§ In reply to Mr. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.),
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)said, he hoped to take the second reading of this Bill to-night. He hoped there would be no objection to that stage, but that if hon. Members wished to raise objections they would discuss them in Committee.
§ In further answer to Mr. BUCHANAN,
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, the House was aware that it was the intention of the Government to deal with Local Government in Scotland next Session, which would involve the re-casting also of local finance, and in that case, of course, the arrangements now made for the dis- 461 tribution of the Probate Duty Grant in Scotland in future years would fall to the ground. But it would be best, perhaps, to retain the clauses providing for the distribution of the grant in future years in the Bill, in order, in case of difficulties arising in the passing of the Local Government measure, that there should be, in any case, some provision with regard to the application of this money.
§ MR. BUCHANANasked, whether it would not be better to limit the Bill to one year? While willing to agree to it for that time, they might not wish to continue the arrangement indefinitely.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, he would be very happy, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, to do that; but it would possibly involve not paying to Scotland the increased grant from the Probate Duty, which would be due to her in future years. It was that increased grant which rendered this arrangement necessary.