the object and purpose of the Government, it is that common land to which the public de facto has access, will be exempt from the tax, but in the case where the public has not in fact access, then the land will be subject to this duty. The right hon. Gentleman has said that if anything can be shown in the proposals of the Government to be unreasonable in any particular, the Government will consider the point between this and Report. Let me put a simple and concrete case in regard to Lammas land. It is enclosed land, and for a certain period of the year persons in the neighbourhood have a definite legal and undeniable right of pasture and access. The effect, in the case of an owner of such land, is that however much he may desire to develop it, he is prevented from doing so, and consequently he is unable to bring the land within the exemption under the clause.
Mr. HALDANE: That is provided for.
Mr. BOWLES: Where is it provided for?
Mr. HALDANE: On page 36, where the Amendment which is down says that the valuing is to take into consideration all common rights.
Mr. BOWLES: That does not really meet the case. Lammas land would be-subject to deduction, but not to exemption. I leave it to the good sense of any fair-minded Member of the House whether where an owner has no power whatever to develop land such as I have described, it is not a monstrous thing to come down upon him and tax him a farthing? Mere deduction will not meet the equity of the case.
Mr. HALDANE: In that case the whole site value is taken.
Mr. BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman well knows in his heart, and every member of this Committee knows, that if the equity of this case is to be met, the owner should not pay a farthing; yet, in the name of science, the right hon. Gentleman refuses to meet such a case.
Mr. HALDANE: It is a very common case under the Inelosures Act for an owner to enclose half his land and build upon it. That has gone on very much in the past, and, in that case, it would be very unjust to let the land off altogether, because it is subject to commonable rights, and when the landlord has power to enclose a certain portion of the land.
Mr. BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are cases like that of Lammas land, where the rights I have described do not apply to the whole land. The Government must provide for that. What the Committee has a right to ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether he will provide for such a case as that I have stated. It is not provided for. It is not enough to say it can be dealt with by deduction. It is quite clear that where a man cannot develop his land he should not be charged a halfpenny.
Mr. W. P. BEALE: I cannot think that the framers of this Act intend that any land ordinarily understood and known as common land should be hit by this tax. In regard to Section (3) of Clause 14 it does not appear to be quite clear, and an Amendment may be required to make it clear, though I do not think the Amendment before us is needed. If you look at this tax it is to fall upon the amount by which the site value exceeds the value for agricultural purposes. That value under

507
Section (14) is to be arrived at by taking the fee simple, subject to any easements affecting the land and common rights. I do not think that that is well expressed, because common rights are not easements. Some of them are in the nature Of custom, and are not, strictly speaking, easements. I think the Amendment that is required is an Amendment of the definition of site value such.as will exclude and diminish the site value as a site for building purposes by taking into consideration that it is subject to turbary and all sorts of rights in the nature of common rights which absolutely prevent it from being developed into building land without the aid of an Act of Parliament. It may be that the idea crossed the minds of some hon. Gentlemen who are acquainted with the Statute of Merton, that theoretically the lord of the manor can enclose without an Act of Parliament if he leaves anything to satisfy the commoners. But practically we know that commons cannot be enclosed without an Act of Parliament. I think the whole thing will be met by making section (3) of Clause 14 take into consideration all those restrictions—whether they are easements or however created—which in fact diminish the site value of land, and, as I say, may possibly, in most cases of common land, destroy it altogether for building purposes.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I venture to submit that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has not dealt quite clearly with this Amendment. The class of case which is met by this Amendment, and which is not met by any part of the Bill, is where a man who may be the lord of the manor owns certain land which is subject to common rights. That may be very good land for him. It may be land on which timber grows, and the common rights which it is subject to may be of small monetary benefit. They may be small rights comparatively, such as that of turbary, but such as they are they are sufficient to prevent the lord of the manor from ever building on that land. Those who have experience of the Commons Preservation Society know of the very valuable use they may be put to in preventing the owner from building on such land. The Amendment is meant to prevent this tax applying at all to that land on which he cannot build. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, misunderstood the purport of the Amendment, because the case we make is
508
that the land may be subject to the tax. In the first instance you make the owner value the land, but according to the Secretary of State, from that value there is to be a deduction of the common rights which are upon it, and which may be very small. But although they may be small in value the owner has the value of the timber and amenities and the enjoyment which he gets from having an open space, possibly in the neighbourhood of his house. According to the right hon. Gentleman, in valuing that land you are to give the owner a deduction for the value of the common rights. It is not building land, but it may be of considerable value, and therefore it is subject to the taxation on the capital value, although the owner has no power to build on it.
Sir FRANCIS S. POWELL: I think this question is one of very great importance indeed. I had the honour many years ago of being Member for the town of Cambridge, where they have an extensive area of commons, which tend greatly to the health of the place and, I believe also, the prosperity of the town is greater owing to those commons. I am most anxious as to the sanitary effect of those commons and open spaces, because I am quite sure that they tend greatly not only to the health of the community, but also to the general well-being of society. It seems to me, and I made this remark last year, a strange thing that the Government should bring forward a measure for the housing of the people and the planning of towns, and at the same time they should introduce proposals to prevent fresh air and open spaces which they seem to provide by their Housing and Town Planning Bill. I certainly cannot express my feeling too strongly, and my extreme regret at the policy of the Government' in opposing those open spaces. We have large parks, and they are a great blessing, but the blessing will be greatly increased if besides those parks there were a number of open spaces to which the working people could resort at the end of their day's work to seek recreation in the open air of the most healthy and most stimulating and most beneficial character.
Mr. W. CROOKS: I wish to speak on the necessity of rejecting this Amendment, and relying on the Government proposals. There seems to be a misunderstanding altogether on the subject. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is under the impression that we want to do away

509
with the commons for the public use. Nothing of the kind. What we want to do is to safeguard certain rights or what are called public rights. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment referred to Lammas land, which has always been protected. Within measurable distance of this House there was a large tract of Lammas land full of marshes, which was not only stolen from the people but built over. We have been told of Lammas lands to the advantage of the community, and that Lammas land should not be taxed. But what have you done about Fulham Marshes, which was robbed from the people? [An HON. MBMBEB: "What has that got to do with it?"] What has that got to do with it? Well, we can judge by past experience as to what would happen in the future. You have stolen land from the people and built on it for private enterprise for private profits, which will be done again unless we are very careful about it. No one wants to cover the common, and I can only rejoice at the conversion even of the Secretary of State for War, who wants to preserve the commons, but I have in my mind Woolwich Common, which he commenced to build on. While I am trying to do some little good for the people, I want to take good care that this private enterprise is not doing the public at the same time.
Mr. BALFOUR: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman speaks for other Members in that quarter of the House. If so it must be admitted that he left this rather tangled subject in a much greater tangle. In the first place I would ask what has this alleged robbery from the people got to do with this Amendment? In the second place I observed that except the Secretary of State for War I am not sure that anybody has robbed anything from the people. I am one of those who greatly regret that so many commons have been enclosed which would now be very useful and very convenient in the shape of commons. In the third place, I would observe to the hon. Gentleman that he has upset the whole basis of this Bill by an observation which fell from him with regard to private enterprise. What is the private enterprise? Building houses for the people. I thought the whole of the taxes we had been discussing were in order to induce the people to use their land for building houses. He seemed to think that building houses was in itself—
Mr. CROOKS: That is hardly fair.
Mr. BALFOUR: What is not fair? I do not want to press the hon. Gentleman too far, but when we have thrown at our heads night after night that land is being held up, it is rather hard that we should be hit on the other cheek by the hon. Gentleman, who holds up this very building of houses as an atrocity due to private enterprise.
Mr. CROOKS: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. What I argued was that the people who have certain rights over Lammas lands ought not to have them taken away by private individuals for private benefit when the land belonged to the public as a whole.
Mr. BALFOUR: I think the discussion has gone a little far from the actual Amendment, which is of a very simple character. The object of the Government is to tax land which has a developing value. We ask them to take the tax off land which has no developing value. We ask no more than that. The Government say that land which can be developed shall be taxed on the value at which it can be sold as developing land, and that land which cannot be developed ought not to be taxed. It would greatly conduce to the harmony of our proceedings and to the clearness of the Bill if, when the Government mean a thing, they stated it quite clearly in the Bill. We have had the utmost difficulty in understanding this most complicated measure. The language used seems intended to cloud the meaning of the framers of the Bill. Then when we know clearly what their intentions are, and I gather that we know what they are in this particular matter, they refuse to put in words which will make those intentions perfectly clear, and they refer us to future Amendments, which will not and cannot have the effect of clearly and explicitly excluding from the whole operation of this tax land which, on the very theories of the Government themselves, ought not to be taxed. I should have thought that subjects of the King had a right to ask, when the taxation of their property is in question, that it should be made quite clear who is to be taxed and how he is to be taxed. The Bill ought not to be so framed as to include those who are not open to the tax, and we ought not to be put off with a clause which may possibly be interpreted as a means by which they may be relieved-of some of the unjust burden. We have been told over and over again by the Chair that this is the clause in which the exceptions ought to be

511
embodied. Let us embody them in clear and explicit language, and thus carry out the views not of the Opposition, but of the whole House, which are shared apparently in this case by the Government.
Mr. HALDANE: The right hon. Gentleman has made, as usual) a lucid speech, but one which, I think, strongly supports the course which the Government have taken. He says that land which cannot be developed ought not to be taxed. I agree, and that is what we want to embody in our proposal; but what we have before us is not that, but a proposition that land which comes within the In-closure Acts should be exempted. In many cases such land ought to be exempted, as it cannot be developed; but there are other cases which are by no means so clear. We have already discussed some of them. We propose to meet the point of the right hon. Gentleman on Clause 14, sub-section (3). Clause 14 says: "The total value of land means the amount which the fee simple of the land, if sold at the time in the open market, by a willing seller in its then condition, might be expected to realise." Further, "The site value of land means the amount which the fee simple of the land, if sold at the time in the open market by a willing seller, might be expected to realise if the land were divested of any buildings, etc." And then sub-section (3) says: "For the purposes both of total value and site value, land shall be deemed to be sold free from incumbrances, but subject to any easements affecting the land and to any covenants restricting the use of the land." To that we propose to add the words of the Amendment standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which include "and any right of common." Take as an illustration Woolwich Common, to which the hon. Member for Woolwich referred. It was purchased by the Government long ago. They bought up the rights of all the commoners they could find. Consequently, although it is a common, they claim the right to enclose land and build upon it. No doubt the land has very large development land value in it. Only the other day we were forced by public necessities to build upon a portion of Woolwich Common. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich made a good deal of protest against it.
Mr. CROOKS: Does now.
Mr. HALDANE: Does now, as the hon. Member says. Would it not be monstrous that with that power and with that right I should escape altogether1? It is quite right that so far as the public have a de facto right to the common that the land should not be taxed. That is provided for by another Amendment—not de jure, but de facto. But the point the right hon. Gentleman dwelt upon, and to which he directed his argument, seems to me to be scientifically, accurately, and properly met by saying, as it is proposed to be said by the Amendment to Clause 14, that when the land is valued it is to be valued on a basis of what it would fetch in the market subject to the deduction which must be made on the ground that it is affected by the right of common.
Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Woolwich Common would be regarded as a common as defined by the Commons Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1895?
Mr. HALDANE: I should be extremely sorry to say. The question is a difficult conundrum. It just shows how careful we should be in raising these conundrums.
Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: I think the Secretary of State for War may have overlooked the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which begins: "Where any land kept free from buildings has received the benefit of an exemption from Undeveloped Land Duty by virtue of this provision." The Secretary for War has expressed an apprehension that this. Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend may prevent commons in certain cases being developed, and the case of Wimbledon Common has been instanced. If he will refer to the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he will find that the Chancellor proposes that: "Where any land … shall not be built upon unless the Local Government Board give their consent on being satisfied that it is desirable in the interests of the public that the restriction on building should be removed." That will certainly get over the difficulty which the Secretary for War foreshadows, and it would make the whole process of exclusion of commons a far more simple one than the highly complicated and scientific one to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. COWAN: I think there is a very general agreement in the House in regard to, perhaps not the meaning of the Bill, but the purpose of this Amendment. The

513
speeches which have been made on this side of the House show that, and there is no one more disposed to observe and protect common rights than the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War. But it does seem to me that if the Government intend to exempt commons there is no reason why they should not say so, and why they should not accept either the words submitted by the hon. Member for Kingston, or why they should not suggest some similar words. I confess I came here this afternoon intending not to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for the simple reason that I thought the Amendment would be entirely unnecessary, for I was under the impression that the proposal was to tax site value: not to tax something that had no site value. Site value implies building, or the possibility of building, and, on common land, the possibility of building is excluded. What disquieted me most is that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War said that where the public is not admitted common land ought not to be exempt. I put to the right hon. Gentleman the case of Ashdown Forest. Ashdown Forest is one of the largest tracts of common land in the South of England. It is 40 miles from London, and it is of enormous importance as a place for recreation.
Mr. HALDANE: My hon. Friend has not noted the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which deals de facto and not de jure with the matter.
Mr. COWAN: I have not overlooked that point, but I am in doubt as to whether the expression de facto is sufficient to cover this particular case. We have in Ashdown Forest a tract of 6,000 acres to which the
public has a limited access. Whether such access would be covered by the phrase de facto, and whether that is. sufficient to exclude Ashdown Forest from any rating under the Bill, I venture to think does not appear I think if the fight hon. Gentleman1 will deal with the case of Ashdown Forest that probably would cover every other case. I merely desire to be quite sure that the possibility in a Finance Bill of doing something that neither the Government nor anybody else contemplated, namely, worsening the provision of the commons and damaging the public interest, does not occur. A common is a tract of country over which a restricted public have some definite rights, and? think to suggest that a calculation could be made excluding certain commonable rights and reducing the valuation is a monstrous and an unfair thing to do. We know where there are commonable rights; the ground landlord has practically no estate in these tracts of country, and it seems to me to be an unjust and unreasonable thing that he should be taxed. For this reason I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kingston, or at any rate to give us something more definite and something clearer than the de facto assurance.
Mr. HALDANE Mr. HALDANE rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 96.

Division No. 422.]

AVES.

[10.30 p.m.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bright, J. A.

Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Brooke, Stopford

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bryce, J. Annan

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Armitage, R.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Atherley-Jones, L

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Duckworth, Sir James

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Buxton, Rt Hon. Sydney Charles

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Byles, William Pollard

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Barker, Sir John

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Elibank, Master of

Barnard, E. B.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Evans, Sir S. T.

Barnes, G. N.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Everett, L. Lacey

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Clough, William

Falconer, J.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Ferens, T. R.

Beale, W. P.

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, w.)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Beauchamp, E.

Compton-Rlckett, Sir J.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cooper, G. J.

Findlay, Alexander

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Berridge, T. H. D.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grlnstead)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Bowerman, C. W.

Crooks, William

Gill, A. H.

Brace, William

Davles, David (Montgomery Co.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Glover, Thomas

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Macpherson, J. T.

Sears, J. E.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Callum, John M.

Seely, Colonel

Gulland, John w.

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Shackleton, David James

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hall, Frederick

M'Micking, Major G.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Hancock, J. G.

Maddlson, Frederick

Simon, John Allsebrook

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) '

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Snowden, P.

Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvll)

Massle, J.

Soames, Arthur Weilesley

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Scares, Ernest J.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Stanger, H. Y.

Harwood, George

Mlcklem, Nathaniel

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Mond, A.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Summerbell, T.

Hedges, A. Paget

Morse, L. L.

Sutherland, J. E.

Helme, Norval Watson

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Henry, Charles S.

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Myer, Horatio

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Napier, T. B.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Higham, John Sharp

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Norman, Sir Henry

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Partington, Oswald

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Holt, Richard Durnlng

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Verney, F. W.

Hope, John Deans (File, West)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Vivian, Henry

Hudson, Walter

Pickersglll, Edward Hare

Walters, John Tudor

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Plrie, Duncan V.

Walton, Joseph

Illingworth, Percy H.

Price, Sir Robert (Norfolk, E.)

Wardle, George J.

Jardine, Sir J.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Waterlow, D. S.

Jones, Lelf (Appleby)

Rees, J. D.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

White, J. (Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Jewett, F. W.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Whitehead, Rowland

King, Alfred John (Knutstord)

Richardson, A.

Wilkie, Alexander

Laidlaw, Robert

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Lambert, George

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Lamont, Norman

Robinson, S.

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Lehmann, R. C.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Rowlands, J.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Lupton, Arnold

Runciman, Rt Hon. Walter

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Lynch, H. B.

Samuel, Rt Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Samuel, S. W. (Whltechapel)

Maclean, Donald

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Courthope, G. Loyd

Keswick, William

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Cowan, W. H.

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cox, Harold

Lsmbton, Hon. Frederick William

Ashley, W. W.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Baldwin, Stanley

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

Doughty, Sir George

Lockwood, Rt. Hon Lt.-Col. A. R.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Du Cros, Arthur

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Barrle, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lcnsdale, John Brownlee

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Fell, Arthur

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Beck, A. Cecll

Fletcher, J. S.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Gardner, Ernest

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Moore, William

Brldgeman, W. Clive

Gcoch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Bull, Sir William James

Gordon, J.

Newdegate, F. A.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Oddy, John James

Cave, George

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Parkes, Ebenezer

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Hcimsley, Viscount

Percy, Earl

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hope, James Fltzalan (Sheffield)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Clive, Percy Archer

Hunt, Rowland

Pretyman, E. G.

Clyde, J. Avon

Joynson-Hicks, William

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Kerry, Earl of

Renwick, George

516

517

Ridsdale, E. A.

Starkey, John R.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Younger, George

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Stanier, Beville

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster.

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 219.

Division No. 423.]

AYES.

[10.40 p.m.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Du Cros, Arthur

Newdegate, F. A.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Faber, George Denison (York)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Fell, Arthur

Oddy, John James

Arkwrlght, John Stanhope

Fletcher, J. S.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Ashley, W. W.

Forster, Henry William

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Baldwin, Stanley

Gardner, Ernest

Percy, Earl

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Pretyman, E G.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gordon, J.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Guinness, Hon R. (Haggerston)

Renton, Leslie

Beck, A. Cecil

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

Renwick, George

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bowles, G. Stewart

Helmsley, Viscount

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hills, J. W.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Bull, Sir William James

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hunt, Rowland

Stanler, Beville

Carlile, E. Hildred

Joynson-Hicks, William

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Kerry, Earl of

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Keswick, William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Clive, Percy Archer

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Clyde, J. Avon

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Willoughby de Eresby Lord

Courthope, G. Loyd

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Cowan, W. H.

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Younger, George

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Magnus, Sir Philip

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Cave and Mr. Leverton Harris.

Doughty, Sir George

Mlidmay, Francis Bingham

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morrison-Bell, Captain

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Glover, Thomas

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Clough, William

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cobboid, Felix Thornley

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Armitage, R.

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Gulland, John W.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Cooper, G. J.

Hall, Frederick

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hancock, J. G.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Barker, Sir John

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Barnard, E. B.

Crooks, William

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Barnes, G. N.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Barry, Remond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Harwood, George

Beale, W. P.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Duckworth, Sir James

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Benn, w. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Berrldge, T. H. D.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Hedges, A. Paget

Bowerman, C. W.

Ellbank, Master of

Helme, Norval Watson

Brace, William

Erskine, David C.

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

Bright, J. A.

Evans, Sir S. T.

Henry, Charies S.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Everett, R. Lacey

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Brooke, Stopford

Falconer, James

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Bryce, A. Annan

Ferens, T. R.

Higham, John Sharp

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Hobart, Sir Robert

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Findlay, Alexander

Holland, Sir William Henry

Byles, William Pollard

Fuller, John Michael F.

Holt, Richard Durning

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Gill, A. H.

Hudson, Walter

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Illingworth, Percy H.

Myer, Horatlo

Soares, Ernest J.

Jardine, Sir J.

Napier, T. B.

Stanger, H. Y.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Norman, Sir Henry

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Jones, Lelf (Appleby)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Partington, Oswald

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Jowett, F. W.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Summerbell, T.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Sutherland, J. E.

Laidlaw, Robert

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Lambert, George

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Lamont, Norman

Rainy, A. Rolland

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Lehmann, R. C.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rees, J. D.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Lewis, John Herbert

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Lupton, Arnold

Richardson, A.

Verney, F. W.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Vivian, Henry

Lyell, Charles Henry

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Walters, John Tudor

Lynch, H. B

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Walton, Joseph

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Robinson, S.

Wardle, George J.

Maclean, Donald

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Macpherson, J. T.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Waterlow, D. S.

M'Callum, John M.

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Rowlands, J.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

M'Micking, Major G.

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Wilkie, Alexander

Maddison, Frederick

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Williams, w. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Massie, J.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Sears, J. E.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Seely, Colonel

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Shackleton, David James

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Mond, A.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Morse, L. L.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Snowden, P.

Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS (in the absence of Sir Henry Kimber)Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS (in the absence of Sir Henry Kimber) moved in Section (3), after "open spaces," to omit the words, "which in the opinion of the Commissioners are open to the public as of right, or on the site value of any parks, gardens, or open spaces reasonable access to which is granted to the public, where in the opinion of the Commissioners that access is of benefit to the public, as," and to insert instead thereof the words, "public or private."
The object of this Amendment, which I move on behalf of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, is primarily to exclude from the operation of the Undeveloped Land Duty such pieces of land as are comprised in the London squares, where the public have not actually free access. I move this Amendment in a dual capacity, partly as a resident of London, because I feel that it is for the great benefit to other residents of London, and partly as a representative of the London County Council, who are very much interested in this matter, and feel that this tax should not apply to London squares. There is one danger of this Undeveloped Land Duty which I venture to think has not been properly con-
520
templated, and that is the possibility of the sacrifice of our London squares some day or other, sooner or later, to the builder. There have been cases—more than one case in recent: years—where London squares have actually been built over or have been sold with powers to the purchaser to build over them. I think there was a case recently—at all events, in 1903—when Edwardes Square, Kensington, was sold. The county council did everything they could; I think they actually introduced a Bill into the House of Lords to prevent the square being built on, and I understand it was ultimately built over. This is not an imaginary danger. I have a memorandum drawn up by one of the officials of the London County Council, and' it states that it is very difficult to say to-what extent the various private Acts affecting squares protect them from building, but it would appear that a large majority of the squares in London can, if not at the present time, at any rate in the near future, when the leases of the surrounding-property run out, be built upon. This Undeveloped Land Tax will be an inducement, or may even be an excuse, to the owners of squares, public gardens, and so on

521
when the leases fall in, to build over them, and it is very much desired by the inhabitants of London that these open areas, amounting, I think, to something like 400 squares in the county of London and comprising something like 300 acres, should be preserved as what have often been called the lungs of the city. Of course the question would arise, if this duty is levied on those squares, who would pay? Many of the squares are supported and entirely kept up by the owners of the soil, such as the Duke of Bedford on the Bedford estate. But there are many other squares where the residents in the neighbourhood and in the houses surrounding those squares maintain and keep them up. Is it fair to saddle those residents with the burden of having to pay this duty in addition to the cost of keeping up these open spaces? I feel very strongly that if this tax applies to squares and open spaces in London it will at all events be a reason which could be put forward by someone who wishes to make the biggest income he can out of his property for the purpose of building over it. I appeal to the Government on behalf of the London County Council to accept the Amendment.
Mr. HALDANE: I of course agree with the general purpose which underlies the Amendment, which is to relieve from the tax open spaces of which the public gets the benefit, but the Amendment goes a great deal too far. We propose to omit in line 23 the words "granted to," and substitute the words "enjoyed by," which will be sufficient to exempt them, but we make this restriction, that the public must have some benefit. If you have a private garden, no doubt it is a very nice thing for people to look through the railings, but you cannot expect to be free from the tax merely by reason of that circumstance. In places like Lincoln's Inn Fields the gardens are thrown open to children, and it is a very good thing that they have been. That is the kind of case which, so long as the public are allowed access, will be exempt from the tax. That is a very good precedent, and I wish it were followed more widely. We cannot compel people to follow it, but we feel that it is a stimulus in the right direction if we exempt places where children are allowed to go in. No doubt it is convenient for the people in Berkeley Square not to allow the public into the gardens, but that is something for which they ought to pay. If they find that it is burdensome to pay the tax, they can always get rid of it by admitting the public. [HOST. MEMBEBS:
522
"They could build."] The de facto exemption is the canon we apply to this class of subject matter, and I think that by doing so we do very much better than by accepting this Amendment, which would enable people in the most selfish way to exclude the public from all access to places to which they might legally get access if the owners threw them open and thereby got exempted from the tax.
11.0 P.M.
Mr. BALFOUR: I am very anxious to discover what I have totally failed to discover, namely, what is the general principle underlying the policy of the Government in this matter. I understood that we were discussing the exemptions from, the tax on undeveloped land—not on land which could not be developed, but on land which could be and ought to be developed as time went on. That is the principle of the tax as stated over and over again by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman stated, in answer to an hon. Member who moved an Amendment, that where land is incapable of development it should not be taxed. Only a quarter of an hour ago I laid down that proposition, and the right hon. Gentleman who followed said that he entirely agreed to that statement. If the Government think that the tax is purely one to be levied on land which can be developed, the land indicated in the Amendment should be exempt. That I understood to be the true principle of the Bill. The tax, I understood, is intended inter alia to induce people to develop land which is capable of development. We find now that it is to be imposed for quite another reason—because people use land, not for development, but for something quite different. It is to be imposed on land which cannot be developed. The right hon. Gentleman talks about Berkeley Square. You cannot develop Berkeley Square. [An HON. MEMBER: "You can."] We might build houses in Trafalgar Square. Trafalgar Square is maintained in the interest of London. Do you require to put up buildings in Trafalgar Square in the interest of our crowded population? These open spaces that are left are to be called developable. If I have not accurately stated the views of the Government in what have I erred? I say in the first place this tax has been defended on the ground that it is only to be applied to land capable of development. That is principle number one. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that that is

523
the principle? I say that on that principle Berkeley Square cannot be developed. I say in the second place a subsidiary principle of the Government was that the land should be taxed in order to hasten this development. If Berkeley Square cannot be developed at all you cannot hasten its development. We have been told that it is in the interest of owners to encourage them to use their land to the best economic advantage. That is sometimes the policy of the Government, and sometimes not the policy of the Government. It may be for the best economic interest, for anything I know to the contrary, of the owner of Berkeley Square to put flats on Berkeley Square. I do not know whether it is or not. If it is his interest does the interest of the. public run in the same direction and want it done? My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment was not speaking for himself. He was speaking for the greatest local authority in this country, the London County Council. They say there is a danger of many of these squares being built over. Is that or is it not a danger which the House wish to encourage? Do they regard that as a development? Is that the kind of development which they wish to encourage? We have a perfect right to have a clear answer to that question. What the right hon. Gentleman says is that the people who now spend their money keeping up the square can avoid the square being built over in the interests of the landlord by admitting persons other than themselves. It may be right or wrong, but I suppose one of the advantages of owning a house in Berkeley Square is that the children of the owners of houses there can go to a place to which the public have no access, and I do not know that that can be described as a selfish principle. At all events, that is the principle, and the right hon. Gentleman now comes down and says he will not exempt Berkeley Square from being taxed as developable land, because the owners of Berkeley Square do not open it to the children of other people. But really, we need not argue the point. Surely that is outside the scope of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has started an entirely new principle. It is a bad principle and it is inconsistent with his own policy. Unless he can tell us that Berkeley Square is a place which he thinks ought to be developed in the sense of being built over, then I say he has not the slightest
524
occasion for refusing the Amendment, which the London County Council has asked this Committee, in the interests of a great population, to see carried into effect.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: On a point of order, I wish to ask the effect of this. Amendment on an important Amendment which comes on somewhat later. On page 17 of the White Paper the Chancellor of the Exchequer has an Amendment which comes in after line 25 with regard to land that has been kept free of buildings. To that Amendment I have put down an Amendment which raises the question of land being kept free owing to restrictive covenants. That, I think, is a different point from the one which we are now debating, but one or two Members who are interested in this Amendment of mine think it might possibly be ruled out because it might be considered to have been dealt with on this Amendment. I wish now to know whether we may have a separate discussion on the Amendment of which I have given notice, as in such case I will not intervene in the discussion of this Amendment.
The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment to the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer [raising the question of restrictive covenants] is not in order.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Would it be in order to raise the question of restrictive covenants on this Amendment?
The CHAIRMAN: I think the question of restrictive covenants ought to come on Clause 14.
Sir W. ROBSON: That is where they come already in the Bill as it now stands. A very important section of Clause 14 deals with restrictive covenants affecting building estates of the kind referred to in the Debate, and I think I am quite safe in saying Berkeley Square, even if there were no Amendment, would not be affected. Somewhat undue stress has been laid on Berkeley Square by my right hon. Friend in dealing with the general principle of the Bill, which undoubtedly aims at the exemption and does not aim at taxing open spaces—spaces incapable of development. Particular reference to Berkeley Square, which my right hon. Friend took up rather than initiated, is not a very happy illustration of the principle, because, as far as the squares are concerned, they are amply protected by Clause 14, Section 3, which gives full effect to title,

525
and of course the squares of London are all protected by title. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not all."] It is a question of fact. I do not profess to have any greater authority than the popular impression.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: They are not all protected by title.
Sir W. ROBSON: I should have thought they were. At any rate, we do not rely on that. So far as restrictive covenants exist they are quite sufficient to protect the squares, because the Undeveloped Land Duty can only be assessed on land which can be sold in the market, and all restrictive covenants have to be taken into account. A restrictive covenant which forbids the sale is effectual protection of land of this kind. That does not cover the whole ground, however, and therefore the Government put down an Amendment which I think will cover the whole of the ground. We have put down an Amendment standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as follows:—
"on the site value of any land where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme, whether framed before or after the passing of this Act, for the development of the area of which the land forms part, and that it is reasonably necessary in the interests of the public, or in view of the character of the surroundings or neighbourhood, that the land should be so kept free from buildings."
I think those words are adequate. Anyhow, the intention of the Government is that the squares of London should be beyond the scope of this tax on the ground that they are kept open. If the words of the Amendment are not adequate for that purpose, we shall be only too glad to consider any other words either on the consideration of this particular clause or at such a stage of the Bill as will afford abundant opportunity to consider words which may be suggested. Any words suggested would require very careful consideration. I could scarcely name a square in the Metropolis which would not come under the terms of that proposal. It is certain indeed that they are "in pursuance of a … definite scheme." [HON. MEMBERS: "Read on."] Any square is certain to have been kept free from building, and allowed to be kept free from building, either in pursuance of a restricted covenant or in pursuance of a scheme, so that those who lived in the
526
neighbourhood should get the advantage. The mere existence of a square shows a plan and a design and a scheme which is entirely intended, whether framed "before or after the passing of this Act, for the development of the area of which the land forms part, and that it is reasonably necessary in the interests of the public, or in view of the character of the surroundings or neighbourhood, that the land should be so kept free from buildings." I think the Commissioners could scarcely put in any of the squares which are the pride and glory of this metropolis, and which distinguish it in that respect from so many capitals of Europe. It certainly has this particular advantage of which it ought not to be deprived. I cannot imagine any body of men saying that it is contrary to the interests of the public that a square should be kept free from building. That is a controversy I decline to contemplate.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I understand the Attorney-General to have abandoned the defence laid down by the Secretary of State for War—
Sir W. ROBSON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not say that. I think it is not justified. I have explained how the Secretary of State for War gave Berkeley Square as an illustration. He was dealing with the general principle.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am very sorry if I said anything to hurt the learned Attorney-General's feelings. I certainly was not anxious to introduce a phrase to which he could take objection. The Secretary of State for War had said as the answer to the plea of my hon. Friend that you could obtain exemption from the tax by opening the gardens for children, and that if you did not open the gardens for children that you did not deserve any exemption from the tax. The Attorney-General has been good enough to point out that that is wholly unnecessary, and that Berkeley Square is adequately protected either by the Bill as it stands, or by the new Amendment which the Government are going to move in the Bill, and that it is quite unnecessary for the protection of the owner of Berkeley Square against the tax mat the residents should admit children of nonresidents and give them free access to the gardens. I think I accurately described that as abandoning the defence of the Secretary of State for War. I think the Attorney-General made a better

527
defence. The Attorney-General's view is that Berkeley Square and all the squares— we dwell upon Berkeley Square very much as we dwell upon dukes and individuals, and other squares famous or not famous, splendid or humble—would have been protected either by the clause which has regard to restrictive covenants or because no Commissioners would find them to be otherwise than in the interests required and of the locality in which they stand. Let me say that so high a value does the Attorney-General set upon those open spaces that he picks them out as the one advantage which London has over foreign cities. To whom do we owe that advantage? To the dukes, who are denounced at Limehouse and elsewhere?
Now let me say a word about the restrictive covenants. They are a protection only if the Commissioners think them reasonable. Suppose the Commissioners do not think them reasonable in any given case; what happens Restrictive covenants in these cases are generally mutual. They bind not only the tenant, but the landlord. They bind each tenant as against another, all the tenants as against the landlord, and the landlord as against the tenants. If the Commissioners find that the restriction is unreasonable, are the Government going to relieve the landlord from the burden of the covenant, and allow him to make that use of the land which they tax him for not having made? It would obviously be very unjust to the landlord to say, "We consider this covenant unreasonable; not in the public interest, or not in the interest of the locality; therefore, for taxing purposes we disregard it, but we still leave you bound by it, and leave you unable to carry out that development which we tax you for not carrying out." Suppose, when the landlord points out this injustice, the Government say, "Very well; we will relieve the landlord from the covenant in such a case," then they will inflict an equal injustice upon those who have taken property in the neighbourhood on long leases on the ground of this very covenant, which they thought would preserve them in the enjoyment of the amenities of their residence. You get into an inextricable tangle in this matter, whatever position you adopt, unless you stand by these covenants, whether the Commissioners consider them reasonable or not.
The CHAIRMAN: I do not think this is the time to discuss the covenants, ex-
528
cept in so far as they were used by the Attorney-General as an answer to the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman is going rather beyond that.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It was my intention to confine my remarks to what was relevant to the statement of the Attorney-General. What consistent line of thought runs through the action of the Government in relation to these matters? A few hours ago they refused to exempt from the tax any land which had been compulsorily hired by a public authority for allotments. A public authority cannot hire land compulsorily for allotments without first proving an urgent public demand, and showing that it is in the public interest that the land should be so used. But the Government, disregarding that public interest, and the proof offered at the inquiry which sanctioned the compulsory hiring, say that the land is to be taxed. Now they say that land left open like Berkeley Square is to be exempted from the tax, and a little further that land which has been let on a lease originally for not less than five years is to escape taxation. What measure of relative importance do the Government attach to those allotments and small holdings, upon which they spent so much time the other day, and to the preservation of Berkeley Square or a Cricket-field, when they exempt the latter but refuse to exempt the former? It is impossible to conceive of any principle underlying the whole of these provisions. They are thrown together haphazard; it is done before our eyes. We see how when we mentioned particular cases of hardship during the Debates on the Resolutions, those cases are attempted to be dealt with by provisions in the Bill. But those we did not mention, and which did not occur to the Government, are not dealt with, and any attempt to deal with them is rejected.
Mr. F. B. MILDMAY: I wish to criticise the statement of the Secretary for War just now, when he said that the inhabitants of Berkeley Square ought to pay for the privilege of retaining it as at present. He makes a very great mistake if he thinks we are not paying a considerable sum, as he can be told by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works. It cannot be denied for one moment that Berkeley Square is a lung, a breathing place, and that all who live there or in the vicinity, rich and poor, would be very sorry to see it disappear. We hardly know where we stand at pre-

529
sent. As was pointed out, the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War and the learned Attorney-General were completely at variance. The Secretary for War told us that if Berkeley Square was kept as at present it would have to pay duty. On the other hand, the Attorney-General said that there was no intention of levying duty in the case of Berkeley Square. If I misunderstood these declarations I apologise. We all know that the object of this Undeveloped Land Duty is admittedly to force land into the building market. I do maintain, as many maintain, that it is altogether wrong to levy this duty on land which cannot be forced into the building market. It has been reported by the Attorney-General, in pursuance of his declaration, that the Government do not intend to tax Berkeley Square. I do not know quite if that will be so, because all squares are held under such very differing tenures throughout London. We have had an instance given us of a square offered some years ago for sale independently. All squares have not been created as part of a scheme. It is evidently as part of a scheme that squares will be exempted in this Amendment: "On the site value of any land where it is shown that the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme, whether framed before or after the passing of this Act." On these grounds, I think that these squares, which are so valuable as breathing places and lungs for the metropolis, require greater consideration than is given to them in this Bill.
Mr. R. D. HOLT: Surely in the case of these squares the owners of joint private gardens should be dealt with in the same way as the separate owners of a garden? The Government say that a single private house in Berkeley Square or anywhere else may have a garden of one acre in extent. Why should not three tenants have three acres jointly? It is quite obvious that the owners of these squares have only to allot the gardens to the houses separately to escape taxation altogether. Would it not be better to raise this point on the later Amendment?
Lord ROBERT CECIL: One would think, listening to the Debate, that there were only two squares in London. There are a great many squares scattered all over London, and many of them in the poorest parts of London. They are all of immense value to the City, and I think the Government ought to show very clearly to the House that their Bill does protect them;
530
otherwise they ought to show their willingness to protect them. The Attorney-General referred to Section (3) of Clause 14, but what you really want to do is not to give any inducement to people to shut up these squares. There are cases in London where the square is the joint property of the houses round about it. I know of one case where a speculative capitalist bought up all the houses except one or two—it was some years ago, and he may by this time have since bought up the other two— with the deliberate purpose of eventually building on the square. Are you going to encourage proceedings of that kind? Are you going to hold out inducements to people to do that kind of thing? Are you going to induce people who hold shares in squares to sell them to speculative financiers in order to enable them to turn a square into a plot for building? Everybody who knows anything about the recent municipal history of London knows that the London County Council have more than once in recent years promoted Bills in Parliament to prevent this very thing from happening, and to make it illegal to build on squares.
These Bills failed for one reason or another, but at any rate it shows the danger, and how totally inadequate Section (3) of Clause 14 is to deal with the matter. What is the other protection? The new Sub-section (c) of Section (3) of Clause 11? But that only deals with land kept free, I believe, in pursuance of any development scheme for the development of the area-How are you going to prove that Golden Square was kept free of building for the development of Soho? You cannot do anything of the kind. Is the Government serious in desiring to protect the square? If they are it is a very simple thing to do without going into all sorts of rigmarole about a scheme for the final development of the area and scientific treatment of the question. What nonsense this is. In the last Amendment we asked to have commons protected. The Secretary of State for War says "Oh, no; that is not the scientific way. You must have all sorts of provisions, the effect of which would be not to charge Undeveloped Land Duty." Is that the way to legislate? For heaven's sake let us leave science and come to common-sense. If we were in Grand Committee and the Members were allowed to vote as they thought fit the Government would be left in a minority of three. I never heard of a more astounding way of conducting a Bill when the Government are anxious to save time.
Mr. J. TUDOR WALTERS: I hope the Government will not take any narrow view on this matter. Surely it cannot be the object of this Bill to develop land that could by any possibility be developed without it. When you are developing any given area of land the more open spaces you can have between the houses, and therefore the smaller number of houses per acre, the better it is for the community. Instead of offering anyone inducements to build on the square I would rather afford them some inducement not to do so. This is not only a question of squares in London, but also of open spaces in our provincial towns. In any modern system of town planning the great object should be not to cover all the available land with buildings, but by an intelligent rational process of development make the places habitable and the district beautiful and attractive. To say that you should use all your land to the highest economic advantage is in my judgment an entirely false proposition. One of the principle objects of this Bill is not to crowd houses on land, but to bring larger areas of land into development. By extending the borders of towns and bringing in these larger areas the houses will not be planted so closely together, and there will be more open spaces.
The CHAIRMAN: This is not a Second Beading Debate. I hope the hon. Member will make his remarks more relevant to the Amendment.
Mr. TUDOR WALTERS: I was trying to show why these squares in London and open spaces generally should not be subject to this Undeveloped Land Tax, because the policy of this Bill is not to crowd houses together, but leave plenty of squares and open spaces. I hope the Government will not be content with the vague words, "square forming part of a scheme," but make their proposals definite that these open spaces, where they are an advantage to the public, shall not be taxed, but on the contrary their maintenance should be encouraged and there should be no inducement to build upon them.
Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBY: On this question I feel some difficulty as to how I ought to vote. I differ most profoundly from most hon. Members who sit on the Opposition Benches. For the greater part of my life I have lived in a square, and I have always felt that I should very much like to see the squares with the railings round a beautiful garden
532
demolished so that everybody could have access to it. I have no doubt my views are not shared by many hon. Members here, but they are my personal views, and I hold them. There are a certain number of people who count it the greatest blessing to be surrounded by railings, but personally I have no particular desire to be enclosed like a Polar bear or a lion in iron railings with gates and keys to them. Holding these views, I was rather pleased when I heard the Secretary of State for War lay down the propositions on which the Bill is founded. I thought that at last the railings of Belgrave Square would be swept away, and also the railings of Audley Square, round which I have to walk every day. I understood from him that, unless the babies, the public, and myself are allowed access to that square, they would have to pay the Undeveloped Land Tax. That was distinctly what I understood from his argument. I thought if that was the case I should vote with the right hon. Gentleman, and not with my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. But what happened later? The Attorney-General got up and said, "Oh, no." He is going to oppose the Amendment, because it is not needed, and the effect will be that these squares will be surrounded by the railings, and there are plenty of clauses which protect them from being open to the public. I therefore entirely lost all my interest in the matter. The idea of the Secretary of State for War of the principles of the Bill had entirely disappeared. It is impossible for a layman like myself to go into these different clauses, and find out what the meaning of the words will be. We have seen two of the greatest legal luminaries of the Government profoundly differing on these two points. Cannot we have a third opinion? Members of Parliament occasionally have the advantage of getting legal opinion for nothing. Why could we not have a third opinion from the Government to say what really is the effect of the Amendment? Perhaps the Solicitor-General or the Prime Minister might assist us. It would really be interesting to know whether the effect of this tax would be to pull down the railings round the squares of London or whether it would be to plant them more firmly than ever in their sockets and close the keys against those who wish to pass across. I really think before we go to a Division the question should be settled by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government Bench.
Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: May I ask the Committee to look at an Amendment of the Government further down the Paper to insert a new Sub-section (c). There is the word "and" ["and that it is reasonably necessary in the interests of the public"]. If instead of the word "and," you put in the word "or," I submit that that would cover the purpose we have in view. Can the Attorney-General see his way to accept that?
Mr. REES: I think the Bill should be cut up for the sake of the squares and gardens, and not the squares and gardens for the sake of the Bill. I should like to ask the attention of the Committee to the case of Harrow School lands, as to which I addressed a question the other day to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill without getting any answer. It seems to me to be clearly raised by this Amendment. It is the case of the land belonging to Harrow School, and I showed that this tax would represent 20s. out of a rent of 30s. That I described as a crushing tax. I was asked to verify my figures. I did so, and I found I had forgotten to make a deduction of £50 for agricultural value. If I do that, and knock off the capital value of the land £100 per acre, I still find that this Undeveloped Land Duty would amount to 15s. as compared with the 30s. received as rent. If that amount were used for the purpose of—
The CHAIRMAN: How does this bear on the Amendment?
Mr. REES: Because the Amendment proposes to insert the words "public or private," and this, being private land, would come under the section.
The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that covers the case of which the hon. Member is speaking. This land would not come under the heading of "parks, gardens or open spaces."
Mr. REES: I submit it would be covered by the words "open spaces."
The CHAIRMAN: It does not seem to me that land let for farming purposes would come under that heading.
Mr. REES: I submit that it does. These lands are acquired by the Governors of Harrow School not for the purposes of gain, but admittedly for the purpose of holding them up, and to prevent their being built upon. It therefore comes under this section.
The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman say the land is let for farming purposes?
Mr. REES: It is so let merely because they want to keep it as an open space.
The CHAIRMAN: Then it comes under the sub-section we have already dealt with.
Mr. REES: I submit if I am not allowed to put the case further, I shall be in order in referring to other open spaces not far from London. Take the case of Cassiobury Park, which, although it is a private park, is to the town of Watford what Hyde Park is to London, owing to the generosity of the owners. It is of the utmost value to people of all classes in. Watford, but as I understand this section, that park would be liable to Undeveloped Land Duty unless this Amendment is passed. The words of the hon. Member for Wandsworth are "public or private," and it is the latter word I want inserted^ Take another case, that of Osterley Park; there again there is an open space in the hands of a private owner, and of the utmost value to all classes, rich and poor alike, because this open space is maintained by the private owner—"held up," if you like—to the benefit of the locality. As I understand this section, the whole of that park will come under this Undeveloped; Land Tax unless this Amendment is accepted. Going further from London there is a park neax Oxford Wytham in which people are allowed to ride. It is a park of great extent, and it is at the disposal of the public owing to the generosity of the owner. This matter is of the utmost importance, because these large spaces, although they are in the hands of private owners, are of the greatest benefit to the whole of the localities in their neighbourhood. If the people of these places were to be polled there would be an overwhelming majority in favour of these open spaces being left on their present footing in the hands of their present owners, but if these parks are to be taxed at a high rate it may make it difficult for the owners, unless they are rich men, to-continue their generosity. In the hands of their present owners they have been advantageous to the public, and some such Amendment as this would be accepted in order to preserve to the public the advantages which they at present enjoy through the generosity of present owners.
Mr. BALFOUR: There are two very important points on which I should

535
like your considered ruling. One of them arises out of what you said with regard to the propriety of discussing covenants on Clause 14 rather than on this clause. Clause 14 deals with deductions. The point that has been raised with regard to certain Scotch cases is one in which deductions are not really in question. It is a case where there ought to be no tax at all, where, in fact, by the admission of the Government, the tax is utterly improper. It is a case where there can be no building and no development. Is not this, rather than Clause 14, the proper place where that particular class of difficulty ought to be dealt with The title of this clause is "Exemptions from Undeveloped Land Duty," and it is exemptions from Undeveloped Land Duty, which really is the case suggested by a very large class of important covenants dealing with such things as squares connected with houses, and so forth. The other point is suggested by something which fell from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rees) and your ruling thereupon. The hon. Gentleman brought forward the case of Harrow School, where certain land was bought for the sole purpose of being kept undeveloped, and having an area round the school which was not to be built upon. It was, however, let, because, having been bought, it had to be used to the best advantage. You ruled that that ought to be treated as agricultural land. May I ask whether, if that rule be accepted in this particular case, it will not rule out, for instance, such cases as where a farmer has a right of pasturing sheep, a very common case, indeed, which surely, I think, ought not to be treated as agricultural land any more than the particular case of Harrow School?
The CHAIRMAN: The question of whether covenants affecting undeveloped land should be dealt with on this clause or on Clause 14 is one of great difficulty. It sometimes is more convenient to take such questions on a clause like this dealing with exemptions to the tax in question. Perhaps, if I have a conversation with the hon. and learned Gentleman, I can better find out whether that particular Amendment can be taken here or not. I think covenants generally should be dealt with on Clause 14, but obviously some of these cases of particular exemptions may apply almost entirely to one tax, and in that case they might just as well be taken as an exemp-
536
tion to that tax, as dealt with in a more general way on Clause 14, which deals with original site values. It is a question of extreme difficulty to decide where it should come, but what I do not want to do is to discuss matters twice over. Here we have three taxes, and if the general considerations affecting covenants affect all the three taxes they should be dealt with on Clause 14. As to the other case of Harrow land, after all here we are dealing with an Amendment to Sub-section (3), and if the Amendment under consideration were accepted it would read: "Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on the site value of any parks, gardens, or open spaces contributing to the amenity of the locality." I understood the Harrow land was agricultural land bought for the purpose of the school, and that it was not an open space contributing to the amenity of the locality in this section. That was why I thought that particular case was out of order.
Mr. F. B. MILDMAY: May I ask the Secretary of State for War whether, under the definition of parks open to the public as of right, is included a park through which there is a right of way, and an un-fenced park in which the public are expected to keep to a path, the rest of the park being let to an agricultural tenant?
Mr. HALDANE: If there is a right of way and it is necessary to go along a defined line, then the park is not open.
Mr. STANLEY WILSON: I do wish to press the Government for some further explanation. The Government have placed the Committee in a position of the most extraordinary difficulty. I should like to ask hon. Members opposite whether they are followers of the Secretary of State for War or of the Attorney-General, because within a quarter of an hour these two hon. Gentlemen have stated diametrically opposite views of this particular Amendment. [Cries of "No."] The Secretary of State for War said that squares are to be taxed and the Attorney-General said that they are to be exempt. I think the Secretary of State for War does owe to the Committee some further explanation. Does the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the first statement he made to the Committee to-night? If he does so, we shall then really know where we are. If not, I am perfectly confident that neither of the hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill has the very slightest idea of what the Measure really means. I wonder whether

537
any Member of the Committee knows who of these two representatives of the Government is right.
Mr. ASHLEY: Am I to understand from your ruling that I am to be allowed on this Amendment to raise the question of Harrow? Some years ago it was thought by those interested in Harrow School that it would be undesirable that the growth of London towards Harrow should strangle the school. Other schools have had to move away from the places with which their traditions were bound up, and in order to avoid that in this case, Old Harrovians put their hands in their pockets and bought hundreds of acres round the school.
The CHAIRMAN: I cannot definitely state that the Amendment is out of order, because I do not know whether the land which the hon. Gentleman is arguing about affects the amenity of the locality.
Mr. ASHLEY: I think I can perfectly and honestly say that it does add considerably to the amenity of the locality. It is within ten miles of the Marble Arch, and will never be built on, or if it was built on it would be devoted to a purpose for which it was not intended when the land was originally bought. Do the Government mean by their Amendment or under their Bill to safeguard this land which has been bought for Harrow School in order to maintain it as a living institution, or do they mean that this land should be subject to this tax? An answer to this question would avoid a great deal of unnecessary discussion.
Mr. T. ARNOLD HERBERT: It appears to me that there is a matter of considerable importance arising out of the answer just given by the Secretary of State for War to the hon. Member for Devonshire (Mr. Mildmay). He asked whether a park would be considered to be open to the public if the public merely had a right to walk across a defined path, and had not the right to wander wherever they pleased in the park, and the right hon. Gentleman
said that such a park would not be considered open to the public, and would not escape the tax. I want to ask how does that rule apply to a garden? Would it be possible to say that a garden into which the public were admitted, but in which they were restricted to the paths, should be taxed, and that a garden would not be exempted unless the public had a perfect right to walk over the flower-beds?
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If we had had any kind of answer it might be argued that we were guilty of tedious repetition in repeating questions, but I submit that the Rule was never intended to allow Ministers to sit silent and refuse to answer perfectly reasonable questions. The only possible remedy open to a minority when these questions are not answered is to repeat them until the Government have made up their minds to give an answer.
Mr. HALDANE: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to confine his question in a. specific way?
Mr. BALFOUR: The question, I think, may be put quite clearly and explicitly in this way: Suppose a public institution buys land in order to prevent, its development, and the fact that that land should be left unoccupied is very desirable for that institution, is the land: bought for that purpose to be taxed as-development land or to be excused from taxation? That is a very simple and precise question, and I think it does deserve respectful treatment from the Government.
Mr. HALDANE: I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that he was alluding to a school which exists for profit in some shape or form. It is a private institution, no matter however well known, and that land has been acquired exclusively for its own purposes, and ought to be taxed.
Question put, "That the word 'which' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 192;. Noes, 101.

Division No. 424.]

AYES.

[12.5 a.m.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Beale, w. p.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Byles, William Pollard

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Armitage, R.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Bowerman, C. W.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Brace, William

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Barnard, E. B.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Clough, William

Barnes, G. N.

Brooke, Stopford

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Burns, Rt. Hon., John

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Cooper, G. J.

lllingworth, Percy H.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Jardine, Sir J.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Jenkins, J.

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rowlands, J.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Davles, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rutherford, v. H. (Brentford)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Jowett, F. W.

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Duckworth, Sir James

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lambert, George

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lamont, Norman

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Lehmann, R. C.

Seely, Colonel

Elibank, Master of

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Shackleton, David James

Erskine, David C.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Evans, Sir S. T.

Lewis, John Herbert

Simon, John Allsebrook

Everett, R. Lacey

Lupton, Arnold

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Falconer, J.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Soares, Ernest J.

Ferens, T. R.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Stanger, H. Y.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Maclean, Donald

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Findlay, Alexander

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Fuller, John Michael F.

Macpherson, J. T.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Summerbell, T.

Gill, A. H.

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

M'Micking, Major G.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Glover, Thomas

Maddison, Frederick

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Markham, Arthur Basil

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Massie, J.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Gulland, John W.

Menzles, Sir Walter

Verney, F. W.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Vivian, Henry

Hall, Frederick

Mond, A.

Walsh Stephen

Hancock, John George

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Walton, Joseph

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wardle, George J.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Morse, L. L.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Myer, Horatio

Waterlow, D. S.

Harwood, George

Norman, Sir Henry

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

O'Grady, J.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Partington, Oswald

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Whitehead, Rowland

Hedges, A. Paget

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Wilkle, Alexander

Helme, Norval Watson

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Henry, Charles S.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Higham, John Sharp

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Richardson, A.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Holt, Richard Durning

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Hudson, Walter

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Robinson, S.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Kerry, Earl of

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Courthope, G. Loyd

Keswick, William

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Cowan, W. H.

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cox, Harold

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Ashley, W. W.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Baldwin, Stanley

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Fell, Arthur

MacCaw, Wm J. MacGeagh

Beauchamp, E.

Forster, Henry William

Magnus, Sir Philip

Beck, A. Cecil

Gardner, Ernest

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Moore, William

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Gordon, J.

Morpeth, Viscount

Bryce, J. Annan

Gouldlng, Edward Alfred

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Bull, Sir William James

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Newdegate, F. A.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Oddy, John James

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Helmsley, Viscount

Parkes, Ebenezer

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Percy, Earl

Clive, Percy Archer

Hunt, Rowland

Pretyman, E. G.

Clyde, J. Avon

Joynson-Hicks, William

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

540

541

Renton, Leslie

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Renwick, George

Stanier, Beville

Wills, Arthur Walters

Ridsdale, E. A.

Starkey, John R.

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Younger, George

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Leverton Harris and Mr. Cave.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Walters, John Tudor

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

EARL of KERRY EARL of KERRY moved to leave out from Sub-section (3) the words "which in the opinion of the Commissioners are."
Mr. HALDANE: I am prepared to omit the words at this point. They are in a different position lower down, where it is really a question of law.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved in Section (3) after "open" ["gardens or open spaces … open"] to insert the words "or offered to be open on reasonable terms as to superintendence, and damage, and reasonable hours." There is a considerable number of properties of beauty and of value belonging to private people, which the owners have from time to time allowed visitors to go over to enjoy the beauty of the scenery, and so on. It would be reasonable that this provision should not be confined to open spaces actually enjoyed by the public, but that the exemption should extend to such places where the owners are willing to allow the public on reasonable terms to enjoy the beauty of the scenery. It is with that object I move this Amendment, and if the actual words are not acceptable to the Government, I shall be very glad if they will embody other words carrying out the same idea. It is with that object, to preserve the possibility of the public enjoying these very enjoyable places, that I move this Amendment.
Mr. HALDANE: We propose to meet the object of the hon. Gentleman in the words of the Amendment "enjoyed by." What would be the result if we take the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman? Land which the public do not want access to at all, but nobody wished to relieve from rating, might be very easily relieved. You have only to let it get covered with mud and strewn with broken bottles for it to escape rates.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: May I say that I have put down an Amendment to the words "enjoyed by." Could what I have put down be taken in conjunction with the Government Amendment?
Mr. HALDANE: I am afraid it is the same consideration over again. If land is land that the public do not wish to enjoy, then it ought not be exempt.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. MILDMAY Mr. MILDMAY moved, in Section (3), after "any" ["the site value of any parks, gardens, or open spaces"] to insert the word "woodlands." There are many beautiful places in North and South Devon much frequented by tourists to which public access is given by the owner. I understand the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. HALDANE Mr. HALDANE moved, in Section (3), to leave out the words "granted to" ["access to which is granted to the public"], and to insert "enjoyed by."
Mr. ASHLEY: May I ask for some explanation from the Government as to what this change in the Bill really means? Now, the Amendment substitutes the words "enjoyed by the public." What does "enjoyed by the public" mean? I quite understand what "granted to the public" means. I presume that means that the owner has notified to the public through the Press or by some other means that his park is open to them on certain days a week. I will put a concrete case to the Committee. A friend of mine admits the public to his park on certain days. He does not admit they have any legal right, but his park is used in the summer time three or four days a week by parties of excursionists, not only from the immediate locality, but from the surrounding large towns. They write previously to my friend and say: "We wish to hold a fete, or we wish to walk through the park, or to sit in the grounds," and in most cases my friend writes back and says: "I shall be very pleased to enable you to enjoy yourselves." Can the Government give me any idea whether my friend's park would in these circumstances be exempt from the Undeveloped Land Tax? There are no legal rights to the public, but they are at

543
liberty to enjoy the amenities of the park under certain restricted circumstances. The owner maintains the right to exclude them altogether if he wished. The owners of parks are put in a very difficult position with regard to this Undeveloped Land Tax. If they make their parks public altogether they have to bear a considerable expense, because most parks are not used simply for walking about in; they are used for agricultural purposes, and bring in a very considerable revenue to the owners. If the public are forced in under this clause the owner will undoubtedly suffer in the agricultural returns he gets for his park. Excursionists, for instance, could not be allowed to walk all over that portion of the park which is reserved for meadow. If a man grazes cattle on his park he cannot have large numbers of people moving about among the beasts; it prevents them fattening as soon as they otherwise would. In the park which I have in my mind when a large party comes to visit it the cattle have to be moved from one part of it to another, which means the expenditure of money and time. I think, therefore, before we pass this Amendment we ought to have some idea of what "enjoyed by the public" means as compared with "granted to the public."
Mr. J. S. HARMOOD-BANNER: Does the word "enjoyed" include where the public take French leave? Does it mean that in such a case the property will be exempt from the Undeveloped Land Tax1? I have in mind a suburban park of some acres where the public have taken French leave. There has been no granting of leave, because the public have pulled down the fences. The result has been that people have fallen into the quarry and been killed and the owner has been condemned by the coroner's jury. They have also fallen into the pit in the middle of the gardens, and the owners have been condemned for not putting a fence round the pit. If that is what is called enjoyment of the property, will it free the owner from the payment of this Undeveloped Land Tax? I think we are entitled to some explanation of that point, because those who have suburban property to look after have difficulty enough at the present time in keeping the public off the property without any proposal of this kind.
Mr. BALFOUR: I think the Government will feel that they ought to help the Committee to understand what is
544
meant by this proposal. They might at least tell us how the Commissioners are to exercise the powers which it is proposed to give them under this sub-section. As far as I understand the point, I am in sympathy with the Government, but it will be extremely difficult for the Commissioners to carry out their duties even if they know what they are. So far the Government has not explained those duties. Clearly there must be some restriction upon the enjoyment by the public. I know one case not very far from London, close to a large town, where from time immemorial the owner has allowed all his neighbours and those living in the district to have the full enjoyment of his park, but that privilege is not extended to people living further off, except upon special application. I think everybody will admit that this is a reasonable enjoyment. I have known other cases in the suburbs near one of our great provincial cities where permission is given by the owner in writing to particular institutions on particular days, but it would be quite impossible for general access to be given to all who desired it without some restriction. Otherwise it would be much better for the owner to build over the site and develop it, and go and find a more solitary and peaceful habitation elsewhere. Again, people living in a less crowded part give full enjoyment of their land to their friends and neighbours in the district, and everybody will feel that very little harm is done. I understand that the Commissioners would have to decide these extraordinary difficult cases within their discretion. That may be right or it may be wrong, but as regards the method I think it is wrong. But, waiving that, surely we ought to know what the Government themselves think "reasonable enjoyment" means. It would greatly enlighten the Committee if they would tell us, and I only rose before the right hon. Gentleman in order that we might have an opportunity of hearing how the Government proposed to deal with some of the difficulties. It appears to me great injustice will result to owners if the powers of the Commissioners are used.
Mr. HALDANE: The only hesitation I have in endeavouring to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question is because it is an unanswerable question. It is ex tremely difficult to give a definition which, is exhaustive, or do more than show the general principle which underlies the words. No doubt the right hon. Gentle-

545
man is right in saying they must be interpreted differently in different localities. It might not contribute to the amenity of the locality to permit people from a distance to have the same free access as the people of the locality. That, I think, is a view the Commissioners might legitimately take. It is, at any rate, clear that a reasonable access might be enjoyed by the public, although there might be certain restrictions to safeguard the owner as well as the people who go there. It might be quite right that the place should be shut after a certain hour at night and not opened until a certain hour in the morning. All I think one can say is that the case of the generous owner who throws open his park with restrictions for the general amenity of the property, and for making access to it more pleasant for the people themselves, so that the amenities of the locality are really contributed to, would be exempt. A reasonable degree of access is compatible with a certain amount of restrictions. Hon. Members have a reasonable degree of privilege of making speeches and of moving Amendments, notwithstanding there are at rimes considerable restrictions; and so, if the public are de facto entitled to go to a park, notwithstanding that people from a distance are not treated on the same footing as people of the locality, that case would, in view of the Government, come within the meaning of the clause. I am sorry it is not possible to give an exhaustive definition. It is a matter in which individual cases must be dealt with on their merits by the Commissioners.
Mr. WALTER LONG: I think the speech we have just listened to has really only served to show, if possible, with greater clearness than before, the extraordinary position we have been brought into. The suggestion made to my hon. Friend is that the Commissioners shall take into consideration the language that is here quoted, and shall interpret it according to the special powers conferred in each district. But the proposition is that the Commissioners shall ignore the fact which has hitherto been acknowledged as universal that the owners of these properties have voluntarily given to the people who enjoy their enormous advantages. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the Commissioners shall consider what the privileges are—of what kind, quality, or degree. But there is no suggestion under consideration that the Commissioners shall proceed from the standpoint that
546
these people are dealing with their own property, and have dealt with it in a spirit of wide liberality. The Government frequently agree with our criticisms, and the right hon. Gentleman says he does so in this case, but unfortunately the Government will not accept the suggestion which we believe will best carry out the views we are advancing. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the Commissioners may have regard to the fact that the access of school children to these parks and open spaces may be in itself an injury. We have protested before now against this growing practice on the part of the Government of creating public bodies and endowing them with enormous powers. According to the right hon. Gentleman's own admission the Commissioners are to be entitled to exercise discretion because the owner has been either illiberal or too liberal.
Mr. HALDANE: I only used the illustration for the purpose of showing how restrictions might be imposed.
Mr. WALTER LONG: The right hon. Gentleman said there might be so much access as to be injurious, and that it might destroy the amenities of the neighbourhood. But surely that can be left to the person who owns the property. The question is whether you are not giving the Commissioners a power altogether unfair and one which may be exercised in a very arbitrary way. The Secretary of State for War has not removed the objection urged by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. HICKS BEACH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the particular merit of the Amendment proposed by the Government over the word in the Bill. Can he also tell us in what form the instructions will be set out to the Commissioners? Will they tell the Commissioners what the Government mean by "reasonable access," and are we to understand by that that the access is to be given to the public every week, or will it be reasonable access if the public are allowed to go through when they desire to do so? Will instructions be sent to the Commissioners how many flowers the public will be allowed to pick when they go through?
Mr. PRETYMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman interpret the word "public" to mean that the permission must be general, or that the public may obtain permission by special permit. That is a very

547
important point, and there is a very wide and important distinction. There are not many parks which are open to the public, without distinction as to what the word "public" means, but there are many where it is common to give particular applicants permits, but they are not given indiscriminately to any person who likes to come at a given time.
Mr. HALDANE: I cannot undertake to give a definition of every case. I can conceive the public being given permission when asked for, and it may be desirable in the interest of the public to exclude undesirable characters. On the other hand, it would not do to admit large sections of the public on political grounds, and to exclude other sections in blocks. For instance, if an hon. Member opposite wished to throw open his park only to gatherings of the local Liberal Association, I am afraid that would not do. The restrictions must be more or less in the public interest. As to the question of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Hicks Beach), you cannot give Commissioners instructions in the terms of the Act, and they are the judges of any instructions which the Government give them.
Mr. BALFOUR: Surely the right hon. Gentleman has laid down a dictum in absolute contradiction to that which he laid down five minutes ago in reply to me, when he said he entirely agreed with my proposition that it might be reasonable to allow neighbours to go in, but not the general public. That is dividing the public into blocks, and I should like to know how that apparent or real contradiction is to be reconciled. In his first speech he assumed that the public who came from a distance might reasonably be divided from the public who lived close by and said that those who lived near might be given admission and those who resided further off excluded. Now he says you cannot divide the public into different categories, and that the word public has but one meaning, viz., everybody except the owner. There is the owner on one side and the rest of the world on the other, and you cannot divide that word by an arbitrary classification, or indeed by any classification, arbitrary or otherwise. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do something to reconcile these two statements.
Mr. HALDANE: The right hon. Gentleman asked about the opening of parks, especially for the benefit of the locality,
548
and he thought the advantage of the public would not be contributed to if a large number of people were allowed to come from a distance outside and destroy the general amenity of the locality. In a sense that is dividing the public into sections, but the other case I instanced, about a political party on one side being admitted while those on the other side were not, referred to the case of people in the same neighbourhood, and had nothing to do with the amenity in the case upon which I founded my first answer to the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD: May I put one more case. I happen to be the owner of a park which is a great attraction to visitors. Next door to me lives a Liberal landlord who owns villages, one feature of which is a number of lodging-houses. The people who go there know they only have to write a postcard to me and they have leave to go through my park. If I am to be taxed on the undeveloped value of my park, that undeveloped land is added to the unearned increment of my Liberal neighbour, and that is rather hard.
Mr. W. PEARCE: I think that the words as they stand, "enjoyed by," would mean that the Commissioners would have to undertake the framing of regulations and schemes relating to all these open spaces, so that it might be recorded on some document to which they have given their sanction that there were privileges accorded to the public which brought the particular open space or park within the words of the section. Otherwise, you would not be able to say that the public were enjoying reasonable access under proper conditions. The effect of leaving it as it now stands would be that there would be various applications made to the Commissioners for exemption from the tax on the ground that the public were having a certain quasi public right which could not be enforced and could not be held to be sanctioned by the Commissioners.
Mr. BONARLAW: It may be that I have failed to understand the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, but I have not in the least gathered the object of altering these words. As I understand, he said in one speech, that the object was to prevent anyone from getting the exemption in respect of ground to which access is so restricted as to be absolutely useless to the public. It appears to me that that case would be met by the words "granted to" in the section as it now stands in the

549
Bill. According to the Amendment before the Committee the exemption is only to be given if in the opinion of the Commissioners reasonable access is "enjoyed by" the public to parks, gardens, or open spaces. I fail to see what difference the Amendment would make. My right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, seemed to have the idea that the Government did not intend to give the right of appeal under this section. I do not think that any statement of that kind has been made. I think it would be extremely unfair to say that the right of appeal should not be given here as in other parts of the Bill. In my opinion the words "granted to" have in this connection exactly the same meaning as "enjoyed by."
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.
Question proposed, "That the words 'enjoyed by' be there inserted."
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to insert after "enjoyed" the words "or offered to be enjoyed on reasonable terms as to superintendence and damage and reasonable hours." This enjoyment must begin at some time, and if landowners are to be precluded from making an offer which will start that enjoyment by the public, the fact that the enjoyment has not actually taken place will mean that the landowners will still have to pay the tax. It would appear from the wording of the clause as if the Government deliberately intended that the landowners should come forward and offer the use of these advantageous places to the public. The acceptance of the Amendment by the Government would do a great deal to induce the owners of these places to offer such reasonable access as would satisfy the Commissioners. The Government would be perfectly safe in accepting the Amendment, because in the next line it is stipulated that "in the opinion of the Commissioners that access is of benefit to the public."
1 A.M.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): For the reasons which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Haldane) has already given, it is impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment. In the earlier part of the clause we are
550
discussing the Government accepted Amendments, which are in the nature of very large concessions to what is generally recognised as generosity on the part of the landowners of this country, but it is impossible for us to so enlarge these concessions as to enable anybody to take advantage of them who happens to have undeveloped land in the neighbourhood of a town, and thereby to evade the payment of the tax. The Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Watson Rutherford) might have considerable application just in those neighbourhoods where I think everyone in the House will agree that no kind of special claim for exemption arises. I know cases in my own Constituency where land is being held back for building purposes which are simply estates of waste land, where there is no access to the public, which is of no benefit to the public, and where the existence of the waste land as it stands at the present time does not contribute to the amenities of the locality. But, so far as I understand it, if the intention of the Amendment were carried into effect, it would only be necessary for the owners of that land to assert that they were allowing free access to the public and they would escape the tax. The general wording of the clause seems to us to be as wide as we can possibly make it. It would be utterly impossible for us to lay down, either in the clause or in regulations, sufficient answers to the various interesting conundrums and questions which have been propounded from the other side. The Government have made very considerable exemptions from the tax, and I submit that it is rather unnecessary to present a series of this particular kind of instance.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "enjoy" to insert the words "or offer to enjoy on reasonable terms." Amendment to the proposed Amendment put, and negatived.
Lord ROBERT CECIL Lord ROBERT CECIL moved in Section (3) after the word "public" ["reasonable access to which is granted to the public"], to insert "or by the inhabitants." This is a very small point. It is to meet a point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. As the words stand in the Government's proposition, they are a little doubtful. I,

551
therefore, move to insert "or by the inhabitants" after "public" in line 23. I do not know whether the Government intend to accept the Amendment?
Mr. HALDANE: I make no objection.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. CAVE Mr. CAVE moved in Section (3) to leave out the words "where in the opinion of the Commissioners that access is of benefit to the public as contributing to the amenity of the locality." The object is to get rid of one of the many occasions on which the Commissioners have a discretion. Somebody has counted 37 such occasions. We have got rid of several, and this is another. As the Bill stands, if a man who has a park allows access to the public, and the public actually enjoy that access, that is not enough. There is a further condition. The matter must go before the Commissioners, and they must say whether the public are wise in enjoying that access, and whether it is of benefit to them. The point I put is this: if a man allows the public to use his park or garden, he has done his part, and if the public actually make use of that park or garden that should be enough to show that the access is for the public benefit. It s needless and mischievous to bring in a third party to judge whether access is useful or not in such a case. One point that has been put is that a man might strew his garden with broken bottles and invite the public in. In that case the public would not use the garden, and therefore such a case could not arise. I say quite frankly that if the Bill were drafted so as to give a right of appeal against the decision of the Commissioners my objection to these words would be very much lessened. But as the Bill stands there is no such right of appeal at all, and the Commissioners would be able to say, however generous a man might be, and however much the public might use his land, that the land ought not to be free from the duty. That is wrong; it gives the Commissioners too much power.
Mr. HALDANE: The hon. Member's proposal is rather wide. He will notice that the clause applies to "open spaces," a very general term. The view of the Government is that exemption should only be given where, in the opinion of the Commissioners, the access is of benefit to the public as contributing to the amenity of the locality. There are cases in which people, merely in order to spite their
552
neighbours, have invited large parties to the locality. I have known of injunctions being granted to prevent people exercising their legal rights because they proposed to exercise them in such a way as to create a nuisance. The Government lay great stress on the words the hon. Member proposes to leave out: that the access of the public must be such an access as will be of benefit to them as contributing to the amenity of the locality. Who is to be the judge of that? It is obviously a question of which the Commissioners are as good judges as any court of law. It is not a question of law at all; it is a question of fact, and I do not know of any better tribunal for such a question. Nor do I think an appeal would assist us much on a question of fact. But from what I have said the hon. Member will see that we regard his proposal as going a great deal too far.
Mr. YOUNGER: The right hon. Gentleman put his finger on the spot when he asked who was to be the authority. It is very obvious that the Commissioners are not the best authority to settle this question. If the right hon. Gentleman will carry his mind back a year or two he will remember that when exemptions of this kind were suggested in another Bill, a Select Committee reported that the people who ought to decide on these exemptions were the local authority. The local authority obviously know best whether open spaces are an advantage to the locality or not. In Scotland, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the local valuation authority would be a most excellent authority. They know their own locality infinitely better than the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is introducing the question of the local authority. There is an Amendment to be proposed on that point: that the opinion of the local authority should be conclusive evidence.
Mr. YOUNGER: I do not want to introduce that. I want to get rid of the Commissioners. I think the Commissioners are a most improper authority for this purpose. I am asking the Committee to realise what for all practical purposes these Commissioners will be? They will be the local taxing authorities, sent from Somerset House, no doubt, with no knowledge of valuation and an insufficient knowledge of the local circumstances. Is the

553
individual who is to represent the Commissioners in all these districts in Scotland and elsewhere to be considered the best authority to say whether these spaces are to be taxed or not, or whether the access is suitable or not? I say simply "No." I shall support the Amendment in order, if possible, to get the Commissioners out of the Bill altogether.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: One short argument is very conclusive. The Com missioners who are to decide whether the amenities of the locality are sufficient to exempt the land from the Development Tax are the taxing authority, and the duty of the Commissioners is to get in as much tax as they can. Therefore, you are putting them in a most invidious position. It seems to me that if there is one point in the Bill where the Commissioners' opinion ought not to be final it is this very point.
Sir W. ROBSON: I would point out that it is not only the duty of these people to collect the tax, but it is also their duty to administer the exemptions. It has been pointed out that they have a specific function and duty. Their specific function and duty is not confined to the collection of the taxes; they have an administrative duty as well.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do hope the Government will not adhere to their action on this Amendment, even if they cannot accept the full Amendment of my hon. Friend. I hope they will strike out the words "in the opinion of the Commissioners," which matter is to arise in the next Amendment. It is evident that there are two sub-sections to be discussed together, and it is somewhat inconvenient. I do not wish to say anything on what my hon. and learned Friend has said on the other part of the Amendment. I feel it is not right to make the Commissioners judges without appeal in a matter of this kind. It is odious to put them in such a position as proposed in the Bill; but it is really ridiculous to anybody who has had any dealing with the Inland Revenue authorities to attempt to regard them as impartial as between the taxpayer and the Crown. It is asking more than you can expect of human nature to ask them to be impartial. Of course, their bias is in favour of the Crown. It is not right to make them into a judicial body without appeal. The Government have more than once at the request of the Opposition agreed to strike out words, and they would
554
be wise to consider how far an appeal in regard to the decision of the Commissioners can be given. The words "in the opinion of the Commissioners" are not necessary, and to insert them here will prejudice the question whether there shall be an appeal when it comes to be dwelt with later on. But the moment you say the matter is to be decided by the opinion of the Commissioners, it shuts out the possibility of the right of appeal. I think it is a reasonable request that the Government should agree to strike out these words, without pledging themselves on the matter of the appeal, and leaving that till later on. They should not insist upon the insertion of the words here. I hope the Government may see their way to meet us on this point. I think there are many hon. Members who sit on the other side of the House who think as we do about the Commissioners being both judges and tax collectors.
Sir JOHN DICKSON-POYNDER: I think there is some force in the arguments just heard from the other side. It must be obvious to everybody that the Commissioners who are to be tax collectors are not the proper body to adjudicate on questions of this character. They are not questions of fact; they require very nice discretion. They are not only matters that require a nice discretion whether this class of property should be exempt from taxes or not; but this class of property, which should have every facility offered it, is in many instances for the benefit of many localities around it. You, Mr. Chairman, have ruled out of order our reference to the alternative body; but I agree with the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. Younger), and I think it would be most injudicious to leave the matter as in the Bill, and that it would be better to leave the decision to the local authority. I have an Amendment down on the Paper which would place the matter in the hands of the local authority. If the Government adhere to their decision and decide on retaining the Commissioners in the Bill, there will be no opportunity for discussing the alternative authority or the local authority.
The CHAIRMAN: I mentioned that we must not have the matter mentioned by the hon. Baronet discussed both on a specific Amendment and on the point now raised. I do not mind which way it is done.
Sir J. DICKSON-POYNDER: The reason why I agree with the Amendment in regard to the Commissioners is not because I do not realise the necessity of having some tribunal. I think another authority would be a very much better one. I might mention certain institutions which are exempted from rating under an Act of 1843, known as the Scientific and Literary Institutions Exemption of Rating Act. The local authority there was not deemed the proper authority to decide as to whether certain institutions were to be exempted from rating, and that power was made to rest in the hands of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Such institutions as the Arts Union and the Society of Arts, and many others, are exempted from rating on a certificate from the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and I think that is a fair analogy to the case we have before us. I therefore ask that the Government will reconsider their decision.
Mr. HALDANE: I have listened to the speech of the hon. Baronet, and to the speeches of the other hon. Gentlemen, and I must say that I think there is something in them. It seems a little awkward that the taxing authority should be the exempting authority. On the other hand, I do not think it would be a good thing that the local authority should be called in. A body which we have brought in in other parts of the Bill is the Local Government Board. But I do not think we should decide this thing straight off; it is too important. I will undertake to consider before the Report stage whether the Local Government Board would be the suitable body for this work. We can then discuss the matter on Report, and if necessary insert an Amendment to that effect.
Mr. WALTER LONG: I hope the Secretary for War will go a little further, and will also take in an appeal. He has admitted the manifest injustice of the provision in the Bill. [Cries of "No."] Yes, he has. I do not desire to put the case stronger than he did, but I think he admitted that to make the taxing authority the authority as to exemption was most undesirable. I only stretch his language when I say that it is an injustice, and I say it at any rate for myself. I am glad he has made the admission. I hope he will not limit his consideration between now and Report to the introduction of the Local Government Board. I have had some experience of that Department myself, and I do not quite see how on earth
556
they are going to exercise these powers. During recent years the Local Government Board have been made the Cinderella of the Government. Whenever there has been a difficulty the Local Government Board has had to find a way out. There is this also to be considered, that they have no local officials, no local representatives. They would have to send down an inspector to inquire into every one of these cases. There will be no other way of arriving at the necessary information. I do not quite like the suggestion of the hon. Baronet below the Gangway (Sir J. Dickson-Poynder) that the county council should be the body to exercise this power. There are manifest difficulties in the way of that which make the local body far from the model body for this particular duty. I find great difficulty in making any suggestion in regard to the matter, for the reason that the task you are throwing upon those who have to make this decision is one of extreme difficulty. You are laying down a whole series of very vague conditions. The language of the clause is of the vaguest possible kind. You are asking the same unfortunate person who suffers from the consequences of your legislation to prevent the difficulties which you yourself see will follow. I do not rise to make a suggestion, but I do hope that the Secretary for War will at least do what the Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Robert Cecil) suggested, namely, keep the matter open by leaving the words out now without prejudice to the insertion of the Local Government Board or the local authority, and will earnestly endeavour to find some tribunal more satisfactory than the one he has suggested.
Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: I am sure that the concession the Government has made and intend to make is one which will be very much appreciated in the cases to which it applies. I am not sure that the number of cases will be very large, and therefore I think that some central authority could undertake the work quite well. I do not think that the Inland Revenue Commissioners would be the proper body to employ. I am quite sure they are not. With all deference to what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) has said, I believe that in England the Local Government Board would be the satisfactory body to decide what should be done I am not quite sure whether the same can be said of the Local Government Board in Scotland. As my right hon. Friend the

557
Secretary for War understands Scotland, perhaps he will bear that point in mind. I should not think them much more competent than the Inland Revenue authorities to decide the matter.
Mr. BONAR LAW: We are all satisfied with the view expressed by the Secretary for War that the matter should be considered. He recognises that as it stands the position is one that should not be allowed to continue. [Cries of "No."] He has certainly made that admission. There is not an axiom of Jaw better known than that a man should not be the judge in his own case. The Government are repeating here the same proceeding they took in the earlier discussions on this Bill when they refused altogether to give an appeal. There is no conceivable reason why the right of appeal should not exist here just as much as in the earlier part of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War will consider the instances affected by this section he will see you ought not to leave the decision to a body which is indirectly interested in the result, a decision which may have the effect of injuring the property of citizens of this country. That is a state of things which should not be allowed to continue, but it is exactly what will happen. The whole section goes together. Take, for instance, the case of a school, where a person has bought some thirty acres of land and put up a school. It is for the Commissioners, and nobody else, to say whether or not these fields are to be taxed. If they are to be taxed, it simply means that in this ease the school could not be worked, and no greater injury could possibly be inflicted. The Secretary for War has shown that this is not a question of fact. If it were it might be left to the decision of the Commissioners. It is a question which largely affects the interests of individuals. What is the objection to there being a right of appeal? Probably it will not be used very often. I am perfectly certain that I am only stating what will be found to be true, namely, that the Government will have to do here what they have done in the other parts of the Bill—give the right of appeal. All I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do now is not to insist on prejudging the question, so that when the appeal clause comes up for discussion its provisions may be made to apply to this particular part of the Bill.
Mr. HALDANE: In response to the appeal made by the Committee, I am quite
558
prepared on behalf of the Government to leave it an open question if the Amendment is withdrawn. We will then review the whole situation. I do not think it is so bad a case as right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think. The Inland Revenue Commissioners are already judges under the Finance Act.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: There is an appeal.
Mr. HALDANE: No, that is not so. In a great many cases there is not an appeal. However, we are here dealing with rather a special case, where I do recognise that some different body would probably be better. I should like to take time to consider this, and if the Amendment is withdrawn I undertake to consider with a very open mind whether it would not be possible to substitute the Local Government Board, unless something better can be done. I am at present rather averse to an appeal, but I will consider it.
Viscount MORPETH: As the right hon. Gentleman has said he has an open mind, will he also consider whether the Local Government Board is a suitable body. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro Ferguson) and the right hon. Gentleman himself, who both come from Scotland, advocate the Local Government Board in England as being the most suitable body for this country. I do not share their opinion. In the first place, it is a very arbitrary body, and, secondly, it is very slow in its action. It is a Government Department; it is very grasping, and is always endeavouring to rake fresh power into its hands. For these reasons it is undesirable that it should be given these very wide powers. It has also been suggested that the power should be given to the local authorities. I think that would be equally undesirable for a great many reasons, one only of which I will give. It is that the local authorities are themselves parties to the case, for they share half the proceeds of the tax. It seems to me that the best plan would be to leave it to the Commissioners, subject to an appeal. If there were an appeal I think it is very unlikely the Commissioners would act in an unreasonable manner, and probably only in very rare cases would the right of appeal be exercised. The Commissioners would know that they were subject to a higher court, which would adjudicate as to whether the user of the parks was reasonable or unreasonable.
Mr. CAVE: In view of what the Government have said I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in Section (3), after the word "public" ["that access is of benefit to the public"] to insert the words "equivalent to the amount of the duty remitted." I want to afford some sort of guide to the Commissioners, or the Local Government Board, or whoever it is that is going to decide this knotty point as to whether the access granted to the public is of sufficient benefit to the public to justify exemption from Undeveloped Land Duty. I think, obviously, the guide should be the amount of the duty that would be raised from the property if such access were refused. As the right hon. gentleman the Member for Dublin (Mr. Long) said just now, the wording of the clause is so vague, and it is so doubtful what is exactly meant by the words, "where in the opinion of the Commissioners that access is of benefit to the public as contributing to the amenity of the locality," that I hope the Government will accept the Amendment, which, without being injurious to any interest concerned, would make the duty of the Commissioners or Local Government Board more explicit than it is at present.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Acland): I am afraid I have to say that it is impossible to accept this Amendment.
Question, "That those words ['equivalent to the amount of duty remitted'] be there inserted," put, and negatived.
Mr. CLYDE: I beg to move in Section (3) to leave out the words "as contributing" ["is of benefit to the public as contributing to the amenity of the locality"] and to insert the words "or contributes." It is a comparatively small matter which is raised by the Amendment, and the words are rather of a drafting character than otherwise. As the Bill stands, the phraseology used is "where in the opinion of the Commissioners that access is of benefit to the public as contributing to the amenity of the locality." What the Amendment proposes to do is to make it read "where in the opinion of the Commissioners that access is of benefit to the public or contributes to the amenity of the locality." The exact reason which led to this Amendment being put forward is this: It seems a very curious qualification—I suppose as it reads
560
it suggests a qualification—to say of the public benefit that it shall be a benefit in the way of contributing to the amenity of the locality. What I propose is to make it clear that what the Commissioners are to test is public benefit, independent altogether of any qualification as to how that may affect the amenity of the locality.
Mr. HALDANE: I think there is something in the criticism of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Clyde), but I am not sure that the way in which he proposes to word the alteration is the best. I pointed out in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) that this was a matter which might be for the advantage of the locality. It enables you to discriminate between sections of the public, and say that, although you do not allow great crowds to come from some city twelve miles off to an open space, yet it contributes to the amenity of the locality if, while putting on that restriction, you throw open the gates to the children of the immediate neighbourhood. Therefore, as the Committee will see, there is a distinct and definite advantage in keeping in the restriction. I agree that the words "as contributing" are a clumsy way of expressing the intentions of the Government, and I would suggest that better words would be "and contributes." I think by the use of those words we should save the advantage of which I have just spoken, and at the same time improve the phraseology of the clause.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I hope the Government will accept the Amendment as it stands on the Paper. I cannot say that the suggestion of the Secretary for War is an improvement on it. It would add greatly to the restriction on the owners as drafted in the Bill if the Commissioners had to be satisfied not only that access was of benefit to the public, but also that it contributed to the amenity of the locality. The fairer course is to say that the exemption should apply if the Commissioners are satisfied either that access is of benefit to the public or contributes to the amenity of the locality. That is a temperate view, and I should have thought it was substantially what was intended by the words of the Government as they stand. They are, as the Secretary for War has said, clumsy words, and I certainly hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Clyde) will adhere to the resolution as he has moved it, as I do not care for the right hon. Gentleman's suggested alteration in its wording.
Mr. HALDANE: I cannot reconcile the contending views. I do not like the disjunction, and I do not quite like the grammar of the drafting as it stands. I think what I have suggested, "and contributes," comes nearer than anything else to meet the views expressed. I think it-improves the drafting, and certainly expresses what the Government mean.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I prefer the words as they stand to "and contributes." "Or contributes" would be better, but I would rather see the words "as contributes" than those which the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
Mr. HALDANE: It is a small point; let us leave it.
Mr. CAVE: The access must be for the benefit of the public. That means the whole public, and it is a great pity to limit
it to these cases. There are many cases-where the access is not to the whole public, but contributes very much to the comfort and convenience of the public around or of a particular class of the inhabitants. The Amendment of my Noble Friend just now was exactly on the same lines, and was accepted by the Secretary of State. In that case we had "or locality." I think the case is exactly met by the Amendment as it stands. It would allow the Commissioners to pass as sufficient access, which fulfils, one of two conditions—either it must be for the public benefit or for the benefit of the locality. I hope the Amendment, as proposed, may be accepted.
Question put, "That the words 'as contributing' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 74.

Division No. 425.]

AYES.

[1.45 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Menzies, Sir Walter

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Glover, Thomas

Micklem, Nathaniel

Armitage, R.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Mond, A.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Griffith, Ellis J.

Morse, L. L.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Gulland, John W.

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Myer, Horatio

Barnard, E. B.

Hall, Frederick

Norman, Sir Henry

Barnes, G. N.

Hancock, J G.

O'Grady, J.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Partington, Oswald

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Beale, W. P.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

pickersgill, Edward Hare

Berridge, T. H. D.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Bowerman, C. W.

Hedges, A. Paget

Rainy, A. Rolland

Brace, William

Helme, Norval Watson

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Brooke, Stoplord

Henry, Charles S.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.>

Bryce, J. Annan

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Richardson, A.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Higham, John Sharp

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Robinson, S.

Byles, William Pollard

Holt, Richard Durning

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

tiling worth, Percy H.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Jenkins, J.

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Clough, William

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rowlands, J.

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Runciman, Ht. Hon. Walter

Cooper, G. J.

Jones, William (Carnarvon)

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Jowett, F. W.

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lambert, George

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon)

Lamont, Norman

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Davies, Sir W. Howeli (Bristol, S.)

Lehmann, R C

Seely, Colonel

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Simon, John Allsebrook

Duckworth, Sir James

Lewis, John Herbert

Soares, Ernest J.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Luiton, Arnold

Stanger, H. Y.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Elibank, Master of

Maclean, Donald

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Erskine, David C.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Summerbell, T.

Evans, Sir S. T.

Macpherson, J. T.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Falconer, J.

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Ferens, T. R.

M'Micking, Major G.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Maddison, Frederick

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Markham, Arthur Basil

Thorne, G R. (Wolverhampton)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

lire, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Verney, F. W.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Vivian, Henry

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Walsh, Stephen

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Walters, John Tudor

Whitehead, Rowland

Wardle, George J.

Wilkie, Alexander

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Waterlow, D. S.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gordon, J.

Oddy, John James

Ashley, W. W.

Gouldlng, Edward Alfred

Parkes, Ebcnezer

Baldwin, Stanley

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Percy, Earl

Banner, John S. Harmood

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

Pretyman, E. G.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Renton, Leslie

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Ridsdale, E. A.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Helmsley, Viscount

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bull, Sir William James

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hunt, Rowland

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Cave, George

Joynson-Hicks, William

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kerry, Earl of

Stanler, Beville

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Starkcy, John R.

Clive, Percy Archer

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Staveley-Hill. Henry (Staffordshire)

Clyde, J. Avon

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Courtnope, G. Loyd

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E. R.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Magnus, Sir Philip

Younger, George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Forster, Henry William

Moore, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.

Gardner, Ernest

Morpeth, Viscount

Mr. PRETYMAN Mr. PRETYMAN moved: "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
It is now nearly two o'clock, and I do not think the Government will desire to carry on the Debate any further to-night. We sat very late indeed on Monday night, and last night we sat till a quarter to twelve. It is obvious that it is impossible to make any substantial progress to-night in view of the large number of Amendments still on the Paper, and their important character. Further, we have to consider the prospect before us for the remaining day of this week, because Clause 14 is a most important clause, and it is obvious that it cannot be effectively discussed to-morrow considering the position we are in now. If the Government desire to finish Clause 11 to-night, then even with the most active desire on the part of the Opposition to give help in discussing only absolutely necessary Amendments, those Amendments cannot be disposed of until many hours have elapsed. Then to discuss Clause 13, and to enter on the discussion of Clause 14 to-morrow, would again carry us to a late hour in the morning. It is not fair to suggest such a course, and I desire to move to report Progress now. Then we should be able to finish Clause 11 in a
564
reasonable time to-morvow, and after Clause 13—Clause 12 having gone—we should be able to enter on the discussion of Clause 14 under conditions in which we should be in a better position to discuss it.
Mr. HALDANE: The Government desire to meet the views of the Opposition if possible, but they cannot think of accepting this Motion. Last night we had a night off, and here we are all fresh. We have had quite an interesting discussion and the Committee has been doing its work in a very business-like fashion. But hon. Members should really remember that there are 78 clauses to be got. I am not myself peculiarly devoted to Christmas holidays, but still I should like to see some prospect of finishing this Bill by Christmas. I remember one Session in which we adjourned for Christmas Day. It is a long time ago, and if we can avoid it I do not think we should repeat that experience. I see no reason why we should not get to the end of Clause H to-night. If the Opposition were to offer to give us Clause 14 by to-morrow night it would be different. But in present circumstances, I think we must continue in the spirit that has been shown hitherto until we finish Clause 11.
Mr. PIKE PEASE: The speech to which we have just listened is an extraordinary one considering the position in which we

565
are placed. We have sat since February last, with the exception of a few weeks, and nearly every week, and really the time has come when some decided protest ought to be made against the way in which the Government are carrying on the business of the nation. It seems rather an outrage for the Secretary for War to suggest in a casual way that we should now sit on till Christmas. The position we are placed in has been caused to a great extent by the way the Government have altered the Bill from time to time. If it had not been for the action they have taken to-day in regard to a particular clause, and the long statement that had necessarily to be made as to the alteration regarding royalties, we should not be in the position we are tonight. I appeal to the common-sense and goodwill of hon. Members opposite to say whether they do not think that the majority are taking advantage of their great powers. It really is ridiculous to keep us up every night till, on an average, about three in the morning, especially when one remembers that after the beginning of this Parliament it was stated openly by many Members in important positions that it was quite impossible to consider any legislative proposal seriously after midnight.
2 A.M.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I have listened to the speech of the Secretary of War with great interest and with some regret. He says the Committee have been doing their work admirably, but he cannot think of adjourning at two o'clock. He went on to explain that if we were to do so there would be no prospect—indeed there is no prospect in any case, so far as I understand him—of getting through the Bill before Christmas. And that is if the Committee do their work in a thoroughly reasonable and business-like spirit too. I venture to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to exercise that faculty which he recommends so much to others—the faculty of clear thinking. I do venture to ask the Government to consider a little carefully—after all it is holiday time now and I suppose they have a little time for thinking; ordinarily I do not believe Ministers have any time at all for thinking—what they really propose to the House of Commons as a programme to get through their Bill. Do they really seriously mean that we are to sit up week after week, night after night, till three or four, or five or six o'clock in the morning, pretending to legislate? Is it reasonable to ask that of Members? Of course, I am
566
not referring to hon. Members below the Gangway, whose boyish spirit is the admiration of the whole House. I ask is it really reasonable to suppose that you can discuss the intricate details of the Finance Bill between the hours of two and six in the morning, or after that? [A LABOUR MEMBEB: "Yes."] Well, are they hours that hon. Members below the Gangway would work? [LABOUR MEMBEBS: "We have had to do it," and cries of "Order."] If an hon. Member chooses to make a disorderly interruption, I am bound to answer. Does the hon. Member say he has ever worked these hours? They are ridiculous hours to expect even for the meanest type of men who live, and if it is intended that we in this House are to exercise any kind of mental effort at such a time it is really absurd. It is absurd to suppose that we can at these hours discharge our duty either to our constituents or to the country, and we ought not to be asked to sit these hours. What I want to know is what the Government really contemplate about this Bill? What is their idea? Because it is really absurd to suppose that they are going to sit up in this way night after night. I think we are entitled to know, and the country are entitled to know, what the Government contemplate, and we are entitled to support my hon. Friend.
Mr. RAWLINSON: Are we going on to discuss this Amendment to Clause 11, dealing with the Questions of cricket grounds and similar things? These and spaces kept for recreation grounds depend very largely upon what happens to Clause 25. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were here he would know that depends very largely on the Amendments he has promised to Clause 25. I have more than once asked that the Amendments to Clause 25 should be in our hands before we discussed Clause 11. It is impossible to discuss fairly Clause 11 without knowing what the Government's Amendments are on Clause 25. With those proposed Amendments in our hands we should know where we are, and, may I say, in regard to the Bill more particularly. Of course, if you come here and say you are going to get the Bill through without proper discussion, that is one way of looking at the matter; but really, if we are to understand the Bill as a whole and to deal as fairly with the clauses as it is possible for us to do, we ought to have the Government Amendments on the Paper. Can we

567
really discuss an intricate Bill like this without knowing what the other clauses are going to be in a Government Bill of this magnitude and importance? From time to time in discussing parts of this Bill we have not the slightest idea, and the Government in some cases cannot have the slightest idea, of what effect the proposition is going to have on the Bill. We have got to discuss certain clauses exempting on certain grounds when we know that Clause 25 is not going to be adopted in its present form.
Mr. HALDANE Mr. HALDANE rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Sir W. ANSON: May I add my appeal to that of my hon. and learned Friend. The right of exemption is of very great importance to a great many societies to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already made some reference. The Government Amendments put down to Clause 25 we have not yet seen, but we are asked to discuss exemptions of very much the same character, and it is really impossible to discuss what we are expected to discuss to-night fairly and
fully and satisfactorily unless we see these other Amendments to Clause 25, and it is to be remembered that we have had submitted to us to-night a new resolution which is practically a new Bill. Under these circumstances, and in consideration of the progress made to-night, I ask the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Haldane) not to allow us now to deal with these exemptions, as I hope we shall have a better understanding of the position when the Chancellor of the Exchequer returns.
Sir W. ROBSON: There is really no necessary connection between Clause 25 and the clause we are now discussing. Clause 25 deals with exemption of land held for public and charitable purposes. I do not see how anyone can suggest that we cannot deal with Clause 11 without having before us Clause 25. Whatever the Amendments to Clause 25 they will be put early on the Paper.
Mr. HALDANE Mr. HALDANE rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 70.

Division No. 426.]

AYES.

[2.10 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hyde, Ciarendon G.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Duckworth, Sir James

Illingworth, Percy H.

Armitage, R.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Jenkins, J.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Barnard, E. B.

Elibank, Master of

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Barnes, G, N.

Erskine, David C.

Jowett, F. W.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Evans, Sir S. T.

King, Alfred John (Knutstord)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Falconer, J.

Lambert, George

Beale, W. P.

Ferens, T. R.

Lamont, Norman

Beauchamp, E.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lehmann, R. C.

Beck, A. Cecil

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Berridge, T. H. D.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lewis, John Herbert

Bowerman, C. W.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Lupton, Arnold

Brace, William

Glover, Thomas

Lyell, Charles Henry

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Brooke, Stopford

Griffith, Ellis J.

Maclean, Donald

Bryce, J. Annan

Gulland, John W.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Macpherson, J. T.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Hall, Frederick

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Hancock, J. G.

M'Micking, Major G,

Byles, William Pollard

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Maddison, Frederick

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Clough, William

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Hedges, A. Paget

Micklem, Nathaniel

Cooper, G. J.

Helme, Norval Watson

Mond, A.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

Morse, L. L.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Henry, Charles S.

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Myer, Horatio

Cowan, W. H.

Higham, John Sharp

Norman, Sir Henry

Davies, David (Montgomery Col)

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Grady, J.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Partington, Oswald

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Holt, Richard Durning

Paulton, James Mellor

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Walters, John Tudor

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Wardle, George J.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Seely, Colonel

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Waterlow, D. S.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Simon, John Allsebrook

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Scares, Ernest J.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Stanger, H. Y.

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Whitehead, Rowland

Richardson, A.

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Wilkie, Alexander

Ridsdale, E. A.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Summerbell, T.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Robinson, S.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Rowlands, J.

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Vivian, Henry

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Walsh, Stephen

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Parkes, Ebenezer

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Ashley, W. W.

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds.)

Percy, Earl

Baldwin, Stanley

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Pretyman, E. G.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Renton, Leslie

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Helmsley, Viscount

Ronaidshay, Earl of

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hunt, Rowland

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Joynson-Hicks, William

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Bull, Sir William James

Kerry, Earl of

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Carlile, E. Hildred

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Stanier, Beville

Cave, George

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Clive, Percy Archer

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Clyde, J. Avon

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Courthope, G. Loyd

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Younger, George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Moore, William

Gardner, Ernest

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Forster.

Gordon, J

Oddy, John James

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 170.

Division No. 427.]

AYE5.

[2.15 a.m.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Vinson, Sir William Reynell

Gordon, J,

Oddy, John James

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Goulding;, Edward Alfred

Parkes, Ebenezer

Ashley, W. W.

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Percy, Earl

Baldwin, Stanley

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

Pretyman, E. G.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Renton, Leslie

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Ronaidshay, Earl of

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Helmsley, Viscount

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hunt, Rowland

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Bull, Sir William James

Joynson-Hicks, William

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kerry, Earl of

Stanior, Beville

Cave, George

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Clive, Percy Archer

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Clyde, J. Avon

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Willoughby de Eersby, Lord

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.|

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Younger, George

Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott-

Magnus, Sir Philip

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Forster, Henry William

Moore, William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.

Gardner, Ernest

Morpeth, Viscount

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Hancock, J. G.

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Armitage, R.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Barnard, E. B.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Richardson, A.

Barnes, G. N.

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hedges, A. Paget

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Helme, Norval Watson

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Beale, W. P.

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

Robinson, S

Beauchamp, E.

Henry, Charles S.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Beck, A. Cecil

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Higham, John Sharp

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Berridge, T. H. D.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Bowerman, C. W.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Rowlands, J.

Brace, William

Holt, Richard Durning

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Samuel Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Brooke, Stopford

Illingworth, Percy H.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Bryce, J. Annan

Jenkins, J.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Seely, Colonel

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Silcock, Thomas Bali

Byles, William Pollard

Jowett, F. W.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Soares, Ernest J.

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Lambert, George

Stanger, H. Y.

Charming, Sir Francis Allston

Lamont, Norman

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lehmann, R. C.

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Clough, William

Lever A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Cooper, G. J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Summerbell, T.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lupton, Arnold

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Cowan, W. H.

Maclean, Donald

Thomas, Abel (Carmaithen, E.)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Macpherson, J. T.

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Vivian, Henry

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

M'Micking, Major G.

Walsh, Stephen

Duckworth, Sir James

Maddison, Frederick

Walters, John Tudor

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Wardle, George J.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Marks, G. Croydon (Lauceston)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Ellbank, Master of

Masterman, C. F. G.

Waterlow, D. S.

Erskine, David C.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Evans, Sir S. T.

Micklem, Nathaniel

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Falconer, James

Mond, A.

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Ferens, T. R.

Morse, L. L.

Whitehead, Rowland

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Wilkie, Alexander

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Mycr, Horatio

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Norman, Sir Henry

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

O'Grady, J.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Glover, Thomas

Partington, Oswald

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Paulton, James Mellor

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Gulland, John W.

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Hall, Frederick

Pirie, Duncan V.

Sir W. ROBSON: On behalf of my right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), I beg to move the next Amendment which he has put down on the Paper relating to a very wide and important exception from the operation of the tax. The Amendment has already been brought to the attention of the Committee in connection with the discussion upon urban squares and open spaces. But it is much wider, and covers much more ground than the squares of towns. The Amendment was originally suggested by the Garden Cities Association, and is specifically intended to cover open spaces which are now under the excellent designs of garden cities
572
necessary for the amenity of particular towns and villages. I will read the Amendment, and as I think it speaks for itself, my observations upon it need only be very brief. The governing words of the clause, as the Committee will remember, are that "undeveloped land duty shall not be charged on." Then follows a series of categories of lands which are exempt. To that series we propose to add these words:
"(c) On the site value of any land where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme, whether framed before or after the passing of this Act, for the development of the area of

573
which the land forms part, and that it is reasonably necessary in the interests of the public, or in view of the character of the surroundings or neighbourhood, that the land should be so kept free from buildings."
The Committee will agree that these words are very wide—so wide that it is necessary to have some safeguard which will prevent the exemption from being improperly used. Therefore the Government are proposing another Amendment, which is, I may say, supplementary to this, dealing with the case of land which has enjoyed the exemption provided for by this Amendment and yet is subsequently sold, or is sought to be sold, by the Garden City or any other association which has laid out the land. The supplementary Amendment to be moved later will be as follows:
"Where any land kept free from buildings has received the benefit of an exemption from Undeveloped Land Duty by virtue of this provision, that land shall not be built upon unless the Local Government Board give their consent on being satisfied that it is desirable in the interests of the public that the restriction on building should be removed; and any such consent may be given subject to such conditions as to the mode in which the land is to be built upon as the Local Government Board think desirable under the circumstances."
The effect of the two Amendments taken together is that if any body or association laying out a garden city, or any private owner developing his land in pursuance of an obviously definite design or scheme, chooses to declare that certain portions of the land are to be left open, not necessarily for purposes of recreation or access, but as reasonably necessary in the interests of the public, exemption shall be secured from the duty. But, of course, if the landlord afterwards changes his mind and desires to put the land up for sale, he must then secure the consent of the Local Government Board for that purpose. That is to say, a landlord is not to enjoy the exemption as long as he pleases and then proceed to dispose of the land. If he chooses, however, to submit that the land has been left open for public purposes, or, even without it being open for public purposes, has been intended to be left uncovered as part of the amenity of the neighbourhood, he is to be allowed to sell it or build upon it, though it has been exempt from Undeveloped Land Duty, subject to the consent of the Local Government Board. Some hon. Members may desire to extend the Amendment and
574
others to limit it, but the principle is one which I am quite sure will be unanimously assented to.
Sir P. MAGNUS: I desire to ask the Attorney-General whether the restriction at the end of the last paragraph of the Chancellor's Amendments refers to all the exemptions, A, B, C, D, and, if not, to which of them?
Mr. J. A. CLYDE: I rise to move an Amendment to the Amendment proposed by the Attorney-General. It is after the word "land" ["On the site value of any land"] to insert the words "which is under restrictions in the title either of the land in question, or of adjoining land securing that the same shall remain as an open space and unbuilt on." Then I propose to allow the clause to stand as it is proposed, so that it will read on to the other sort of exemption, "where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free from buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme," etc. The object of the Amendment is to get rid of a situation which, as the Amendment would stand, would necessarily carry with it an injustice, indeed an absurdity. It is the case in which land is by legal restrictions in the title to it rendered undeveloped land, and which yet in the proposals of the Bill will be subject to be taxed as undeveloped land. I think it will be perfectly obvious that if you have land which, in consequence of the title under which it stands cannot be built on, and land with regard to which that restriction can be enforced by, let us say, the neighbours, it would be out of the question to treat that land as developable and therefore tax it, because by so doing you would be making a man pay for the non-development of land which, by the law of the land as it stands, he cannot develop. This Amendment, therefore, has nothing to do with the question of what may be in the public interest. It has to do with the question of what may be out of the power or competence of the man who owns the land according to the law.
I propose that it should come in at this particular place, and I do think it ought to come in at this particular place for this reason, that in the Amendment on the Paper the exemptions begin with the case of land which, in consequence of rights legally held by the public, is undeveloped. That is to be exempted, and very rightly so. Then follows the clause to the effect that land is also to be exempted if, in point of fact, it is free of

575
buildings or is in the form of parks, gardens, or open spaces to which the public has reasonable access. That is where the question of legal right determines the question. Then when you come to the new sub-section, it deals with schemes framed with the view to building development. But there is no reference at all to the case of the land being itself restricted to restrictions, so that the man who owns it, or the people interested in it, cannot, under law, develop it at all. This matter is regarded as of no small importance in Scotland, and in particular in the large towns in Scotland. I do not know whether the reason which leads it to be regarded in Scotland is due to our system of tenure. I do not think it is, but at all events the reason is this, that in the ordinary case where the land is laid out for building on and it is desirable, or it is part of the scheme, to make some portion of the land into an open space—it may be a garden, it may be only an ornamental piece of land, or it may be a piece of land kept open strictly for the purposes of providing sufficient light and air and without any regard to beauty at all, but simply for the provision of light and air for a crowd of houses which surround it, perhaps, in a hollow square— in all these cases, or almost all of these cases—for practical purposes it is a universal rule—on planning out the land the bit of ground which is to be dedicated in that way to the service of the various houses is as a matter of title made subject to restrictions to the effect that it never may be built on, and such restrictions are enforceable not merely at the instance of the superior—the ground landlord in England—but also by each of the proprietors against each and all the rest.
So that there is no possibility of this land at any time being rid of the restriction except by the combined action and consent of the whole of the group of houses round the square, and even of the houses in several streets and squares, together with the superior. In other words, as a matter of law and of private right this land is rendered completely and permanently undevelopable. It does seem perfectly obvious that you cannot tax that land as developable land unless by some means or other you break these restrictions. You cannot break them, and you do not propose to break them. It seems to me to follow that land permanently placed under these restrictions
576
is as much entitled to exemption as other land which cannot be developed in consequence of legal rights of the public. There is one other point. In the Amendment as it stands no distinction is made between restrictions in title, which are antecedent to the commencement of this Act—if it becomes an Act—and restrictions which are laid on the title later than that date. That was purposely done, and for this reason. Restrictions of this kind with us in Scotland are the instruments, and, so far as I know, the only instruments, we have for securing permanent dedication to the use of a group of houses of land for any of the purposes I have indicated. It would therefore be just as much out of the question to interfere with or to render nugatory or penal for the future this mode of laying out land in a way certainly not disadvantageous to the public interest, as it would be to come down on such portions of land as have already been treated in this way, and say that they must be treated as developable. An absolute exemption must be given to all land which is sterilised, if I may use the word, by private legal rights, legitimately created for legitimate purposes, just as you sterilise land which in like manner is rendered undevelopable by the existence of public rights, and no distinction should be made between rights created before this scheme came into operation and rights created after.
Sir WILLIAM ROBSON: I will first answer a question put by the hon. Member for London University, because it has a bearing on what I shall say on the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment. The hon. Member for London University asked whether the Government Amendment relating to the consent of the Local Government is applicable to all cases where land has received the benefit of the exemption. The cases on the White Paper are successive; in the copy of the Bill they are not successive. On the White Paper the first group is the site value of any parks, gardens, or open spaces, and the hon. Gentleman asks whether the consent of the Local Government Board will be necessary if afterwards the owner wants to build on the park. Clearly not. But I think it will be necessary when we come to deal with the clause referring to the consent of the Local Government Board to make it rather clearer, and to confine the operation of that clause to cases where there is a real definite building scheme in operation; not to apply it to

577
the case of parks or gardens or other open spaces where access is given to the public, and still less to apply it to games.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I put down an Amendment to bring that about exactly.
Sir WILLIAM ROBSON: I was just going to point out that the hon. Member had corrected an inadvertence on the part of the Government, who had put down the Amendment, as coming at the end of Section (3) which would have made it applicable to games. As to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh he has altered his place, and in altering his place he has brought about certain rather serious and inconvenient results. I should be glad to accept his Amendment in principle, but the alteration of the place has made it rather difficult for me to accept it. Let me take the first of two objections. As he had his Amendment down originally it came after the word "building," thus, "no Undeveloped Land Duty shall be charged on the site value of any land where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free of buildings," and so on. In that case the exemption would not arise until the owner had taken the trouble to show to the Commissioners that the land was being kept free of buildings in pursuance of a definite scheme, so that the owner would exercise his own option as to whether or not he would take the exemption. And it is a rather serious thing to take the exemption, because under a later Government Amendment if you do take it you cannot afterwards get rid of it and dispose of your land without the consent of the Local Government Board. The owner may, therefore, very well not desire to have his land exempted.
The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Clyde) says Undeveloped Land Duty should not be charged on the site value of any land under restrictions. Suppose I accepted his Amendment then, whether the owner liked it or not, whether he was exempted or not, his land would get the exemption, and when once he gets the exemption, it cannot be disposed of to the other parties unless he gets the consent of the Local Government Board. I am not altogether sure that we can compel the consent of the Local Government Board. Will the hon. Member take this— that the Government is quite in sympathy with his desire to secure exemption subject to the restriction that the Local Government Board consent in all cases
578
where the owner is desirous that it should be made an open space for the benefit of the public. I should like time to consider the matter, and I daresay we can insert what is necessary before we get to the Amendment in regard to the Local Government Board to try and meet his wishes, if not, we can do so on the Report stage. I cannot help thinking that by accepting the Amendment at once we may find that the hon. Member has got something more than he requires. I should like to see where the Amendment is to come in so as to leave no doubt or difficulty as to the consent of the Local Government Board. And, may I add, that my own feeling is that where we are dealing with land in joint occupation—i.e., land which is really part of the house to which it is attached, I myself should doubt whether there are many words in the Bill that would treat that land as undeveloped. It is like a big yard of one house. It gives the house value. There, again, where one is faced with these legal problems which are put forward as concrete cases, whereas the wording of the Bill necessarily deals rather with things in a general way, we must be careful to consider how far these individual cases are met. Undoubtedly the definition clauses must be carefully considered between now and the Report stage. The Committee may rest assured of this, that we do not desire to put in operation a clause to tax urban places which the Commissioners themselves are of opinion it is for the public benefit that they should be kept open. I think if the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow his Amendment to be reserved for consideration we shall be able to select a place where words can be put with less danger than is likely to be the case if we make the alteration at the present moment.
3 A.M.
Mr. C. SCOTT-DICKSON: I should like to point out that, in the first place, the question as to whether the land is under restriction is entirely a legal question. The Amendment should not be brought in after the words "shown to the Commissioners," unless that is to make them judges of this legal question, and, as the learned Attorney General is aware, in regard to the early part of the section —in Section A on the White Paper, the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Haldane) agreed that the words, "In the opinion of the Commissioners," should come out of that clause because it involved a question of law which should not be left to the Commissioners. This matter is in

579
exactly the same position. In every case very considerable legal difficulty arises, and legal questions should obviously not be left to the Commissioners. The only other point is this. The learned Attorney-General suggested that the owner is the one to claim the exemption. It is not a question as to whether he himself will want to retain the land and build upon it, but that every other owner who has an interest in the land with him is entitled to say, "Whatever you want I am entitled to." The superior who has sold the land subject to feu duty, although all the feuars are willing to dispense with the restrictions, will be entitled to come in and say, "I object," and there will be no answer to that objection. The effect of not taking in the Amendment will be this, that it will be impossible to build and develop the land, and yet the unfortunate owners will be initiated in the tax as though it were developable land, and they on their own motive refrained from developing it. I quite realise the sympathetic way in which the Attorney-General has met the Amendment, and I do not know what my learned Friend thinks about that. I submit to the learned Attorney-General these views meet the observations he has made. The only point he took was that it might not be subject to the control of the Local Government Board because of the change of place. I do not think that will happen. I think it is still subject to them, and, whether they like it or not, they cannot get rid of the restrictions.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think we are all obliged to the two hon. and learned Gentleman who have proposed and supported this Amendment for the disquisition they have given us upon Scotch law. There is no doubt about it they are right and that in Scotland they have some cast-iron system of perpetual covenants which will never be got rid of, because you have a whole row of gentlemen called feuars, and somebody else who is a superior as well, and any one of these feuars may be many, and the many may be feuars, and any one of them can insist upon the land remaining unbuilt upon and open. In these circumstances it is suggested by this Amendment that the land might always remain unbuilt upon and open and free from duty, and that it would be no disadvantage to it that it would never be
580
built upon without the consent of the Local Government Board. I am afraid that if the Amendment were accepted in this particular place it would be a very unfortunate thing for a good many English owners of property, because there are plenty of properties in England where there are restrictions that do not last for ever, and where the people entitled to the restrictions are equally entitled to lay their heads together and put an end to them.
If this Amendment were adopted in the present place it will have rather a disastrous effect upon all those cases where the restrictions are not entitled to be perpetual, but could be put an end to at any time the character of the neighbourhood changed, and it was considered reasonable to do so. I should support the Amendment in the form in which it appears on the Paper, but if moved at the present place from an English point of view there would be an insuperable objection to it, because it would never do that land which is simply subject to temporary restrictions in England to find itself by statute freed from this Undeveloped Land Duty, but equally by statute absolutely incapable of being built upon until the consent of the Local Government Board had been obtained. That would be a preposterous position. It is for these reasons, without in any way embarking upon a criticism of the Amendment from the point of view of Scotch law, which I confess I do not understand, but purely from the English point of view, with which I have some acquaintance, that I shall object to it.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have an Amendment dealing with the English restrictions which have been ruled out of order now, but which I have handed in as a new sub-section. That will cover the limits raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Watson Rutherford), and I suggest to him that he should not oppose the Scotch Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Clyde).
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I will not oppose anything further.
Mr. CLYDE: As I understand the position, the learned Attorney-General says that in the question of whether it is right or wrong to include a man owning land by a title which restricts him in such a way that he cannot develop it, he agrees with me that it would not be right. I agree from the point of view of English jurisprudence my Amendment may be inac-

581
ceptable in form. I am content to rest with the assurance that in one way or other the result will be achieved.
Sir W. ROBSON: I think we have nearly arrived at an agreement. My main anxiety is to make sure that if any person gets the benefit of the exemption they shall ultimately come under any restriction in regard to the Local Government Board. I have said that I think the case of persons who have debarred themselves by mutual covenants or by restrictions in the title either of the land in question or of adjoining land, securing that the same shall remain as an open space and unbuilt upon, is a very meritorious case which ought to be met.
Mr. CLYDE: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS moved to omit from the proposed Amendment the words "it is shown to the Commissioners that."
I move this in order to take out these everlasting Commissioners, to whom so much power is given in various places in this Bill. I do not want to repeat the arguments used in regard to the Commissioners so many times in the course of this evening and previous Debates. I submit it is not in the least degree necessary to make the Commissioners the final arbiters. The points involved must be largely legal points. It has been admitted that where legal points are involved it is not desirable to make them the final arbiters. I know that the suggestion had been made that the whole question of the Commissioners should be left over till we come to the Government's Amendment relating to an appeal. If the Attorney-General will give me the same assurance that the inclusion of the words here will not prejudice the question of appeal when we reach it I will not press the Amendment.
Sir W. ROBSON: I am bound to say that I cannot do anything which would prejudice the position of the Commissioners, because it seems to me, as I think it seems to the Government, that this is a matter really of administrative discretion. The Commissioners are not in the place here referred to deciding a question of title such as might arise on the Amendment we have just been discussing. They are here called upon to exercise a discretion as to whether the land is being
582
kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme. That is obviously an administrative act, and to substitute the law court for the Commissioners is really, I think, undesirable. Of course, whatever words we leave in or leave out, it does not prejudice the position of any Member, and does not bind the Government one way or the other when we come afterwards to decide the question of appeal. That question will be decided on its merits. Nobody doubts that the Commissioners ought to be the tribunal in the first instance to exercise discretion on what is a simple matter of fact, and is not worth making a law matter of. I do not think it would make any difference one way or the other to the question of appeal if we adhere to the reference to the Commissioners.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I think it is more important to get the appeal than to leave out the reference to the Commissioners, and I take the observations which the learned Attorney-General has just made to indicate pretty clearly that the Government intend that this discretion shall be subject to appeal.
Sir W. ROBSON: No, no; I have not said that. That is really putting rather more into my words than I am in a position to say or desire to say. What I said was that the question of appeal would be left quite open; that the fact of deleting the reference to the Commissioners here would not prejudice one way or the other the right of appeal. That is all I have said.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I am afraid I did not express myself clearly. I did not mean for a moment to suggest that the learned Attorney-General expressed himself on the general question of appeal. All I understood him to say was that whatever decision was arrived at on the general question of appeal the Government would not make any special exception in this case.
Sir W. ROBSON: The Government may ultimately arrive at the conclusion that an appeal may be allowed in some cases and not in others. That remains entirely open for subsequent discussion, and I do not think it is a question which should be mixed up with this Amendment at all.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think, perhaps, it will be more convenient to discuss

583
the whole question of appeal together. Under these circumstances, and entirely without prejudice, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have now to move an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, which will entirely alter the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman runs, "On the site value of any land where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme, whether framed before or after the passing of this Act." I move to leave out from "of" ["is being kept free of"] to "or" ["in the interests of the public, or"], my object being to insert in substitution for the definite scheme "reasonable estate management." The point is this: I do not want to leave this question as regards a definite scheme in the hands of the bureaucracy. I suggest that if an open space is left by a ground landlord in developing an area of land unbuilt upon in pursuance of reasonable estate management, then it should be free from Undeveloped Land Duty. Under the Government's plan, in order to get an exemption, the owner must put down in black and white a definite scheme, send it up to Somerset House, and—
Sir W. ROBSONdissented.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Attorney-General shakes his head. Has he read the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment? If the owner has framed a definite scheme before or after the passing of the Act, he is to show it to the Commissioners. That means a definite scheme put down in black and white, which is to be sent up to Somerset House, who will probably send down an inspector to make inquiries on the spot. This means that you are adding to the "red tape" of which there is already too much in the Bill. I think "in pursuance of reasonable estate management is a good phrase," which has been used over and over again in connection with our Debates on this Bill. The Amendment raises the question whether you are to have a bureaucratic scheme or a reasonable scheme adopted by the owner of the land, and I submit that it will obviate an endless amount of "red tape."
584
I must apologise to the Committee, but I have just discovered that I have made a mistake. My Amendment should come after the next "of" ["buildings in pursuance of"] and not in the place I at first suggested.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: In that case, Mr. Caldwell, I have an Amendment which would come in before that of my hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), as it follows the word "buildings."
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think that is so.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Then I will formally withdraw my Amendment and move it again later on.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move in the proposed Amendment after the word "buildings" ["is being kept free of buildings"] to insert the words "or of certain descriptions of buildings." My Amendment is meant to cover that which I believe the Government must mean to cover, but which I doubt whether their words do cover. Now that contemplates that this land is to be kept absolutely free of buildings as open space, and is not to be built upon, and that the fact of its not being built upon will be an advantage to the neighbouring houses and the locality in general. The case I want to submit is where the land can be developed, but can only be developed in an inferior manner. It very often happens when a building estate is being developed that there are somewhat tight restrictive covenants included, that a certain class of building shall be put upon the land, and what I contemplate is that you have certain land which has not yet been built on, and the Commissioners would naturally say to the owner, "You are liable to this duty because this land is not developed." The answer of the landowner will be, "I want to develop this land; it is my full intention to develop it, but I do not want to develop it with inferior buildings. If I were to accept an offer without any restrictive covenant, or with a covenant which would allow a very inferior type of house to be built, no doubt I could get rid of it, and it could be developed, but to do so would spoil the whole plan of my estate development. It would do harm to the rest of my land which is in development; it would do harm to the occupiers of houses on those parts which are

585
developed, and it would be against the amenities of the neighbourhood." Such a case must be very common in high-class watering places and the like where it is absolutely necessary that superior type houses should be built. No doubt it could be said that where plots have been taken which are not developed they could be developed, but they could only be developed in an inferior way that would not be to the good of the neighbourhood, and would be to the direct injury of other occupiers of houses or other persons who have actually bought houses on the same estate in the same neighbourhood. I do not think the words of the Chancellor's Amendment do cover a case like that, although it is a very important case to be covered. Surely the Government do not want land to be built upon anyhow in any way, no matter what the effect on neighbouring property may be? Yet, if they do not guard against such a case as this the owner, in carrying out his scheme, will be faced with the alternative either of paying Undeveloped Land Duty or else of doing a great deal of harm to his whole scheme and to the rest of the property, and to the interests of those persons who already occupy houses under the scheme. That cannot be the wish of the Government, and yet I believe the words as they stand will not meet the case I have tried to put.
Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. Member obviously has some very precise intention in his own mind to which he wishes to give legislative effect; but, of course, I can only look at his Amendment as what the practitioner would have to look to if incorporated in the Bill, and it would make the Clause read, "On the site value of any land where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free of 'certain descriptions of buildings.'" One wonders what on earth "certain descriptions of buildings" means. A mere reference to "certain descriptions of buildings" could not be incorporated in the Bill with any meaning at all.
Mr. PRETYMAN: My hon. Friend's object is certainly a very good one, because it is obviously in the interest of towns, and of developments of towns at large, that certain land should be restricted for a certain class of residence, or, for the matter of that, of shops; that a certain class of property should be segregated in a particular quarter, and it
586
is a common, and, in fact, almost an invariable practice where towns are properly laid out, and where towns are building, that a particular restriction under a definite scheme should be placed upon a certain area of land. What my hon. Friend would be anxious to secure is that a particular scheme of that kind should come under this exemption. From this point of view I am bound to say I think the intention is of rather a different kind from that intended in this particular sub-section. I do think it would be a very desirable Amendment, because it is obvious that otherwise you will be forcing people, to the injury of a district, to put land into the market for an undesirable class of premises instead of reserving it for the kind of property which is suitable to the particular part of the town. That is an important aspect that ought to deserve the Government's attention.
Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I think the Attorney-General has hardly fully grasped the meaning of my hon. Friend's Amendment. A property may be sold or let at a cheap rent in plots on the understanding that, subject to building tithes, the houses to be built on the plots are of a certain value, and then, owing to a change in the fashion of the neighbourhood, the building of the rest of the property does not go on. Those people have to go on paying their rent without being able to put up on the land the only buildings they are allowed to put up. The ground landlord, on the other hand, is bound, in the interests of those who have put up those buildings, not to release the tithes. What my hon. Friend desires to effect is that this land, which cannot, in the interests of the houses already put up, be covered with houses of a lower description, and in consequence of the building tithes injuriously affected in that way, should not be subject to this tax, because the land is undeveloped through no fault either of the lessee, who for the purposes of this Act would be the owner, or of the ground landlord; who is bound, if not in law at any rate in honour, to those who have already put up houses not to allow a lower class of houses. That is the kind of thing which is to be met by my hon. Friend's Amendment and which might be considered by the Government.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 146.

Division No. 428.]

AYES.

[3.30 a.m.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Oddy, John James

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Aikwright, John Stanhope

Gordon, J.

Pease, Herbert Fike (Darlington)

Baldwin, Stanley

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Percy, Earl

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

Pirle, Duncan V.

Barrle, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Pretyman, E. G.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Joynson-Hicks, William

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Kerry, Earl of

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Carlile, E. Hildred

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Cave, George

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Stanier, Bev le

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Starkey, John R.

Clive, Percy Archer

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Clyde, J. Avon

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Courthope, G. Loyd

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Moore, William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. James Hope and Lord Willoughby de Ereshy

Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott-

Morpeth, Viscount

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Forster, Henry William

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Hancock, J. G.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Handie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Armitage, R.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Richardson, A.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Barnard, E. B.

Hedges, A. Paget

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Barnes, G. N.

Helme, Norval Watson

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

Robinson, S.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Henry, Charles S.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Beck, A. Cecil

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Higham, John Sharp

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Berridge, T. H. D.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Rowlands, J.

Bowerman, C. W.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Brace, William

Holt, Richard Durning

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Brooke, Stopford

Jenkins, J.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Soares, Ernest J.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Stanger, H. Y.

Byles, William Pollard

Jowett, F. W.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Lambert, George

Strachey, Sir Edward

Clough, William

Lamont, Norman

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Lehmann, R. C.

Summerbell, T.

Cooper, G. J.

Lever A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Lewis, John Herbert

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Cowan, W. H.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Vivian, Henry

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Maclean, Donald

Walsh, Stephen

Duckworth, Sir James

Macpherson, J, T.

Wardle, George J.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Maddison, Frederick

Waterlow, D. S.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Elibank, Master of

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Evans, Sir S. T.

Masterman, C. F. G.

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Falconer, James

Menzies, Sir Walter

Whitehead, Rowland

Ferens, T. R.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Wilkie, Alexander

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Mond, A.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Morse, L. L

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Myer, Horatio

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Norman, Sir Henry

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Partington, Oswald

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Glover, Thomas

Paulton, James Mellor

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Gulland, John W.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Hall, Frederick

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Sir W. ROBSON Sir W. ROBSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That Question be now put."
Question put. "That the Question be now put."
Mr. PRETYMAN (seated and covered): On a point of order, may I ask what is the Question?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is at present before the Committee.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD (seated in his place and covered): On a point of order, may I point out that the Attorney-General admitted just now that this long further Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been put in the wrong place, and that it ought to come in as part of the section we are now considering in the way I have suggested. If this Question be now put, it will be impossible to amend the clause in the way suggested.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I put it to you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, on a point of order, that an Amendment was actually in existence moved by me and merely withdrawn at your request as a matter of convenience, and I put it to you that that Amendment being before the Committee must be put from the Chair.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No; the hon. Member agreed to withdraw his Amendment.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I submit to you, Sir, on a point of order, that it was only withdrawn conditionally.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 58.

Division No. 429.]

AYES.

[3.40 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Hancock, J. G.

Pirle, Duncan V.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Armitage, R.

Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Barnard, E. B.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Richardson, A.

Barnes, G. N.

Hazel, Dr. A E. W.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hedges, A. Paget

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Helme, Norval Watson

Robinson, S.

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Berridge, T. H. D.

Henry, Charles S.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Bowerman, C. W.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Rowlands, J.

Brace, William

Higham, John Sharp

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hebart, Sir Robert

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Brooke, Stopford

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Holt, Richard Durning

Seely, Colonel

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Jenkins, J.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Byles, William Pollard

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Soares, Ernest J.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Stanger, H. Y.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Jowett, F. W.

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Clough, William

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Lambert, George

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Cooper, G. J.

Lamont, Norman

Summerbell, T.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lehmann, R. C.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Cowan, W. H.

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Vivian, Henry

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Walsh, Stephen

Duckworth, Sir James

Maclean, Donald

Wardle, George J.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Macpherson, J. T.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Waterlow, D. S.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Maddison, Frederick

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Elibank, Master of

Markham, Arthur Basil

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Whitehead, Rowland

Falconer, J.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Wllkie, Alexander

Ferens, T. R.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Micklem, Nathaniel

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Mond, A.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Morse, L. L.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Myer, Horatio

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Norman, Sir Henry

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Glover, Thomas

Partington, Oswald

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Paulton, James Mellor

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Gulland, John W.

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Hall, Frederick

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reyneli

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Ed.)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Baldwin, Stanley

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Percy, Earl

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)

Pretyman, E. G.

Barrle, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Hunt, Rowland

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Joynson-Hicks, William

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Kerry, Earl of

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Carlile, E. Hildred

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Cave, George

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Stanler, Beville

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Clive, Percy Archer

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire)

Clyde, J. Avon

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Courthope, G. Loyd

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Younger, George

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Moore, William

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Gordon, J.

Oddy, John James

Question, "That the words, 'or (c) On the site value of any land where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme, whether framed before or after the passing of this Act, for the development of the area of which the land forms part, and that it is reasonably necessary in the interests of the public, or in view of the character of the surroundings or neighbourhood, that the land should be so kept free from buildings,' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put" in regard to the words to the end of Section (3) ["The opinion of the Commissioners as to matters arising under this sub-section shall be final, and not subject to any appeal"].
Lord ROBERT CECIL (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, the Division which is on the point of being concluded has been irregularly taken, and should be taken
again. Under Standing Order 28 it is provided "If, in the opinion of the Speaker or Chairman as to the decision of a question is challenged, he shall direct that the Lobby be cleared." No such order to clear the Lobby was given by you.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It was given, and the Question was put twice.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: That is not so. You are really mistaken in making that statement.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am in the recollection of the House. I put the Question twice, and gave the order, as I always do, to clear the Lobby.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is it really the case?
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: At this time of the morning, does it matter whether the Lobby was cleared or not?
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 58.

Division No. 430.]

AYES.

[3.47 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Byles, William Pollard

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Glover, Thomas

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Channing, Sir Francis Aliston

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Armitage, R.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Clough, William

Gulland, John W.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Hall, Frederick

Barnard, E. B.

Cooper, G. J.

Hancock, J. G.

Barnes, G. N.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Cowan, W. H.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Bowerman, C. W.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Brace, William

Duckworth, Sir James

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hedges, A. Paget

Brooke, Stopford

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Helme, Norval Watson

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Henry, Charles S.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Evans, Sir S. T.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Higham, John Sharp

Hobart, Sir Robert

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Summerbell, T.

Holt, Richard Durning

Pirie, Duncan V.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Jenkins, J.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Vivian, Henry

Jowett, F. W.

Richardson, A.

Walsh, Stephen

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wardle, George J.

Lambert, George

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Lamont, Norman

Robinson, S.

Waterlow, D. S.

Lehmann, R. C.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rowlands, J.

Whitehead, Rowland

Lewis, John Herbert

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Wilkie, Alexander

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Seely, Colonel

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Maclean, Donald

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Macpherson, J. T.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Soares, Ernest J.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Markham, Arthur Basil

Stanger, H. Y.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launcesten)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Partington, Oswald

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Strachey, Sir Edward

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Oddy, John James

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gordon, J.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

Percy, Earl

Baldwin, Stanley

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Pretyman, E. G.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Hunt, Rowland

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Joynson-Hicks, William

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Kerry, Earl of

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Carlile, E. Hildred

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Cave, George

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Stanier, Beville

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Clive, Percy Archer

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Clyde, J. Avon

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Courthope, G. Loyd

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Younger, George

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Moore, William

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.

Forster, Henry William

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Question put accordingly, "That the words of the Clause to the end of Section (3) stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 57.

Division No. 431.]

AYES.

[4 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Gulland, John W.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Cooper, G. J.

Hall, Frederick

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hancock, J. G.

Armitage, R.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cowan, W. H.

Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Barnard, E. B.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Barnes, G. N.

Dowar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Haworth, Arthur A,

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Duckworth, Sir James

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hedges, A. Paget

Berridge, T. H. D.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Helme, Norval Watson

Bowerman, C. W.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Henry, Charles S.

Brace, William

Elibank, Master of

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Higham, John Sharp

Brooke, Stopford

Falconer, J.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Ferens, T. R.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Holt, Richard Durning

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Fuller, John Michael F.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Byles, William Pollard

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Jenkins, J.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Glover, Thomas

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Clough, William

Griffith, Ellis J.

Jowett, F. W.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Lambert, George

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Summerbell, T.

Lamont, Norman

Pirie, Duncan V.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Lehmann, R. C.

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Ratcliffe)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Tennant, H.J. (Berwickshire)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Vivian, Henry

Lyell, Charles Henry

Richardson, A.

Walsh, Stephen

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wardle, George J.

Maclean, Donald

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Macpherson, J. T.

Robinson, S.

Waterlow, D. S.

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Maddison, Frederick

Rowlands, J.

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Whitehead, Rowland

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Wilkie, Alexander

Wenzies, Sir Walter

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Seely, Colonel

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Mond, A.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Morse, L. L.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Soares, Ernest J.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Myer, Horatio

Stanger, H. Y.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Norman, Sir Henry

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Partington, Oswald

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Strachey, Sir Edward

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gordon, J.

Oddy, John James

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Baldwin, Stanley

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Percy, Earl

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Hunt, Rowland

Pretyman, E. G.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Joynson-Hicks, William

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Kerry, Earl of

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Carlile, E. Hildred

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Cave, George

Lane-Fox, G R.

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Stanier, Beville

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Starkey, John R.

Clive, Percy Archer

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Clyde, J. Avon

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Courthope, G. Loyd

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Moore, William

Younger, George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Mr. JAMES HOPE: On grounds which I will very shortly state I move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." The grounds are these: The Government had a number of Amendments on the paper to the latter part of the last sub-section, which dealt with points of great importance and still greater public interest, especially as concerned the exemption of recreation grounds. By the action of the Government themselves we are now precluded from debating several of the Amendments which the Government had put down. We do not know what the attitude of the Government is on these matters, and their action throws a somewhat sinister light on other Amendments they have put down. The Committee and the public assume that they intend to carry those Amendments. But how do we know that on a future occasion when the same kind of action is taken, the Government will persevere with the Amendments they have put down, should they find it con-
596
venient to closure out other Amendments by such a Motion as that which has just been carried.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I must get Clause 11 to-night. The hon. Member has commented on the closuring of our own Amendments, but I would remind the Committee that they are in the nature of concessions, or, at any rate, most of them. When I came into the Chamber I found that a concession we had made was in a very close state of examination, and there was a prospect of it taking hours to dispose of. I felt that if every concession moved by the Government was to be treated in the same spirit it was not encouraging for us to proceed with our Amendments. Most of them were Amendments which we indicated in reply to criticisms from the Opposition side of the House we should be prepared to move, and, therefore, were in the nature of concessions. Therefore, I did not think the Opposition were justified in keeping the Com

597
mittee here until this hour of the morning in order to discuss these Amendments. I shall consider whether it will be desirable to put them down again at a later stage of the Bill.
Mr. WALTER LONG: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is entitled to make any demand which he thinks right on the Committee in regard to business. The only part we have to discharge is to do our best to criticise the work the Government offer us. I am bound to say that I have never heard a more remarkable statement than that which has fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night. We have been discussing this clause in his absence—an absence both understood and regretted for every reason—not only under the impression but under constant assurances from those who have represented him in his absence that these Amendments were to be introduced, not by any means as concessions, but as admissions frankly made that the clause, as further illuminated by the light of criticism, demanded several of these alterations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now tells us that he comes down and finds one of these Amendments too closely examined, as he thinks. Thereupon he suddenly moves the closure on all the Amendments the Government themselves had proposed, not, as I say, as concessions merely to criticism, but as concessions to argument which has convinced those who have represented the right hon. Gentleman while he has been away of the need of alteration. This action throws, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Hope) has said, a very sinister light on the way in which the Bill is being conducted, and gives altogether a new meaning to the words "freedom of Debate," which I understand the Government claim they are giving, notwithstanding the very extraordinary procedure they have adopted.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I have never heard a more astounding speech than that which we have just listened to from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Government appear to consider legislation as a kind of game in which the Opposition scores so much and the Government scores so much. When we have convinced the right hon. Gentleman of the wisdom of certain Amendments he regards that as a concession, not to justice, but to the Opposition. We assume that the Government do their duty—I am not sure that we shall be able to assume that very much longer—
598
and if they do their duty they do their duty not to their own party but to the House at large, and they only propose to the House Amendments which they think just to the country. They are not concessions at all. The Government have no right to consider them as concessions. They are what they think ought to form part of the Finance Bill of the year, and it is only on those grounds that they have any right to propose these Amendments to the House of Commons. Therefore, to say that because we venture to criticise the suggestions of the Government, and venture to think that Amendments which they have put down can be improved—to say that that is a ground for withdrawing their Amendments is trifling with the House. For my part I shall not hesitate to protest on every occasion against this kind of legislation. It is an absolute farce and mistake to pretend that the legislation carried on under these conditions is worthy of the House of Commons, or worthy of the country. We are told this is the only alternative to the guillotine. It is not an alternative to the guillotine. It is another form of the guillotine. The whole object of all these conditions, whether sitting up all night or closure by compartments, is to avoid the fair consideration and discussion of the Government. That is the only object the Government have. They have produced a Bill which they are perfectly confident cannot be defended in sober argument, either in the hours of the day or night, when the House is able to give it impartial consideration, and therefore they hope to force it through at three, four, or five o'clock in the morning, when it is perfectly evident that hon. Members are not in a condition—all hon. Members where-ever they may sit—fairly to transact the business of this House. I venture to protest in the strongest way against the proceeding. In the earlier part of this Parliament there was no stronger advocate of early rising than the Prime Minister himself. Over and over again he told the House that he regarded sitting all night as the worst of all expedients for legislation. Yet it is this Government, presided over by the Prime Minister, which is indulging in a debauch of late sittings which has never been equalled in the history of our House of Commons. I venture to say that you will never find a measure of first-rate importance being discussed in the middle of August night after night right into the morning. I protest altogether against this system, and

599
I think the Opposition will be ill discharging its duty if it did not do its utmost to resist the destruction, not only of the Opposition—that is a small matter—but the destruction of the House of Commons, which is proceeding apace. Under the leadership of the present Government the House of Commons is becoming the laughing-stock of the country, and everybody in this House knows it, and the people who are responsible for it, the people who cannot escape that responsibility, are the Government at the head of one of the most powerful majorities this country has ever had. They are proceeding without any attempt to heal the evils from which Parliament is suffering, and are driven to these elemental brutalities in order to proceed with the legislation of which they have the grace, I believe, to be thoroughly ashamed.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I am bound to say that I think the most serious aspect of this matter is that the methods the right hon. Gentleman has adopted must have a very serious effect upon the future conduct of this Bill, for the reason that we can no longer rely upon the Government giving effect to Amendments which they have put on the Paper in fulfilment of promises. These particular Amendments are not Amendments inserted in the ordinary way, but Amendments which were specially circulated on a White Paper and circulated as embodying the intentions of the Government. These Amendments have been constantly referred to, and other points in Debate have been dropped in view of the Government Amendments of which we are now deprived. And what is the right hon. Gentleman's excuse? The right hon. Gentleman is, through circumstances which we most deeply regret, unable to hear the earlier parts of the Debate. He comes here only a few minutes after the Secretary of State for War, who has been in charge of the Bill in his absence, has complimented the Committee on the businesslike and amicable character of the discussion through this night's sitting. I venture to say that the time which has been spent over to-day's Debates has mostly been occupied by the haggling of the Government in the right hon. Gentleman's absence on minor points, which, had he been here, he would have accepted. The right hon. Gentleman comes to the House, and because he finds the discussion on one Amendment taking a few minutes longer than he thinks de-
600
sirable, he takes upon himself to refuse to move and to closure out important Amendments to which he and the Government are pledged. It will be absolutely impossible for us in the future to accept even written pledges embodied in Amendments on the Paper, because if the course of discussion does not please the Government, those Amendments can be removed by they themselves moving the Closure in this form. It places the Committee in an impossible position, and if these methods are to be continued it will be impossible that we can any longer have that confidence in the faith of the Government which will enable us to conduct the discussions on the same lines as we have discussed them hitherto.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should like to say one word in reply to the hon. and gallant Member. I acted on the information I had as to the progress being made and as to the general lines on which the Debate was conducted. I understand that last night there was a discussion of four hours upon this clause, and that only three lines were carried. When I came in I found a concession which had been put down by the Government on the Order Paper being discussed, and that a long series of manuscript Amendments had been put in.
Mr. PRETYMAN: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? It will be within the recollection of the Chairman that these Amendments really represented Amendments already on the Paper? It was purely a question of order.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I also venture to say, after an examination of these Amendments, that some of them were ridiculous. One that was moved was a thoroughly absurd Amendment, and I have no hesitation in saying so. I felt that if every Amendment put down by the Government—Amendments I do not say put down to please the Opposition, but in the nature of concessions, were to be discussed in the same way, it would take us till two or three o'clock. The Clause itself is a concession on the part of the Government, and I was perfectly entitled to exercise my discretion by not moving my Amendment at this stage. This is not the last stage of the Bill, and if these Amendments were to be discussed now, and again discussed on the Report stage, the, concessions would actually retard the progress of the Bill. As to the Noble Lord, he has generally criticised the House

601
of Commons. He has made the observation before; in fact it is one of his stock comments. He made the same observation on a guillotine Motion, and I had a good deal of sympathy with his comment then. But there is one thing I should like to say. This is an attempt, a bonâ-fide attempt, to get legislation through without the guillotine.
An HON. MEMBER: It is a rotten one.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I daresay the hon. Member feels that the guillotine would have been much better. But I rather expected the noble Lord's assistance in this effort to get legislation through without the guillotine, and I do not think he is giving it. I am perfectly certain that if any legislation is to go through at all without the guillotine it can only be by forbearance, not only on the part of the Government, but on the part of the Opposition, and I appeal to him in the interests of Parliament as a whole that we should go back to the old times when we discussed things without the guillotine. The Opposition have now made their protest and I trust we may go on with the Bill.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I may point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he did not give us any pledge before that he would re-introduce these Amendments. Do we understand now that he will re-introduce them at a later stage?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Well, I think the Government ought to preserve their discretion about that. I will tell the hon. Member why. Their are some Amendments that I regard as absolutely necessary. They are concessions I make because I feel convinced of the justice of the case they are designed to meet. On the other hand, notwithstanding what the Noble Lord said, there are other concessions which a Government makes to an Opposition. He calls that a game, but I call it a necessary part of Parliamentary institutions. I was in Opposition much longer than the Noble Lord has been, and I think it is necessary that the Government should occasionally make concessions to the Opposition, even although, on the whole, they may not consider such concessions necessary as improvements of the Bill. In regard to concessions of that character, I think the Government ought to have some regard to the way in which they are received by the Opposition, and as to whether the Opposition are playing the game in regard to them. I therefore
602
think I am entitled to say that I must exercise my discretion as to which of these concessions I shall proceed with.
Mr. CAVE: I do not think any of us would willingly have an acrimonious discussion with the Chancellor of the Exchequer at this moment. But I feel bound to say that partly, I think, through ignorance of what had happened during the evening, and partly through haste, he has exercised his power in a manner that struck all of us as tyrannical, and as interfering unduly with the liberty of the House. Before he came we had had a business-like discussion—and it was so described by the Minister in charge. When the right hon. Gentleman happened to come into the House a discussion was proceeding on one of his own Amendments. He came to the conclusion that the Amendments to that Amendment were not such as he desired to discuss, and he closured the Debate on the particular Amendment under discussion. But then he proceeded to a further step. He moved out a whole series of Amendments, dealing with a different subject matter altogether—the question of grounds used for games and recreations, a question that had not been discussed at all this evening. And among the Amendments moved out were Amendments which had been put down by the right hon. Gentleman himself in fulfilment of promises given to the House, Amendments to which reference had been made in earlier Debates in order to induce us to withdraw ours.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I must correct one statement. None of these Amendments were in fulfilment of any pledge I had given. If the hon. and learned Member looks at the Paper he will see that.
Mr. CAVE: I will not discuss it now, but I think I am right. I have one Amendment in mind in particular. In his haste the right hon. Gentleman dropped the whole series of Amendments. I think he will regret it. I think he has acted in a manner very unusual for him and very unusual to this House. He has cut out five pages of Amendments to this clause, many of them Amendments of substance, and many of which I think he would have accepted if they had been moved. I do not think he had sufficient reason to act in that manner, and, therefore, I feel bound to join in the protest made by the Noble Lord behind me and others. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have a little more regard for the freedom of Debate in

603
future, and that we shall be allowed to discuss matters of substance without this kind of very rough interference with a businesslike procedure.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place,
and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 55.

Division No. 432.]

AYES.

[4.30 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Hancock, J. G.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Armitage, R.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Barnard, E. B.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Barnes, G. N.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Richardson, A.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Hedges, A. Paget

Ridsdale, E. A.

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Helme, Norval Watson

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Henry, Charles S.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Bowerman, C. W.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Robinson, S.

Brace, William

Higham, John Sharp

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Rowlands, J.

Brooke, Stopford

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Holt, Richard Durning

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Seely, Colonel

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Jenkins, J.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Byles, William Pollard

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Soares, Ernest J.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Stanger, H. Y.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Jowett, F. W.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Clough, William

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Lambert, George

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cooper, G. J.

Lamont, Norman

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lehmann, R. C.

Summerbell, T.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Cowan, W. H.

Lewis, John Herbert

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Vivian, Henry

Duckworth, Sir James

Maclean, Donald

Walsh, Stephen

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Macpherson, J. T.

Wardle, George J.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Maddison, Frederick

Waterlow, D. S.

Elibank, Master of

Markham, Arthur Basil

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Evans, Sir S. T.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Falconer, James

Masterman, C. F. G.

Whitehead, Rowland

Ferens, T. R.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Wilkie, Alexander

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Micklem, Nathaniel

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Mond, A.

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Morse, L. L.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Glover, Thomas

Myer, Horatio

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Norman, Sir Henry

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Griffith, Ellis J.

Partington, Oswald

Gulland, John W.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Hall, Frederick

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Forster, Henry William

Morpeth, Viscount

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Baldwin, Stanley

Gordon, J.

Oddy, John James

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edmds)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Percy, Earl

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Pretyman, E. G.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hunt, Rowland

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Carlile, E. Hildred

Joynson-Hicks, William

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Cave, George

Kerry, Earl of

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Stanier, Beville

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Starkey, John R.

Clive, Percy Archer

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Clyde, J. Avon

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col- A. R.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Younger, George

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Moore, WiIIiam

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 144.

Division No. 433.]

AYES.

[4.40 a.m.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gordon, J.

Percy, Earl

Baldwin, Stanley

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

Pretyman, E. G.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hunt, Rowland

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Kerry, Earl of

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Bridgeman, w. Clive

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Stanier, Beville

Carlile, E. Hildred

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Starkey, John R.

Cave, George

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Clive, Percy Archer

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Clyde, J. Avon

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Younger, George

Courthope, G. Loyd

Moore, William

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. James Hope and Mr. Leverton Harris.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Forster, Henry William

Oddy, John James

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Hancock, J. G.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Armitage, R.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Barnard, E. B

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Barnes, G. N.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Richardson, A.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Hedges, A. Paget

Ridsdale, E. A.

Beck, A. Cecil

Helme, Norval Watson

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Henry, Charles S.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Robinson, S.

Bowerman, C. W.

Higham, John Sharp

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Brace, William

Hobart, Sir Robert

Rowlands, J.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Brooke, Stopford

Holt, Richard Durning

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Illingworth, Percy H.

Seely, Colonel

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Jenkins, J.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Byles, William Pollard

Jones, Lelf (Appleby)

Soares, Ernest J.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Stanger, H. Y.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Jowett, F. W.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Clough, William

Lambert, George

Strachey, Sir Edward

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Lamont, Norman

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Cooper, G. J.

Lehmann, R. C.

Summerbell, T.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lewis, John Herbert

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Cowan, W. H.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Vivian, Henry

Duckworth, Sir James

Maclean, Donald

Walsh, Stephen

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Macpherson, J. T.

Wardle, George J.

Dunn, A- Edward (Camborne)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Maddison, Frederick

Waterlow, D. S.

Elibank, Master of

Markham, Arthur Basil

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Evans, Sir S. T.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Falconer, James

Masterman, C. F. G.

Whitehead, Rowland

Ferens, T. R.

Menzles, Sir Walter

Wilkle, Alexander

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Micklem, Nathaniel

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Mond, A.

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Morse, L. L.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Glover, Thomas

Myer, Horatio

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Norman, Sir Henry

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Griffith, Ellis J.

Partington, Oswald

Gulland, John W.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Hall, Frederick

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Mr. LLOYD - GEORGE Mr. LLOYD - GEORGE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That, In respect of the words of the Clause to the end thereof, the Chair be empowered to select the Amendments to be proposed."

Division No. 434.]

AYES.

[4.45 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Pirle, Duncan V.

Armitage, R.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Barnard, E. B.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Barnes, G. N.

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hedges, A. Paget

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Helme, Norval Watson

Richardson, A.

Beck, A. Cecil

Henry, Charles S.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Benn, W. (TOWER Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Higham, John Sharp

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Bowerman, C. W.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Robinson, S

Brace, William

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Holt, Richard Durning

Rowlands, J.

Brooke, Stopford

Illingworth, Percy H.

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Jenkins, J.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Seely, Colonel

Byles, William Pollard

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Jowett, F. W.

Soares, Ernest J.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Stanger, H. Y.

Clough, William

Lambert, George

Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Lamont, Norman

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Cooper, G. J.

Lehmann, R. C.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Levy, sir Maurice

Summerbell, T.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lewis, John Herbert

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Cowan, W. H.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Duckworth, Sir James

Maclean, Donald

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Macpherson, J. T.

Vivian, Henry

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Walsh, Stephen

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Wardle, George J.

Elibank, Master of

Maddison, Frederick

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Evans, Sir S. T.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Waterlow, D. S.

Falconer, J.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Ferens, T. R.

Masterman, C. F. G.

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Menzies, Sir Walter

Wilkie, Alexander

Fuller, John Michael F.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Cibb, James (Harrow)

Mond, A.

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Morse, L. L.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Glover, Thomas

Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Myer, Horatio

Wood, T. M'Klnnon

Gulland, John W.

Norman, Sir Henry

Hall, Frederick

Partington, Oswald

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Hancock, J. G.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

NOES.

Arson, Sir William Reynell

Gordon, J.

Oddy, John James

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Baldwin, Stanley

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Percy, Earl

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Pretyman, E. G.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Hunt, Rowland

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Joynson-Hicks, William

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Bridgeman W. Clive

Kerry, Earl of

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Carlile, E. Hildred

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Stanier, Beville

Cave, George

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire)

Clive, Percy Archer

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Clyde, J. Avon

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Courthope, G. Loyd

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Younger, George

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Moore, William

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Question put, "That in respect of the words of the Clause to the end thereof the Chair be empowered to select the Amendments to be proposed."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 54.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: By virtue of the decision of the Committee, I select the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. Younger) and several other hon. Members as Amendments to be proposed to the Clause to the end.
Mr. YOUNGER: In accordance with your decision, Mr. Caldwell, I move my Amendment, which is to leave out the words, "Not exceeding an acre in extent." I do not think that I need take up very much time in argument.
Mr. PRETYMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Caldwell, would it not be for the convenience of the Committee that we should now be told which Amendments besides that of my hon. Friend you propose to select? I may point out to the Committee that it would be a great convenience if we knew which Amendments are going to be selected.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There are two occupants of the Chair. The hon. Gentleman will find the selection made from the Chair accordingly as discussion takes place.
Mr. PRETYMAN: Can you inform me, Mr. Caldwell, by what means the Chairman, when he succeeds you, will be aware of the discussion which has taken place during his absence?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There can be no question about that.
Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: If it is not possible to give a complete list of the Amendments, would it not be possible to give one Amendment ahead?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is quite sufficient to have this one ahead.
Mr. YOUNGER: My reason for moving the Amendment is that the exemption duty of an acre of undeveloped land in the case of a dwelling house without any reference to the size of the house, the amenity, the situation, or anything of that kind, is not by any means a sufficient exemption. It is neither fair nor just, nor is it even sensible. I will tell the Committee why. I know dwelling houses—country houses in my own locality—which are comparatively small, or at any rate which are without any large amount of pleasure ground around them, and yet from the necessities of their position they have very long approaches from the public road. As far as I can make out from this
610
clause they would have to pay Undeveloped Land Duty even upon the approaches to such a house. If we are to have an exemption in favour of land, possibly land, apart from the amenity of the house, which is valued within the Schedule A valuation for Inhabitated House Duty, it surely follows that there can be no very great concession in giving an exemption to any land so valued. Such a provision would in no way exempt parks or any lands of that kind which are within walls surrounding dwelling houses, but would merely cover lands which are included in the annual valuation for the purposes of Inhabited House Duty. I think there must be some discrimination in such cases, and I hope generosity will be shown in the matter. One acre may be a sufficient allowance in the case of small villas situated in the neighbourhood of towns, but it is not reasonable in the case of country houses.
Mr. R. D. HOLT: I, too, had an Amendment on the Paper which was intended to deal with this particular Question. I will read the clause in the form in which it would have stood if my Amendment had teen accepted: "Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on any land not exceeding an acre in extent valued together with a dwelling house for the purpose of Inhabited House Duty, only in so far as the site value of that land exceeds twenty times the valuation of that land and dwelling house for the purposes of Inhabited House Duty."
5.0 A.M.
The case I want to meet is that of a house and garden used together, bringing in a rent which leaves a fair return on the capital represented by the site value. It is impossible to develop such a house and garden except by the destruction of the house, so that practically the owner of the property has nothing whatever in his possession, nothing to develop, except the site value. It is surely unfair to try and separate the house and the land for the purpose of the Undeveloped Land Duty, because as the land goes up in value the house goes down in value. I should personally be extremely grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could see his way to incorporate a part of my suggestion and to extend the limit of area.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I feel disposed; to accept the suggestion in principle. I agree that one acre is rather too narrow a restriction in certain cases, and it can hardly be said that in such cases as the hon. Gentleman has named, the land is in

611
any sense undeveloped land, but I think you must have some kind of limit. I am rather disposed to accept the Amendment to limit it to five acres. That would be to leave out from "duty" and to insert "or on the site value of any land being garden or pleasure ground occupied with a dwelling house which does not exceed five acres in extent where the site value of the gardens or pleasure grounds, together with the site value of the dwelling house, does not exceed 20 times the annual value of the gardens or pleasure grounds or dwelling house adopted for the purposes of Income Tax in Schedule A."
Mr. YOUNGER: Would you not include the approaches? I know a case of approaches of two miles m length to a house which is only rented at £40.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That rather alarms me. It would make an enormous difference. In the five acres the approaches, according to this Amendment, would undoubtedly be included. I will, however, consider that point, and if the hon. Gentleman will himself withdraw I shall be prepared to move the Amendment in the form I have suggested.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, in Section (4), to leave out the word "duty" ["for the purpose of Inhabited House Duty"] to the end of the section, and to insert the words "or on the site value of any land being garden or pleasure ground occupied with a dwelling house which does not exceed five acres in extent where the site value of the gardens or pleasure grounds, together with the site value of the dwelling house, does not exceed 20 times the annual value of the gardens or pleasure grounds or dwelling house adopted for the purposes of Income Tax in Schedule A."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
Mr. PRETYMAN: Is it quite clear that duty is only to be charged on the excess above the value stated?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes.
Mr. PRETYMAN: That meets my point. I must say I think this Amendment is a considerable improvement. My point was this: Where the value of the land around the house exceeded twenty time the Inhabited House Duty, would a £30 house free £600 worth of site value?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It would be exempted up to the value.
Mr. PRETYMAN: And if the site value in such a case was £700, it would be charged only on the additional £100?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think it is so, at any rate. But if it is not clear I will undertake to make it clear. It shall be exempted quite up to the value.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not wish to debate the point, and I do not ask for an answer now, but when the right hon. Gentleman is considering this matter and making it clear I wish he would also consider this point. Already on this kind of property Increment Value Duty and Death Duty are paid on any development value which the land may have. In view of the comparatively small quantity of land and the desirability that houses shall have gardens even of a considerable extent, I do think that Increment Value Duty and Death Duty are ample on that kind of property, and that gardens ought to be exempted altogether from the Undeveloped Land Duty.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Is it the amount of the valuation or the amount of the tax that is paid? Suppose it pays no tax at all, is it still to be let off? Suppose the house is not inhabited? Nine out of every ten houses in this condition are not inhabited.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is the Inhabited House Duty, Schedue A.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Is it the valuation or the tax?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The valuation.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: So it will not matter whether the house is empty or not?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No.
Mr. CAVE: Suppose the whole property exceeds five acres in extent. Does it obtain no relief, or does it get relief up to the five acres?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am quite clear that it ought to have relief up to the extent of five acres, and if that is not clear I will undertake to make it so.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I respectfully suggest, Sir, that if you put the Amendment in this form you will shut out the hon. Member for Blackpool's Amendment?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I propose to move out the whole of the words to the end of the section and to substitute my own words. I do not think there is anything to prevent the hon. Member for Blackpool from moving his Amendment.
Mr. PIKE PEASE: Suppose a house has ten acres of land attached to it—five acres in front and live behind—how will anyone know which five acres will be allowed?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That I think must be left to the Commissioners.
Captain CLIVE: There are two classes of houses affected by the Amendment as to which I should like to ask two questions. One is the case of the private school with large playgrounds and grounds around it. In many cases these exceed five acres. Will such cases be met by Clause 10, Section 2?.Will such land be regarded as land "used bonâ-fide for any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture"? If these cases are not exempted under that provision, I should like to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of this class of institution, institutions which often tend very much to improve the amenities of the district. Then there is another class of case: private convalescent homes run for profit and private lunatic asylums. I do not know whether they are exempted under Clause 10, Section 2. If not, I suggest they are deserving of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's sympathy. One correspondent who wrote to me informed me that he was maintaining a relative in a private lunatic asylum which would be affected by this duty. It was all he could do, he said, to pay the fees now, and if this duty was imposed on the grounds attached to the asylum, and the fees had to be increased, he might have to withdraw the patient from the institution.
Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: Before the Chancellor of the Exchequer quite completes the engagement he seems about to enter into I, for one, would like to make a protest against a transaction of this character and its absolutely destructive effect on the general principle underlying the Bill. I thought that one object of this tax was to bring into existence a large amount of undeveloped land so as to prevent, or at least to mitigate, the horrible urban overcrowding that exists. But the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that at least five acres shall be allowed for amenity alone. There is a great deal of talk about amenities, but I
614
wish a little more attention were paid to the condition of the people who possess no amenities at all. How many people can be housed, and are being housed, on five acres of land? If you take the ordinary artisan's house with a five yards' frontage and thirty yards in depth you will find that on five acres you can house 500 people under very good conditions indeed, comparatively speaking. There has been concession after concession made on this Bill until, I believe, the whole sense of the central principle has been frittered away. I do not believe there has been any case made out for five acres to be exempted or for twenty times of the Inhabited House Duty to be exempted from this tax. But it is not so much the exemption from the tax that we protest against—it is because this will enable the people who desire the amenities which they deny to others to keep a greater grip upon the land. The five acres which has been so readily given away is a very serious matter. Take my old town of Wigan. In the old borough of Wigan we have about 2,330 acres upon which 70,000 people are living. That is allowing for a good deal of land that is lying waste and derelict. You will see that on five acres of land at least 1,000 people are to-day housed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Yes, and this is the kind of thing that is going on. If you deduct the acres of land in Wigan that are waste and derelict you will find that there are 1,000 people housed on the amount of land which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is giving away to the Opposition. There have been too many concessions, and I protest against them being made.
Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member seems to be under a complete misapprehension. But the point of view that he has put before the Committee is a very interesting one. His complaint is that the Government are giving away the whole principle of the Bill to the Opposition. He spoke of the Chancellor of the Exchequer giving five acres to the Opposition. That is not correct; all the Chancellor of the Exchequer does is not to collect the tax on these five acres. What the hon. Member says is that the five acres are being given away and given to other people.
Mr. WALSH: I never said anything of the kind.
Mr. BONAR LAW: The principle of the Government is not that at all.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I really do not understand the hon. Member (Mr. Walsh). I think the argument of the hon. Member is that this is a fiscal proposal, and that we are taking the basis of Schedule A, and I think if we get out of the property a very fair taxation under Schedule A, we are entitled to say that the land is fully developed for fiscal purposes, and that it is making a fair fiscal return, and that is why we are taking Schedule A as the basis. We are only taking the limit as a purely fair limit. A man who is holding up 20 or 30 acres is not making a fair return; but this Amendment is so drafted that the land used is making good fiscal return. Another hon. Member asked me to go back to Clause 10. I do not want to refuse an answer to the hon. Member, but I think he will find that most of the cases he put to me—some relating to schools and to lunatic asylums—are covered by Clause 10 and by the operation of Section (3) of the present clause.
Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I think the proposal now made is a very important modification and will seriously affect the usefulness of the proposals of the Bill. It is not merely an extension of one acre but five acres. I would like to point out that as regards the proportion between the site value under the Bill and the Income Tax under Schedule A, I do not see why there should be a limitation to five acres at all because on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's principle, a fair payment is being made under Schedule A. The two limitations seem to be cross limitations. If these principles are adopted they lead us to a very much further length than the proposals go.
Viscount MORPETH: Anybody passing through Wigan will see that there is a great deal of land in the town which might be built upon. He will also see the garden of five or more acres. It would be far more advisable to cover waste land with dwellings for the working classes than gardens or oases of the three or four acres in a very lovely town. The hon. Member showed indignation rather soon. If any land is being held up, which I rather doubt, but which is assumed to be the case by the Government, it is much larger areas than those which have been referred to, on the outskirts of the towns and not those comparatively small districts where there are gardens. It would be one of the greatest misfortunes if, in attempts to raise not a very large amount of revenue, you succeed in destroying the amenities of the suburbs and what small beauty there is in this country.
Mr. J. M. HENDERSON (Aberdeenshire, W.): I should like to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for this concession. I should like to give a concrete instance to show the justice of it. Take the case of a house at Sydenham-hill let under a long lease from Dulwich College, backing down to the railway. The holder is paying rates from 8s. 6d. to 10s. in the £, full taxes. How would it be just to ask him, simply because he is forbidden by his lease to build, to pay an extra tax because he has more than an acre of land?
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 29; Noes, 156.

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Hunt, Rowland

Pretyman, E. G.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfo'k, E.)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Kerry, Earl of

Ridsdale, E. A.

Cowan, W. H.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lambert, George

Rowlands, J

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lamont, Norman

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Seely, Colonel

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Duckworth, Sir James

Lehmann, R. c.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Soares, Ernest J.

Elibank, Master of

Lewis, John Herbert

Stanger, H. Y.

Evans, Sir S. T.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Stanier, Beville

Falconer, J.

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

Ferens, T. R.

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Forster, Henry William

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Starkey, John R.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Strachey, Sir Edward

Gibb, James (Harrow)

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Maclean, Donald

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

M'Laren, (H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Maddison, Frederick

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Gordon, J.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Vivian, Henry

Gulland, John W.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Mond, A.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Moore, William

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Morpeth, Viscount

Waterlow, D. S.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Morrison-Bell, Captain

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Morse, L. L.

Whitehead, Rowland

Haworth, Arthur A.

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Hedges, A. Paget

Myer, Horatio

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Helme, Norval Watson

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

Oddy, John James

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Henry, Charles S.

Partington, Oswald

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Younger, George

Higham, John Sharp

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Percy, Earl

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Holt, Richard Durning

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Mr. LANE-FOX (for Mr. Ashley)Mr. LANE-FOX (for Mr. Ashley) moved, in Section (4), after the word "duty" ["for the purpose of Inhabited House Duty"] to insert the words "nor upon land used or enjoyed by the occupiers of a number of dwelling houses by virtue of such occupancy, where the total number of acres of such land does not exceed the number of occupiers so using such land."
The Amendment proposes where there are a number of dwelling-houses and a certain amount of land attached to them, to allow exemptions making an allowance of one acre per house. There was considerable justification for this before, and there is even more justification now that we have put in five acres instead of one as the allowance to go with each dwelling. It is obvious that this would be an important concession in view of the development of garden cities and the desirability of providing a certain amount of open space round the houses. I do not think I need elaborate the point further, and I hope if the Government cannot grant the whole of what I ask they will at least go some way in this direction.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I could not accept the Amendment. This is one of the points I had in my mind when I framed the Amendment already added to the Bill which covers open spaces and squares. I am advised that that Amendment would certainly cover the case put by the hon. Member (Mr. Lane-Fox), and if any other cases can be brought forward I shall be glad to consider them. I do not think, however, that it would be possible to put in these words here, because they would overlap and might take away from the effect of the words already inserted. They might do a vast amount of harm, and I think it would be dangerous to insert them. If the hon. Member can tell me of any cases covered by this Amendment which are not covered by mine, I repeat that I shall be very glad to consider them.
Mr. LANE-FOX: I am obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I shall be glad to do as he suggests. In these circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. LONSDALE: I desire to move in Section (4) after the word "duty" ["for the purpose of Inhabited House Duty"] to insert the words "or if situate in Ireland for the purpose of the Poor Rate."
These words are necessary in order that the exemption may be extended to Ireland. The Clause reads: "Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on any land not exceeding an acre in extent valued together with a dwelling house for Inhabited House Duty." The reason for the Amendment is that there is no Inhabited House Duty in Ireland, and as I do not suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to deprive Ireland of the advantage of the exemption, I think he will have no difficulty in accepting my words. I do not know that it is necessary after what the right hon. Gentleman has said to argue the matter. It appears to me to be a very obvious oversight on the part of the draftsman. Should these words be inserted here it will be necessary to insert similar words in the new clause of which the right hon. Gentleman has given notice.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I quite recognise the force of the hon. Member's contention. It is quite clear that words of this character will have to be inserted, and if he will wait until the Report stage I will undertake that words shall be inserted, though perhaps not in the form he has proposed. Perhaps he will take that assurance from me.
Mr. LONSDALE: On the right hon. Gentleman's positive assurance that the matter will be dealt with on the Report stage, I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. CAVE: I move in Section (5) to leave out the words "the term of which exceeded one year, but did not exceed twenty-one years."
I take it that the reason for the section is that when land has been let before the commencement of the Act—in fact, before the Bill was brought in—it is impossible for the freeholder to develop land let to somebody else. In that case for the freeholder to be charged Undeveloped Land Duty would obviously be unfair. I submit, however, that the argument applies with just as much force where the existing lease exceeds twenty-one years as it does where the term does not exceed twenty-one years. I do not see why the exemption should not apply where the lease was for thirty years just as much as where it was for twenty-one years.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Does the hon. and learned Member know how many cases there are of such leases?
Mr. CAVE: Thousands of cases.
Mr. YOUNGER: In Scotland there are any number of "double nineteens"—that is 38 years.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Two nineteens would be covered. It is expressly laid down in the Bill. I think there would be very few cases of the kind the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) has referred to, but I do not wish to press the point.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: In reference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's last concession in respect of the five acres, I can give six cases in Addison-road where there is rather more than one acre, and I should think there must be similar cases where there are more than five acres which are—
The CHAIRMAN: That does not seem relevant.
Mr. HOPE: But it is agricultural land, I presume, and—
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: But I am accepting the Amendment.
Mr. HOPE: Oh, I did not understand that. I thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asking for cases.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, in Section (5), to leave out the. words "continuance of the tenancy under" ["Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on the land during the continuance of the tenancy under that lease or agreement"] and to insert the words "original term of."
I think the Committee will realise that this is a very necessary Amendment, because occasionally there are leases of 21 years or a smaller term, but with a power to break the lease where, the land is required for building purposes. But I do not think that that is quite the same as where the landlord is bound hand and foot.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I entirely concur that where a landlord has the right to resume the holding there should not be any power of exemption. The disability should only apply to that portion of the land which can be resumed.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not quite like the hon. Members words. But perhaps he will agree that it should be applied to that part of the land which can be resumed.
Mr. CAVE: I suppose the exemption would continue up to the period at which the tenancy can be resumed. I would suggest words of this kind, "that this exemption shall not apply after the period at which the tenancy could be discontinued."
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEconcurred.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: If it is adopted in that form I will not move any Amendment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I now move to add at the end of Section (5) ["Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on the land during the original term of that lease or agreement."] the words "while the tenancy continues there-under, but the exemption under this provision shall not apply where the tenancy of the whole or any part of the land can be discontinued at the option of the landlord."
Mr. CAVE: I would suggest that instead of the word "where" ["but exemption under this provision shall not apply where the tenancy"] the insertion of "after the period at which," and the omission of the words "the whole or any pant of" ["the tenancy of the whole or any part of the land can be discontinued at the option of the landlord"].
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I accept the principle of the hon. and learned Member's suggestion, and I will re-draft the words.
Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Mr. A. C. BECK Mr. A. C. BECK moved to add at the end of the clause the words, "(6) Where the owner in possession of the rents and profits of any land on which Undeveloped Land Duty is assessed, before the amount so assessed in any financial year is paid, produces to the Commissioners a certificate from the surveyor of taxes that such owner has been allowed in that year a total exemption from Income Tax by reason of his income not exceeding one hundred and sixty pounds, the said amount of Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be collected, and if such owner pro-
622
duces to the Commissioners a certificate from the surveyor of taxes that such owner has been allowed in that year an abatement of Income Tax by reason of his income not exceeding four hundred pounds, one-half of the said amount of Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be collected."
I think the Amendment pretty well explains my view. I do not know what the views of the Government are on this Amendment, and I do not in any way press this particular form of words; but I do think there should be some form of graduation in this tax, I think where you have Income Tax graduation, and where we have exempted various amenities which appertain to it, you ought to be very tender with the little man whose entire income is derived from this class of property, and that is why I move that a man whose total income does not exceed £160 shall not pay any tax at all, and that the man with an income of £400 shall only pay half of the duty. I think, in regard to land, such provision is particularly necessary. But I dare say there will be very many cases in which many rich men, though occupying small parcels of land, will entirely escape this tax, whereas there will be many other cases where small people will have to pay unless they are safeguarded to the extent proposed. I do not wish to keep the Committee, therefore I move the Amendment.
6 A.M.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I cannot accept this Amendment. We have already given notice of an Amendment dealing with the class of small holders, and I think that adequately meets the case.
The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw his Amendment?
Mr. BECK: Yes, Sir. By the permission of the Committee I will withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Leverton Harris.
Mr. LONSDALE: May I have an opportunity of moving my Amendment exempting Ireland from the Undeveloped Land Duty?
The CHAIRMAN: That is not interfered with by the Amendment now called upon, at any rate.
Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS moved to add at the end of the Clause:—
"(6) Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged in respect of any land which

623
has been reclaimed by the owner or his predecessors in title from the sea within fifty years prior to the passing of this Act or which shall hereafter be so reclaimed."
I will not take up the time of the Committee in explaining the Amendment, for it really explains itself. The object is to free from the tax any land which has been reclaimed from the sea by the owner or his predecessors in title. I think the Committee will see the justification. Reclamation is a very useful work, and I think we should encourage it in every possible way.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I cannot conceive of any case of reclamation which will not be covered by Clause 14 Section 4 (a). In fact, the provision goes much further than the Amendment. In the case of the particular estate I have in mind, the money was spent about 100 years ago, and after deducting the amount spent on reclamation there would be no Undeveloped Land Duty to pay. I think that is the experience of all owners who have spent money on reclamation. Under Clause 14 the owner will not only get credit for his expenditure on reclamation, but the whole value, created by reclamation, will be exempted. If we were to pass this Amendment, the inference might be drawn that reclamation was not covered by the provision I have referred to.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I agree generally with the right hon. Gentleman, but I am very doubtful whether all works of reclamation would be covered by the provision to which he has referred. I think it would be better if we put the word "reclamation" into that provision.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is certainly intended to cover reclamation.
Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes, but I doubt whether it does. There are so many different ways of reclaiming land.
Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: Does Clause 14, Section 4 (a) really meet this case? That provision applies to any part of the site value of land "which is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to be directly attributable to works of a permanent nature executed bonâ fide by or on behalf of any person interested in the land for the purpose of fitting the land for use as building land or for the purpose of any business, trade or industry other than agriculture." Reclamation from the sea may be carried out for the purpose of
624
fitting the land for agriculture, and afterwards that land may acquire a certain value as building land. I do not think such a case would be met by Clause 14. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter and see whether he can expand that provision when we come to it.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I certainly think that in the case of works of reclamation the owner is entitled to deduct the money he has spent on reclamation.
Mr. YOUNGER: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the word "reclamation" was introduced into the Scottish Land Values Bill by the Government themselves in order to protect this very case? I do not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will put it in Clause 14 when we reach that clause.
Colonel WILLIAMS: Does not Clause 14 apply only to money spent after the passing of the Act?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Oh, no.
The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw his Amendment?
Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: Yes, sir.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this day (Thursday).
Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: I beg to move "That this House do now adjourn."
Adjourned at Eight Minutes after Sis o'clock a.m. (Thursday, 12th August).

  Pianofortes and Organs (Manufacture and Export).
  Pianofortes and Organs (Manufacture and Export).
  Night Trawling, Start Bay, South Devon.
  Night Trawling, Start Bay, South Devon.
  Royal Scottish Museum.
  Royal Scottish Museum.
  Irish land Bill (Compulsory Sales)
  Irish land Bill (Compulsory Sales)
  Irish Cross-Channel Service.
  Irish Cross-Channel Service.
  Duke of York's School (Removal).
  Duke of York's School (Removal).
  Old Age Pension Claims (United Kingdom).
  Old Age Pension Claims (United Kingdom).
  Residential Training Colleges.
  Residential Training Colleges.
  Executions in Manchester.
  Executions in Manchester.