Lord Advocate and Land Taxation
Arthur Balfour, et al.
[An exchange in the House of Lords, 22 July 1909]
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
The noble Earl the Leader of the House knows that, through no fault
of my own, I was precluded from getting an answer to a simple question
which I had on the Paper yesterday. The noble Earl sent me a most
courteous message asking whether would postpone the question until
this hour to-day. In order to do that I was technically obliged to
take the question off the Paper altogether, because if it appeared on
the Paper I could not bring it on at this moment. I understand from
the noble Earl that it is convenient for him to give me an answer now,
and therefore, with the indulgence of the House, I would call
attention to the speech of the Lord Advocate at Armadale on June 2,
when he was reported to have said The Chancellor of the
Exchequer had made but a very modest estimate of their yield, only
some£500,000, yet of all his proposals they would find that the
land taxes would be the most keenlyindeed, savagelyfought.
Why? The reason was that these modest-looking taxes involved a
principle capable of far-reaching application, a principle which they
believed to be sound and safe, but which the great bulk of their
political opponents equally strongly denied. What was that principle?
It was this, that the land of the country, the land as distinct from
the buildings erected upon it, the land as distinct from the
improvements made upon it, in truth belonged to the nation. And if
this were so, then the nation was entitled to appropriate for public
purposes a portion of the value of the land. This the Chancellor of
the Exchequer proposed to do. It is not my intention to make a speech
and I do not wish to comment upon the private opinions of members of
the Government, because I know there is a large amount of latitude
allowed; but the Lord Advocate announced the opinions of the
Government, and I think we are entitled to be informed whether the
opinions of His Majesty's Government are correctly represented by the
Lord Advocate.
THE EARL OF CREWE
My Lords, I must apologise both to the noble Lord and to the House
for not having been in my place yesterday to answer this Question when
it was on the Paper, but I was detained elsewhere by very important
business connected with the South Africa Bill and it was not possible
for me to get down to the House. I am obliged to the noble Lord for
having postponed this Question at my request. In answering it now, I
shall be enabled, I hope, to clear up some misapprehension which
apparently exists.
I understand that the noble Lord is afraid that certain provisions
forming part of the Finance Bill are not introduced, strictly
speaking, as part of that Bill, but for different reasons. Now, my
Lords, the case with regard to this Finance Bill, or any Finance Bill,
appears to me to be thisthat a Finance Bill is confined to the
raising of revenue and to the establishment of such machinery as is
necessary for the raising of the revenue either in the particular
year, or in future years if any Government should desire to continue
to raise revenue in a similar way. That I take to be an indisputable
fact; but it does not necessarily preclude either a Minister or other
persons from suggesting other considerations which, in their opinion,
make the imposition of a particular tax desirable.
Take an instance in which I know I shall have the sympathy of the
noble Lord. Supposing that in the Finance Bill it was proposed to
impose a 5s. tax upon corn. It 687 would be open, I think, to anybody
-- a member of the Government or anybody else -- to say that in his
opinion one great advantage of such a tax was not merely the revenue
it produced, but the fact that by raising the price of corn all over
the country it would encourage the agricultural industry in certain
districts and help to retain the people on the land. That is an
argument which, at any rate, might be used in districts where wheat is
grown, though in large urban centres a different class of argument
would probably have to be employed. That appears to me to represent a
rough analogy to what has occurred in the present case, in the speech
of the Lord Advocate.
When the noble Lord asks me what the opinions of the Government are
in regard to the academic proposition that "land as distinct from
the buildings erected upon it" and the rest of the quotation
belongs to the nation, I may frankly tell your Lordships I have no
idea. So far as I am aware that abstract question has never been the
subject of discussion by His Majesty's Government. The noble Lord has
himself been a member of a Government, and he knows very well that the
time which it is possible to set apart for abstract discussions,
either economic or metaphysical, is extremely limited, if, indeed, it
can be said to exist at all. I am bound to say that this particular
question has never been before us, and therefore I am not in a
position to reply to that part of the noble Lord's Question.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
Then the Lord Advocate was premature in his announcement?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
I have no right to speak and can only say a word with the indulgence
of the House. The noble Earl, no doubt, observed that in the passage
quoted the Lord Advocate referred to a principle which "they"
-- that is, His Majesty's Governmentbelieved to be sound and
safe, that principle being that the land as distinct from the
improvements made upon it in truth belonged to the nation. What we
want to know is whether, when the Lord Advocate attributed those
opinions to the Government, he was speaking with their concurrence and
approval, or only for himself?
|