Skip to main content

Clause 16—(Amendments As To Schedule B)

Volume 155: debated on Tuesday 20 June 1922

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

  • (1) The definition of the expression "assessable value" in Schedule B of the Income Tax Act, 1918, shall have effect as though for the words "an amount equal to twice the annual value" there were substituted the words "an amount equal to the annual value," and as though for the words "an amount equal to the annual value" there were substituted the words "an amount equal to one-third of the annual value."
  • (2) In paragraph (a) of Rule 7 of the Rules applicable to Schedule B there shall be substituted for the words "a year" the words "ten years."
  • I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (1).

    It is hardly worth while making Amendments at this late hour of the morning. This is a most important Clause—one of the most important Clauses of the whole Bill. It raises the whole question of whether the farming community ought to be given preference over every other kind of business in the country. I am not speaking in any spirit of hostility towards the farming community, not in the least, but I have never heard any reason why the farming community should be given this preference. Take the case of a farmer who is assessed at £1,000 a year, a purely conventional assessment. And then take the case of a business man whose profit is assessed at £1,000. Supposing that in another year they make only £500 apiece. The farmer has his assessment. reduced by £500, hut the business man is still assessed at £1,000. If in another year they make no profit at all, the farmer's assessment is wiped out altogether, but the business man still has to pay on £1,000. That seems to me a most unfair state of things. I cannot understand why hon. Members do not insist either that the farmer shall be brought under Schedule D or that the business man shall be given the same preference as the farmer. I suppose it arose originally because the farming interest is very highly organised. They went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and put their case before him, and he gave in to them. The small business man is not nearly so highly organised. When various individuals representing him went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with an equally good case, nothing was done. At this hour of the night I am not going to tire the Committee with a long speech on the subject, but I do protest against it, and I am going to divide. I have never heard any single reason given for this preference, and I had very much looked forward to hearing the learned Solicitor-General explain why it is that the small business man should be penalised and the farming industry get its preference, and unless he satisfies me I shall certainly go into the Lobby.

    I fear that I am not likely to satisfy the hon. Member, having regard to the remoteness of the statement he has made from the actual facts of the ease. In past years farmers in this country were assessed exclusively under Schedule B in respect of the occupation of their land. It is quite true that at a later date they were given an option of going under Schedule D, but, as every Member of the Committee knows, in order effectively to claim assessment under Schedule D you must keep accounts, and it is a matter of regret but is none the less a matter of fact that there are large numbers of farmers who do not keep such accounts as may be practicable for them to be assessed on.

    Some Member asks why should not farmers keep accounts. As far as I have any knowledge of agriculture, it would be an infinitely better thing for the agriculture of the country if every farmer did keep accounts, particularly coatings accounts; but the farmers do not keep them and, after all, taxation must be adapted to the existing state of affairs. Now it is on that footing that farmers were not put as a matter of obligation under Schedule D, because it was recognised that in regard to a large number of farmers it would not be practicable for some years to come—possibly for a generation in some cases. There is also another reason. The fanners of this country have borne, it is said by them—

    I rather think that I should have stopped the hon. Member in the course of his argument. The question is not that a farmer should be assessed under Schedule D or B. The question is whether they should be taxed twice on the annual value or on the annual value itself. I do not think I can allow a discussion on Schedule A or B.

    On a point of Order. At present a farmer has the alternative of being taxed under Schedule D or B. They were less likely to select Schedule D under the new scheme than they were under the old scheme.

    That might be, but it is not in order upon the narrow issue. The question is whether they should be assessed on twice their annual value or on their annual value.

    My point was that they had a preference up to now. In answer to the Solicitor-General, if farmers do not keep books, a great many small traders do not keep books.

    I gratefully and gladly bow to your ruling, although my hon. Friend apparently wishes to keep the Debate on a larger field. Let us take it on that position, that farmers were taxed under Schedule B, and stop at that. During the War, when the exigency of searching for every possible source of income was upon us, and when farmers were making very large profits—in the middle of the War—this assessment under Schedule B was doubled. The position at the present day is that, so far as from farmers being very successful, they are having an extremely hard time and it would be taxing them far higher than the equivalent of Schedule D if they were continued at twice the annual value under Schedule B. I do not believe, taking the average of farmers of this country, that they have reached a level of annual value under Schedule B during the last year, and that is the basis of this Clause. It is to bring the taxation of farmers down to something approximately comparable to other members of the community. The suggestion that by this provision they are being put upon a privileged basis has not a shadow of foundation and I ask the Committee to resist the Amendment.

    I would like to point out to the Solicitor-General why farmers should be put in a privileged position. The smaller the tax the farmer has to pay, the larger rent he will be able to pay. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. LockerLampson) on moving this Amendment.

    Division No. 162.]

    NOES

    [2.15 a.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
    Agg-Gardner, Sir James TynteGee, Captain RobertPennefather, De Fonblanque
    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.Gibbs, Colonel George AbrahamPercy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
    Armstrong, Henry BruceGilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir JohnPerkins, Walter Frank
    Atkey, A. R.Goff, Sir R. ParkPollock, Rt. Hon, Sir Ernest Murray
    Baird, Sir John LawrenceGould, James C.Rae, Sir Henry N.
    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. StanleyGreen, Albert (Derby)Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
    Balfour, George (Hampstead)Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)Ramer, J. R.
    Barlow, Sir MontagueGreenwood, William (Stockport)Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
    Barnett, Major Richard W.Grenfell, Edward CharlesRichardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
    Barnston, Major HarryGuest, Capt. RI. Hon. Frederick E.Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
    Barrand, A. R.Hacking, Captain Douglas H.Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
    Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
    Betterton, Henry B.Hamilton, Sir George C.Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
    Bigland, AlfredHannon, Patrick Joseph HenrySassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D
    Birchall, J. DearmanHarmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
    Berwick, Major G. O.Henderson, Lt.-Col, V. L. (Tradeston)Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-Hennessy, Major J. R. G.Seddon, J. A.
    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Walford)Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John
    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William CliveHinds, JohnShortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-con-T.)
    Briggs, HaroldHope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n.W.)Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
    Broad, Thomas TuckerHope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
    Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)Hopkins, John W. W.Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)Steel, Major S. Strang
    Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Sir Alan HughesJones, Henry Haydn, (Merloneth)Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. GeorgeSturrock, J. Leng
    Carr, W. TheodoreKidd, JamesSugden, W. H.
    Casey, T. W.King, Captain Henry DouglasSutherland, Sir William
    Chamberlain, RI. Hn. J. A.(Birm.,W.)Lane-Fox, G. R.Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)
    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.Thomson, sir W. (Mitchill)-(Maryhill)
    Colfax, Major Wm. PhillipsMacquisten, F. A.Tryon, Major George Clement
    Cope, Major WilliamMallalieu, Frederick WilliamWallace, J.
    Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)Manville, EdwardWard, William Dudley (Southampton)
    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)Morden, Col. W. GrantWaring, Major Walter
    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander HarryMoreing, Captain Algernon H.Watson, Captain John Bertrand
    Doyle, N. GrattanMorrison-Boll, Major A. C.Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
    Edgar, Clifford B.Murchison, C. K.White, Col. G. D. (Southport)
    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)Wilts, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.
    Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)Windsor, Viscount
    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.Murray, John (Leeds, West)Winterton, Earl
    Evans, ErnestNeal, ArthurWise, Frederick
    Fildes, HenryNewman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)
    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)
    Ford, Patrick JohnstonNorris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
    Forrest, WalterNorton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Fraser, Major Sir KeithOrmsby-Gore, Hon. WilliamColonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.
    Frece, Sir Walter deParker, JamesMcCurdy.

    NOES

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. WilliamEdwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)Holmes, J. Stanley
    Ammon, Charles GeorgeGraham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
    Armitage, RobertGrundy, T. W.John, William (Rhondda, West)
    Banton, GeorgeHall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)Halls, WalterJones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)Hartshorn, VernonLawson, John James
    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)Hayday, ArthurLindsay, William Arthur
    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)Hirst, G. H.Lunn, William

    It is unusual to find a member of the Conservative party running right in the teeth of the interests of the landed gentry of this country. I shall be very pleased to find him going into the Lobby, and I am sure he will have the support of all those who do not belong to the landed interests.

    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'as' "shall have effect as though "], stand part of the Clause."

    The Committee divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 41.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)Sitch, Charles H.Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
    Mills, John EdmundSpencer, George A.Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)
    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)Sutton, John Edward
    Raffan, Peter WilsonThorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)Waterson, A. E.Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Walter
    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.Smith.

    I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words

    "and as though for the words 'an amount equal to the annual value' there were substituted the words 'an amount equal to one-third of the annual value.'"
    The Amendment is to cut out special exemption from amenity land. In the Bill as it stands, in Clause 16, the land which is not being used for agriculture, but used and described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech as "amenity land," is receiving a special low assessment for Income Tax purposes. I should be very interested to see what arguments are brought forward in favour of giving specially advantageous treatment to the owners who keep their land for amenity purposes instead of productive purposes. The natural tendency would be to give a bonus to landowners who used their land productively, but apparently the Government think the owners ought to be selected from all the rest for special benefits, while those who use their land unproductively are to be given a preference of one-third of the rental value while the others have to pay on the whole of the rental value. That certainly wants some explanation in times of unemployment like the present. Here you are deliberately keeping labour off the land. You are giving a special advantage not only to farmers but. to people who might farm their land but do not. I know there is no hope of persuading the Government to give this up, for they have not only the blessings but the votes of the Lond Union, and the Minister of Agriculture has always been fighting for this advantage for amenity land. Perhaps we shall be able to find out from the Solicitor-General or the Minister of Agriculture how much land is affected by this exemption and how much the Government expect to lose by way of Income Tax by reason of it, even if we cannot get any reasonable account of the motives actuating the Government in making this exemption.

    The object of this part of the Clause is very simple. It is to put back to the position before 1915 lands from which no profit is obtained.

    This is an Income Tax provision. The gist of the matter is that during the War the tax was trebled owing to war exigency, and it has been put back now simply to the old level, which in itself is a tax upon an income that is purely notional, and does not exist in fact.

    I should like to express the wish that in future when the Finance Bill is published a memorandum should be prepared to enable us to understand it. If it went only as far as this, that where references are made to other Acts with the quotations that are necessary, they should be printed. On the Amendment itself, I feel rather reluctant to support my hon. and gallant Friend, because this Clause itself embodies a state of things that we would all like to see generally. In this Clause the Government goes back to pre-War taxation. That is what we have been told by the Solicitor-General. In the deep sea of taxation bottom is touched at least in this Clause.

    The Solicitor-General commended this Clause to us on the ground that we were getting back to something that existed in pre-War times. We on this side of the Committee have been trying to get back to the pre-War basis of all sorts of taxation. We have been trying to get a reduction on beer, and last night we had a very impassioned speech from the Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray), who tried to get the additional duty off dried fruits. We were told that could not be done because it would cost £180,000.

    My hon. and gallant Friend asked what was the cost of this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in his Budget speech that in the present year this allowance on amenity lands meant £180,000, and in a full year £300,000. The Solicitor-General, in dealing with the question of bringing down the basis on which farms were taxed, said that it was put up during the War because during the War it was necessary to look for every penny. The implication, I suppose, is that that is not the case now. This is the first time we have heard that statement from the Treasury Bench. Yesterday, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in charge, his theme was that we were just as much at our wits' end for money as ever we were. I do not complain of getting back to the pre-War basis, but who are the class of people who are getting back to the pre-War basis? Not the people who live in small houses; not the middle-class people who have got moderate gardens and grounds. The person with a villa and an acre of land will get no benefit. The Clause gives a very faint idea of the kind of people. The wording of the Clause is very dull and prosaic. I happened to be looking yesterday in a newspaper and I found the sort of property that is going to get the benefits of this Clause described in very much more glowing language than appears in the Bill, and I will read to the Committee a very short extract. It is headed:
    "The Treasures of a Duke—500-Year Old House—Most Beautiful Trees in England"—
    and it goes on to describe the kind of amenity lands which are to receive this relief. It describes a place not far from London as one of the glories of the Metropolis. The description goes on:
    "But for all that, it remains unaltered and unspoiled, one of the finest country houses in England. You can stand by the lake and watch the heron fishing in a silence as of the New Forest; you can wander among its stately trees and note the rabbits frisking in as wide a solitude as if you were in some remote corner of Salisbury Plain. Seventy acres of 'pleasure grounds' and thrice that amount of park land in which none but the privileged may walk make a great space of privacy in which beauty and tradition remain as uncontaminated by the crowd's ignoble strife as if they were in Wiltshire."
    That is in the "Evening News." It goes on with a. description of this amenity land to which the Solicitor-General is so tender. It says:
    "The lakes and pools are rich with water-lilies, white, pale yellow, pink and red; and in the domed conservatory are rare curious plants from all parts of the world."
    These are the amenity lands that are to get this relief, and the article finishes by telling us that this beautiful place is let to a Paris art dealer. The Solicitor-General says that this relief is being given to land which yields no income. I fancy that when this property was let to the Paris art dealer the 70 acres of gardens, the pleasure grounds, and the park were taken into account and formed part of the rent, and that when this place is assessed under Schedule A, the assess- ment will be apportioned between the house and the park and pleasure grounds, and yet under this Clause that portion of the rent which is received for the park and pleasure grounds will only be assessed under Schedule A at one-third of its value. That is the effect of this Clause. We are grateful for small mercies when we get back to a pre-War basis of some sort or other, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor-General feel that a better way is to commence with the dukes, we can only hope that they will make rapid progress, and at last get down to our level.

    My hon. and gallant Friend has drawn a beautiful picture on one side. May I in a few words draw a real picture on the other side. This part of the Clause with which we are dealing refers, of course, to forestry lands, and I will deal with it in a way that it affects actual people. I have a lot of land which I wish to replant. That is costing me about £2,000 a year. If I were to put that money into War Loan at compound interest I would be making a very much better thing of it for myself and my family. Planting, however, gives a considerable amount of employment. If I let that land as rough pasture at 2s. an acre, that will be really using the land. Regarding land which I have which is really amenity land—as in so many other cases of people who really have beautiful gardens surrounding houses which they cannot afford to live in, which is my case—the garden is open to the public always, and is enjoyed by a great number of people. I get nothing out of it, and since it is open for public use, I think that, on the whole, I am making a reasonable contribution to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to withdraw this Clause, as he did a previous one. Although I differ from him in the point of view with which he regarded the other Clause, he probably considers it a good example and I hope he will not falter in well-doing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is hard put to it for money. At least, he has told us all through the Budget Speech. Yet in this Clause—which is inserted in quite a tricky little way; I do not mean anything disparaging to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though he makes one who only takes a cursory glance at the Budget proposals imagine there is nothing in it until one goes back to the reference—he is going to give to the farmers something like £300,000 in a full year. But later, with regard to another concession he is going to make, he is giving to the farmers something over two million pounds.

    I quite understand that. I am giving this only as an illustration. This concession he can actually afford, in spite of the fact that he is hard put to it for money. He is evidently able to afford to give concessions to the landowning and agricultural classes. I want to take the memory of the Committee back to yesterday and I am sure the Solicitor-General will be grateful to me for refreshing his memory. In a Debate which took place we were told that the Government could not afford to give the concession which we on these Benches were seeking to have by moving an Amendment. The Solicitor-General said that total loss on tea, in addition to the reduction, would be £7,000,000. The loss on the proposal we were making would be the difference between £4,800,000 and £7,500,000—that is £2,700,000. The question, he said, was can we afford it? Then he went on to tell us, in the most explicit language, that the country would be ruined if he gave this concession to the Labour Members. I am not quoting his exact words, but the context of his speech was to the effect that the country would he ruined or practically ruined—financially in danger, shall I put it—if he yielded the concession we were seeking. You are refusing to a very well-meaning part of the community—a part which deserved the concession—because you say the country cannot afford £2,500,000, yet you are giving to the landlord and agricultural classes ever two millions. To the one section you can afford it.

    This is a very limited Amendment. It does not refer to agricultural land in the strict sense at all. The hon. Member cannot discuss this question as if it were a concession to agriculture.

    I am using it as illustrating the way in which the Government is giving concessions where concessions were not required, and refusing concessions where they are required. I want to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what was said when this particular tax was imposed. The then Chancellor, who afterwards became Leader of the House—he is not here because of the state of his health, which we all regret—the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law) said if the land was not being properly used then it ought to pay a higher tax. I have his speech here. That was during the War when we wanted all the land that was available put into use, and he put on the heavy tax, and he desired to put a heavier tax upon amenity land than hitherto had been paid in order to compel those who sought to keep amenity land round their houses put it into use that would be beneficial to the country. We have not arrived at a period when we are free from the burdens that were laid upon us by the War. We are told that all classes of taxes have still to be kept on because money is required in order to help meet the burden of a great War. You are, in this Finance Bill, seeking to relieve a section of the community from continuing to bear its share of the burden while, at the same time, you are keeping on some taxes that were imposed during the War for the same purpose. That is decidedly unfair and warrants the criticism we have made on this Finance Bill as being a rich man's Budget.

    The whole essence of it from beginning to end, and particularly in this case, is a concession to the landed interests of this country. All that we can say from these Benches seems to have little or no effect upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Were we proprietors of amenity land we might have some effect upon him; we might get greater concessions. Unfortunately, we plead for other sections of the community and consequently our pleas have little or no effect. I hope that when this question goes before the people of the country Members of this House will realise that the electors, those who suffer from the taxation thus imposed upon them, will have some questions to ask. Some of those who in the old days were particularly keen in advocating up and down the country that land that was held merely for pleasure by individuals should be taxed most heavily, when they go before their constituents will find their old speeches used against them and they will be asked to show how their conduct either in this Debate or in the Division coincides with their previous advocacy of taxation of unused and pleasure land. I am sure that the Prime Minister does not view this particular Clause with any degree of pleasure. It flies in the face of all his previous advocacy and the very fact that we have given this concession to the landed aristocracy of this country, to those who possess the amenity land in this country, is an indication of the surrender of the old Coalition Liberals and land taxes to the Conservative section of the Coalition. I feel certain that the Minister of Pensions does not feel any too happy in his position to-night. He is by no means looking happy. Whether it is the effect of this Clause that is under discussion or the hour of the morning I do not know.

    Here is a Clause that flies in the face of all the previous advocacy of the Minister of Pensions, the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. M. Scott) and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Let one consider the striking paragraphs that one used to read in the land book edited by the Chancellor of the Duchy who will, when the division bell rings, walk into the lobby and vote against the very things in the writing of which he rose into political power. I am certain that the land song will be sung to a new tune when the Chancellor of the Duchy and his friends go into the National Liberal Club and have a good night together. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept the suggestion that I made in the opening sentences of my speech and that he will yield to the pressure from these Benches and follow the example already taken by him and show that if he is able to yield to the pressure from other parts of the Committee he is also susceptible to pressure from the Opposition Benches.

    I make no apology for intervening to take this Debate further, notwithstanding the early hour of the morning. It is not in the least. my fault that we are compelled to discuss what, in my view, is one of the most important departures from the principles in previous Budgets. This is the first occasion on which I have intervened in the whole Debate, and I cannot be blamed for any obstruction which has taken place. I can understand that it is extremely convenient for the Government that the Debate should take place at this hour, in view of the pledges given by the Prime Minister and others. They are not anxious that this proposal should be clearly examined and discussion upon it reported, and opportunity should be given to the House of Commons to examine it. Nobody can have listened to these Debates without realising that there probably does not exist a more practised or able debater than the Solicitor-General. When he has had a good case he has handled it with great ability. In this matter, however, he has not only treated and presented the case in a most perfunctory fashion, but in a manner un-usually disingenuous. He indicated in his speech that what was being done was that we were now reverting to pre-War practice in this matter, and he asked the Committee to be content to adopt this proposal because of that. It was only the speech of one of my hon. Friends that drew from him the admission that both classes of land were then assessed at one-third of the rent, and now in the proposal before the Committee the occupier of cultivable land pays Income Tax on a full year's rental, whereas when you deal with amenity land you only pay one-third of the rental. So there is this vital difference between the pre-War position and the present position. Under pre-War conditions the person who held agricultural land and the person who held amenity land were exactly in the same position. [Interruption.]

    3.0 A.M.

    Having waited since the commencement of the Budget discussions to make one speech, I am entitled to make it. I think that I am entitled to point out that this is not the only matter in which the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman was altogether disingenuous. How can it be said that in such a case as the one quoted by the Member for Newcastle (Major Barnes) there is no income from this amenity land? Even in the case of the person who holds land for his own use and pleasure, in what way is he different from any hon. Gentleman who is the owner of his house in the Metropolis? It shows the weakness of the hon. and learned Gentleman's case when he comes forward with statements that are so disingenuous. The broad fact is as my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) has said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been unable so far to find any source from which he could make any concession to the poor and the humble throughout the whole of this Budget. I do not think that so far he has responded to any appeal to lighten the burden upon the very poorest. The great landlord interest does not appeal to him in vain. He is able to find for them an annual remission of £300,000. The Minister of Agriculture, whose task it was to settle upon the land the returned soldiers, has practically abandoned his task.

    Every small holding colony scheme has now reached its full development, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot find another penny for such schemes, but £300,000 can be remitted to the landlord interest. I am not animated by any antipathy to landlords as such, and if the £300,000 was going, through the medium of the landlord class, to be devoted to the development of agricultural land in this country I would say that it was a proposal worthy of consideration. But so far from that being the case, you are not merely differentiating between one class and another, but you are discouraging the best use of the land of the country. If you are dealing with the smallholder, whose improvement value is high compared with the land value in his holding, at any rate if he does not pay Income Tax local taxation comes down on him with crushing force. Where the land is being used purely for sport, the holder pays Income Tax upon one-third of the rental value, while, if it is used to the best advantage, it pays taxation at three times that rate. It is quite impossible for prosperity to return to agriculture in this country so long as that policy is pursued. I believe it is perfectly idle to appeal to the members of the present Government. There is one member of the Government who, I believe, would still be willing to adopt a true policy and that member is the Prime Minister, but he is the prisoner of the Tory party, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is their obedient slave. In the circumstances all that those of us who are opposed to this policy can do is to point out, as far as we can, to the House of Commons and to the people of the country, what the policy means. I believe that when an opportunity is given the people of this country will see that a Government is returned to power which will reverse the policy which is being pursued.

    I feel that this proposal comes with a, very bad grace from a Government which, for the second year in succession has remitted taxation borne by those who are best able to pay for it. Last year the only remission of taxation was in the matter of the most expensive cigars and sparkling wines. This year the remission in taxation is to be in the case of those who should, at a time like this, pay the full proportion of taxes on land kept out of use. I should have thought that the experience of five years of war would have brought home to some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite the consciousness of where we stand. When we are facing a position in which millions of people have become accustomed to daily idleness for years, it would be far better to do something other than the Government are doing. The hon. Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) put the case of a distinguished Member of the other House who has written many cheap tracts on the perils of Bolshevism, who will have taxation remitted, and will be paying less in taxes on 70 acres of land within the boundaries of Chiswick than a street full of shopkeepers on the other side of the road. I feel that in these days, when every kind of attack is being made upon Constitutional government, you are giving to the opponents of Constitutional government one of the most formidable weapons they could possibly use when they can point to this fact—that in the year 1922, when every kind of relief is being examined most minutely, when even the question of local authorities heading into bankruptcy makes no appeal upon your Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Raffan) used the word "disingenuous" four times in the course of his speech, which was irrelevant to this particular Amendment and duty. I should like to ask him, when be used that word what he means and for whom he was speaking?

    I am glad to hear that he speaks on behalf of the democracy. I want to know who else shares the representation of democracy with him. He had better settle the question with the leaders of his own party. There are four, and one has already disappeared. Of the four, three have spoken; two of them are back benchers. They have delivered their speeches. Does the only one present represent the democracy of Great Britain? I suggest that the hon. Member should first of all settle his own differences with his own leaders. The speech of the hon. Member had nothing to do with this particular matter. The hon. Member talked about agricultural land. Agricultural land has nothing to do with this duty. The duty is concerned with a very small portion of amenity land, and the remission of the duty will make a very small difference to the Exchequer.

    When the hon. Member talks about the Solicitor-General's speeches being "disingenuous," his speech and the speeches that have been delivered to this Amendment are disingenuous, because they are used merely for political propaganda, in order to bolster up the statement made by several speakers that this Budget is a "rich man's Budget and has done nothing to relieve the poorer part of the community. As a matter of fact, he knows that this Budget has gone further than any Budget has gone for years in relieving taxation.

    It is very interesting indeed to have the opportunity of hearing the speech that has just been delivered by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I was present on a deputation to-day to the butcher and not the block. We were appealing for assistance for people who were going through the mill of poverty and privation, because they are not able to meet their taxation. We have had the burden of unemployment placed upon us to the extent of about 45 millions a year in 52 local authorities. We approached the Government to-day through its head, to ask for some assistance in this matter. We were told that although their sympathies were great, their possibilities were very small—their pockets were empty. "Good-morning. Mind the step!" and the interview was finished. Now we have one of the subalterns of the Government coming along telling us of a certain word—"disingenuous.' I do not know what it means. I have backed horses once or twice and I thank the hon. Member for his tip. But what are we discussing now? I am as near the mark as most of the speakers. We are discussing relief given to a certain proportion of our population in the matter of paying Income Tax and amenity land. I do not know what it means because I have got none. In my district we have our allotment. holders. They have to pay not at the rate of agricultural land in the country districts. They have to pay for their allotment at the rate that exists in the neighbourhood close to great industrial concerns and the value of their and is altogether out of proportion so far as land is concerned to the value of the land that may be circumscribed by a gentleman's park. Are we to understand that from the standpoint of taxation a farmer would have to pay Income Tax upon the full rent and value of his land whilst a gentleman who may be a successful pill-maker or a Yankee millionaire, who may happen to come into one of the most salubrious and beautiful districts of our country, will be able to get off at one-third of taxation. That is the point. I do not know much about finance. My knowledge of figures is limited by my knowledge of the figures of the street. I have been reading about it lately. A large proportion of some of the most valuable properties from the standpoint of amenity has been bought up by people from other countries who have become rich by exploitation in other countries and want to become aristocrats in this. I believe the House of Lords is to be reformed to make room for some of them.

    The Amendment is limited. The discussion has become a little discursive.

    I think I have said on the actual Amendment as much as most other Members. If a gentleman wants the use of land for his personal pleasure, why should he not pay as much as the man who has worked it for the public good in producing useful things? As far as we are concerned, we protest against this kind of differentiation. Those who cannot give relief in the matter of sugar, tea or beer—I am an internationalist in that particular respect—should see that they

    Division No. 163.]

    AYES.

    [3.23 a.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.Parker, James
    Agg-Gardner, Sir James TynteGee, Captain RobertPease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
    Amery, Rt. Hon, Leopold C. M. S.Gibbs, Colonel George AbrahamPercy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
    Armitage, RobertGilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir JohnPerkins, Walter Frank
    Armstrong, Henry BruceGod, Sir R. ParkPollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
    Atkey, A. R.Gould, James C.Rae, Sir Henry N.
    Baird, Sir John LawrenceGreen, Albert (Derby)Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. StanleyGreene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)Remer, J. R.
    Balfour, George (Hampstead)Greenwood, William (Stockport)Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
    Barlow, Sir MontagueGuest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
    Barnett, Major Richard W.Hacking, Captain Douglas H.Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
    Barnston, Major HarryHannon, Patrick Joseph HenrySanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
    Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
    Betterton, Henry B.Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
    Bigland, AlfredHennessy, Major J. R. G.Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)
    Birchall, J. DearmanHerbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John
    Berwick, Major G. O.Hinds, JohnShaw, William T. (Forfar)
    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ekm'nn, W.)Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William CliveHopkins, John W. W.Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
    Briggs, HaroldHopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
    Broad, Thomas TuckerHorne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)Steel, Major S. Strang
    Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. GeorgeSturrock, J. Leng
    Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Sir Alan HughesKidd, JamesSugden, W. H.
    Camplon, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.King, Captain Henry DouglasSutherland, Sir William
    Carr, W. TheodoreLane-Fox, G. R.Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)
    Casey, T. W.Lindsay, William ArthurThomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
    Chamberlain. N. (Birm., Ladywood)Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)Tryon, Major George Clement
    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
    Colfox, Major Wm. PhillipsMacquisten, F. A.Waring, Major Walter
    Cope, Major WilliamManville, EdwardWatson, Captain John Bertrand
    Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemet Hempstead)Morden, Col. W. GrantWheler, Col. Granville C. H.
    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander HarryMoreing, Captain Algernon H.White, Col. G. D. (Southport)
    Doyle, N. GrattanMorrison-Bell, Major A. C.Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.
    Edgar, Clifford B.Murchison, C. K.Windsor, Viscount
    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)Winterton, Earl
    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)Wise, Frederick
    Evans, ErnestMurray, John (Leeds, West)Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)
    Hides, HenryNeal, ArthurYoung, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)
    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
    Ford, Patrick JohnstonNicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Forrest, WalterNorris, Colonel Sir Henry G.Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.
    Foxcrott, Captain Charles TalbotOrmsby-Gore, Hon. WilliamMcCurdy.
    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    NOES

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. WilliamHalls, WaiterRoberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
    Ammon, Charles GeorgeHartshorn, VernonRoyce, William Stapleton
    Banton, GeorgeHayday, ArthurShaw, Thomas (Preston)
    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)Sitch, Charles H.
    Barrand, A. R.Hirst, G. H.Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)Holmes, J. StanleySpencer, George A.
    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)John, William (Rhondda, West)Sutton, John Edward
    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)Waterson, A, E.
    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)Lawson, John JamesWatts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.
    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)Lunn, WilliamWilliams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)
    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
    Grundy, T. W.Mills, John Edmund

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)Colonel Wedgwood and Mr. Raffan.

    Motion mage, and Question put "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

    are not giving privileges, if high taxation be necessary, to those who are best able to pay, and ought to stand by and pay the same as other sections of the community have more to pay under existing conditions.

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

    The Committee divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 39.

    The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 38.

    Division No. 164.]

    AYES

    [3.30 a.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.Fraser, Major Sir KeithParker, James
    Agg-Gardner, Sir James TynteFremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.Gee, Captain RobertPercy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
    Armstrong, Henry BruceGibbs, Colonel George AbrahamPerkins, Walter Frank
    Atkey, A. R.Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir JohnPollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
    Baird, Sir John LawrenceGoff, Sir R. ParkRae, Sir Henry N.
    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. StanleyGould, James C.Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
    Balfour, George (Hampstead)Green, Albert (Derby)Remer, J. R.
    Barlow, Sir MontagueGreene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
    Barnett, Major Richard W.Greenwood, William (Stockport)Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
    Barnston, Major HarryGuest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
    Barrand, A. R.Hacking, Captain Douglas H.Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
    Bell, Lieut.-Col. W C. H. (Devizes)Hannon, Patrick Joseph HenrySassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
    Betterton, Henry B.Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
    Bigland, AlfredHennessy, Major J. R. G.Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
    Birchall, J. DearmanHerbert, Dennie (Hertford, Watford)Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John
    Borwick, Major G. O.Hinds, JohnShaw, William T. (Forfar)
    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn,W.)Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William CliveHopkins, John W. W.Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
    Briggs, HaroldHopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
    Broad, Thomas TuckerHorne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)Steel, Major S. Strang
    Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. GeorgeSturrock, J. Lang
    Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Sir Alan HughesKidd, JamesSugden, W. H.
    Camplon, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.King, Captain Henry DouglasSutherland, Sir William
    Carr, W. TheodoreLane-Fox, G. R.Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)
    Casey, T. W.Lindsay, William ArthurThomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.Tryon, Major George Clement
    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.Macquisten, F. A.Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
    Colfox, Major Wm. PhillipsMalialleu, Frederick WilliamWaring, Major Walter
    Cope, Major WilliamManville, EdwardWatson, Captain John Bertrand
    Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)Morden, Col. W. GrantWheler, Col. Granville C. H.
    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander HarryMorning, Captain Algernon H.White, Col. G. D. (Southport)
    Doyle, N. GrattanMorrison-Bell, Major A. C.Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.
    Edge, Captain Sir WilliamMurchison, C. K.Windsor, Viscount
    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)Winterton, Earl
    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)Wise, Frederick
    Evans, ErnestMurray, John (Leeds, West)Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)
    Fildes, HenryNeal, ArthurYoung, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)
    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Ford, Patrick JohnstonNicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.
    Forrest, WalterNorris, Colonel Sir Henry G.McCurdy.
    Foxcroft, Captain Charles TalbotOrmsby-Gore, Hon. William

    NOES

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. WilliamHayday, ArthurRoyce, William Stapleton
    Ammon, Charles GeorgeHenderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
    Banton, GeorgeHirst, G. H.Sitch, Charles H.
    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)Holmes, J. StanleySpencer, George A.
    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)John, William (Rhondda, West)Sutton, John Edward
    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Sivertown)Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)Waterson, A. E.
    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)Lawson, John JamesWatts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.
    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)Lunn, WilliamWedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)
    Grundy, T. W.Mills, John Edmund
    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Halls, WalterRaffan, Peter WilsonMr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Walter
    Hartshorn, VernonRoberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)Smith.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[ Sir R. Horne.]

    I think that the Government have treated us rather badly. For two hours their supporters discussed a Clause which was ultimately withdrawn, and thereby any Debate on the land Clause, which was the important Clause, has been postponed till three o'clock in the morning. Over that Clause we have fought for three-quarters of an hour as against two hours on another Clause. In spite of the assertion of the Government that they were to get Clause 26 to-night and their decision at midnight that they were to get Clause 23, they now move to report Progress at a time when there are no trains to be caught. The Debate on the land Clause has been taken in the middle of the night and the other Clauses, in which we are not interested but only members of the Government's own party, are going to be taken to-morrow at the best time of the day. In the first place, the Government was going to give us three days for the Committee stage. Last night they consented to give four days. If they go on at this pace, they will want five days. The Opposition, at any rate, are content to go on now. We are as fresh as ever we were, and hon. Members on the other side have been almost up to the standard of Members of the Opposition. There has been no lack of liveliness and no lack of cogent argument. Why should we be called upon to cease Debate just at the time when we are getting into our swing and when the Government can get the next seven Clauses without opposition? The people who have put down Amendments are not here to move them. If the Government want to give special consideration to their millionaire Friends who have put down Amendments, the Amendments can he taken on the Report stage. On the Report stage we will let the millionaires have it all to themselves if they will wash them out on the Committee stage. The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) is here, and he can move all these millionaire Clauses, and we can do what the Government and the Opposition set out to do—catch our trains in the morning at the right time.

    I want to join with my hon. and gallant Friend in appealing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or

    Division No. 165.]

    AYES

    [3.43 a.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James TynteCope, Major WilliamHopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
    Armitage, RobertDewhurst, Lieut.-Commander HarryJones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
    Armstrong, Henry BruceDoyle, N. GrattanKeliaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
    Atkey, A. R.Edge, Captain Sir WilliamKidd, James
    Baird, Sir John LawrenceEdwards, Major J. (Aberavon)King, Captain Henry Douglas
    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. StanleyEvans, ErnestLane-Fox, G. R.
    Balfour, George (Hampstead)Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.Lindsay, William Arthur
    Barlow, Sir MontagueFildes, HenryLocker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hlingd'n)
    Barnett, Major Richard W.FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
    Barnston, Major HarryFord, Patrick JohnstonMacquisten, F. A.
    Barrand, A. R.Forrest, WalterMalialleu, Frederick William
    Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)Foxcroft, Captain Charles TalbotManville, Edward
    Betterton, Henry B.Fraser, Major Sir KeithMorden, Col. W. Grant
    Bigland, AlfredFremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
    Birchall, J. DearmanGee, Captain RobertMorrison-Bell, Major A. C.
    Borwick, Major G. O.Gibbs, Colonel George AbrahamMurchison, C. K.
    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. GriffithGilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir JohnMurray, Rt. Hon. C. (Edinburgh)
    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.Goff, Sir R. ParkMurray, John (Leeds, West)
    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William CliveGould, James C.Neat, Arthur
    Briggs, HaroldGreen, Albert (Derby)Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
    Broad, Thomas TuckerGreenwood, William (Stockport)Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
    Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.Hacking, Captain Douglas H.Parker, James
    Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Sir Alan HughesHannon, Patrick Joseph HenryPease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
    Carr, W. TheodoreHennessy, Major J. R. G.Perkins, Walter Frank
    Casey, T. W.Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)Pollock, Rt. H on. Sir Ernest Murray
    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm.,W)Hinds, JohnRae, Sir Henry N.
    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)Hope,Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n,W.)Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)Remer, J. R.
    Colfox, Major Wm. PhillipsHopkins, John W. W.Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

    rather to the Leader of the House, who, I see, is now in his place to withdraw the Motion to report Progress. There are several Amendments still upon the Order Paper, and we can with very little discussion divide upon these Amendments.

    Question put, "That, the Question be now put."

    The Committee proceeded to a Division

    If the hon. Member wishes to put a point of Order during a Division he must remain seated with his hat on.

    I want to protest against the action of the Government in moving to report Progress at this time-in the morning.

    I must ask the hon. Member not to break the Rules of the House. I am responsible for the procedure. The Closure has been moved. I have accepted the Motion, and it is quite in order.

    The Committee divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 39.

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)Watson, Captain John Bertrand
    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)Steel, Major S. StrangWheler, Col. Granville C. H
    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.
    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert ArthurSturrock, J. LengWindsor, Viscount
    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.Sugden, W. H.Winterton, Earl
    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)Sutherland, Sir WilliamWise, Frederick
    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)
    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. JohnThomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)
    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (Maryhill)
    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castie-on-T.)Tryon, Major George Clement

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.
    Sprot, Colonel Sir AlexanderWaring, Major WalterMcCurdy.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.Hartshorn, VernonRoyce, William Stapleton
    Adamson, Rt. Hon. WilliamMayday, ArthurShaw, Thomas (Preston)
    Ammon, Charles GeorgeHenderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)Sitch, Charles H.
    Banton, GeorgeHirst, G. H.Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)Holmes, J. StanleySpencer, George A.
    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)John, William (Rhondda, West)Sutton, John Edward
    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)Lawson, John JamesWaterson, A. E.
    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)Lunn, WilliamWatts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.
    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)Mills, John EdmundWilliams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)
    Grundy, T. W.Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan
    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)Raffan, Peter Wilson

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Halls, WalterRoberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Morgan
    Jones.

    Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

    The Committee proceeded to a Division

    ( seated and covered)

    On a point of Order. Is it customary in the House in a Finance Bill Debate, particularly when there was an arrangement arrived at between the Opposition and the Government, and it was expected that a certain part of the Bill would be arrived at, to make a Motion to report Progress? Is it in order to report Progress when a member of the Opposition is asking the Government to give reasons why they move that Motion and thereby themselves breaking the agreement?

    Division No. 166.]

    AYES

    [3.54 a.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James TynteBroad, Thomas TuckerFord, Patrick Johnston
    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)Forrest, Walter
    Armitage, RobertBuckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
    Armstrong, Henry BruceBurgoyne, Lt.-Col. Sir Alan HughesFraser, Major Sir Keith
    Atkey, A. R.Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
    Baird, Sir John LawrenceCarr, W. TheodoreGee, Captain Robert
    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. StanleyCasey, T. W.Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
    Balfour, George (Hampstead)Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
    Barlow, Sir MontagueChamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)Goff, Sir R. Park
    Barnett, Major Richard W.Cockerill, Brigadler-General G. K.Gould, James C.
    Barnston, Major HarryColfox, Major Wm. PhillipsGreen, Albert (Derby)
    Barrand, A. R.Cope, Major WilliamGreenwood, William (Stockport)
    Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
    Betterton, Henry B.Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander HarryHacking, Captain Douglas H.
    Bigland, AlfredDoyle, N. GrattanHannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
    Birchall, J. DearmanEdge, Captain Sir WilliamHenderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
    Berwick, Major G. O.Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-Evans, ErnestHerbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.Hinds, John
    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William CliveFildes, HenryHolmes, J. Stanley
    Briggs, HaroldFitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & cl'ckm'nn,w.)

    I am afraid I am unable to help the hon. Member, because it is not a point of Order on any question upon which I can give a ruling.

    ( seated and covered)

    ( seated and covered)

    Is it not customary for the Government to give an explanation of their reason for reporting Progress in view of the arrangement made?

    The Committee divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 38.

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.Steel, Major S. Strang
    Hopkins, John W. W.Parker, JamesStephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert PikeSturrock, J. Leng
    Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)Sugden, W. H.
    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)Perkins, Walter FrankSutherland, Sir William
    Kelllaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. GeorgePollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest MurraySykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)
    Kidd, JamesRae, Sir Henry N.Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
    King, Captain Henry DouglasRaw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
    Lane-Fox, G. R.Ramer, J. R.Tryon, Major George Clement
    Lindsay, William ArthurRichardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
    Locker-Lampoon, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n)Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)Waring, Major Walter
    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)Watson, Captain John Bertrand
    Macquisten, F. A.Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)Whaler, Col. Granville C. H.
    Mallalieu, Frederick WilliamSenders, Colonel Sir Robert ArthurWills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.
    Manville, EdwardSassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.Windsor, Viscount
    Morden, Col. W. GrantScott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)Winterton, Earl
    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)Wise, Frederick
    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. JohnWood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)
    Murchison, C. K.Shaw, William T. (Forfar)Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)
    Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
    Murray, John (Leeds, West)Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Neal, ArthurSprot, Colonel Sir AlexanderColonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.
    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)McCurdy.
    Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

    NOES

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.Hartshorn, VernonRoyce, William Stapleton
    Adamson, Rt. Hon. WilliamHayday, ArthurShaw, Thomas (Preston)
    Ammon, Charles GeorgeHenderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)Sitch, Charles H.
    Banton, GeorgeHirst, G. H.Spencer, George A.
    Barnes, Major H (Newcastle, E.)John, William (Rhondda, West)Sutton, John Edward
    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)Waterson, A. E.
    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)Lawson, John JamesWatts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.
    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)Lunn, WilliamWedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)
    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)Mills, John Edmund
    Grundy, T. W.Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)Raffan, Peter WilsonMr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Walter
    Halls, WalterRoberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)Smith.

    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

    Adjourned at Four o'Clock a.m.