CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.— [BILL 136.] (Hansard, 26 May 1881)

MR. GLADSTONE
I wish to say a word or two in regard to this clause, which I think may obviate the necessity for moving the Amendment which appears on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Sir Baldwyn Leighton), and a further Amendment which, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) proposed to move. I bad no knowledge before Monday last, when we were in Committee upon this Bill, that this question was about to be raised in the House, and therefore I had no prior opportunity of considering it; but since that time I have examined it with some care, and I find two things. In the first place, I find that it is a matter which will not require legislation at all. It is entirely within the competence, and therefore within the responsibility of the Executive Government to give remission of taxation laid upon any commodity or any description of property in cases where it is sufficiently proved that the profit on which the tax has been levied has not been realized. In the second place, some explanation is required as to the method of doing it. Of course, I am quite sure my hon. Friend does not mean to apply that rule so as to alter the whole basis of the Income Tax in regard to the land which is in the occupation of landlords for the purpose of order, convenience, or sup- 1337 port. He means only to meet what may be called the present distress, in consequence of which a great number of farms have been thrown upon the hands of the landlords, which landlords are doing the best they can to turn the land to good account, but who, it may often happen, fail to make the usual farm profits out of them. On this basis I think I can say that we should be prepared to take the responsibility of framing a measure which will meet the case; and we have in the Land and Income Tax Commissioners a body of gentlemen to whom would properly belong the duty of determining whether the loss has been incurred in such a way as to justify the remission. It is obvious, of course, that there must be some cognizance in the measure of the relief thus given; and an impartial tribunal such as I have named would be proposed by the Bill, which would not be likely to be prejudiced in favour of the Government. The Land Tax Commissioners have property in the district in which they act, and they are likely to be interested in the land itself. There is also another question—whether, in this case, it is not fair that estates should receive some corresponding relief in respect of local rates. The ground is exactly the same, and, moreover, there is a still closer analogy, and for this reason—wherever any land is in the hands of the owner as occupier, the practice of the Rating Department is to consider its value on the basis of the Poor Law valuation. It is substantially on this Poor Law valuation that any abatement would be made in respect to losses shown to have occurred, and in the case we are now considering there would certainly be strong reason why there should be a corresponding abatement in respect of local rates. This, however, is a matter which I should like to have time to consider, and in the course of the Session we can easily return to this question. In the meantime, I hope I have said enough to be satisfactory to my hon. Friends, inasmuch as I accept the principle of the proposal of which Notice has been given. As I have said, I believe that the Government have powers that are sufficient for the purpose, and that they do not require altering, and if hon. Gentlemen will return to the subject in the course of a few weeks, probably by 1338 that time I shall be able to give them distinct information in a more formal manner.

§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON
said, that he believed it would not be competent for him to move his Amendment in the present clause; but it would be competent, if necessary, to move it in Clause 21. But after the generous concession which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make he did not intend to proceed with either of the Amendments which stood in his name. He should like to know, however, whether the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman made would take the form of a Treasury Minute?

MR. GLADSTONE
I think it would come through the Board of Inland Revenue, and it would probably be approved and accepted by the Treasury.

§ SIR BALDAVYN LEIGHTON
The question of the remission of rent? [Mr. GLADSTONE: Yes.] He (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) assumed that the order would have effect upon Income Tax, payable under Schedule A this year, in January last. He also assumed that specific directions would be given after the proposal had been finally determined upon, so that all persons interested might know that this concession had been made, and that they were entitled to relief; otherwise a great many persons might not be aware of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that night. These were points upon which he should like the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee an assurance. There was, he believed, one precedent. In 1879 there was a remission of Income Tax upon rents not received, which he thought was on all fours with the present proposal. He would not say that it was exactly the same; but on that occasion the course taken by the Government was found to work very well. He had no doubt that the present proposal might be made to work equally well, and it ought to have reference to the payment which became due in January last. He presumed that the right hon. Gentleman would take care to have the matter sufficiently notified in the local papers.

MR. GLADSTONE
It will be necessary that I should examine into the legislation for the remission of taxes in bygone years. I shall have to inquire into the matter, and see whether there 1339 are any precedents or not. Undoubtedly, whether it is done by advertisement or not, I will take care through this House, and otherwise, that ample information shall be given.

§ MR. J. G. HUBBARD
said, the practice of remitting the Income Tax on rents which had not been received was commenced by the late Government; and he thought the present Government were entitled to credit for having sufficient discernment and generosity to follow the course then set. He believed the present Government had so far shown the sincerity of their intentions by actually making a return of the tax where there was evidence that the rents had not been realized. But the right hon. Gentleman hail raised a subsidiary question having a very close connection with this, which was also one of very great importance—namely, the liability of property in this position to pay local rates. In many cases it would be found that the rental had been repeatedly reduced in consequence of bail seasons; and he thought there should also be a reduction in the amount of taxation to which the property was liable. He did not know, however, that the right hon. Gentleman could do more than promise to consider how far these equitable returns or remissions could be carried out. He might take this opportunity of saying that he had, early in the Session, asked for leave to bring in a Bill touching upon the question of taxation; but which, in view of the pressure of the great Irish questions, he had hitherto abstained from bringing forward. It would be within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that the proceeds of landed property were at present divided between the encumbrancer and the real owner—he (Mr. Hubbard) believed that, in point of fact, the product was about equally divided. This fact disclosed a serious inequality in the incidence of their taxation. Tito capitalist who had a mortgage upon the estate, when he got his interest, had to pay Income Tax only on that interest, where as the owner was not taxed upon the residue alone, but upon the whole of this outgoings; consequently, while the capitalist was only paying 5d. in the pound, the owner might be paying 10d. That was the state of things last year; but what was it now? The reduction of rent had been so great that the mortgagees in many cases were 1340 receiving the whole proceeds of an estate, and yet the unfortunate nominal owner was required to pay Income Tax, not on the residue he received, because he received no residue at all, but out of other funds. That was a question which ought to be considered, perhaps not at the present moment, but certainly in the future; and he trusted that his right hon. Friend, if he happened to be Chancellor of the Exchequer in another year, would take care, both as regards Imperial and local taxation, that all measures of legislation concerning them should be brought on at the same time, and that each should be in harmony with the other, so that in future the Queen's Taxes and the local taxes might be charged on the same principle, and levied through the same medium. This would economize labour, mitigate the grievances of which the taxpayers complained, and would tend to facilitate and make more pleasurable the duty both of levying and paying taxation.

§ MR. MAGNIAC
said, the right hon. Gentleman had earned the gratitude of a very large class who were interested in the concession he had made. He (Mr. Magniac) disclaimed any participation in the Amendment which had been placed upon the Paper by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Baldwyn Leighton). The principle contained in that Amendment was one which involved an entire repeal of the Income Tax; and that he, for one, was not prepared to advocate. All he desired was that the tax should be levied upon some principle of justice. Perhaps he might be permitted to say a word as to the best means of carrying out the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to make. He thought the best way would be to amalgamate Schedules A and B in regard to the owners of land. A remission made in that form would be most effective. He wished also to say that he was satisfied, and the agricultural Members would agree with him, that the west service ever done for the farmers of England was placing them under Schedule B. If they had been placed under Schedule D, they would have been obliged to keep their own accounts, and they would not have been, as they generally were, in a state of uncertainty as to whether they were making any profits or not. He trusted that some arrangement might be made 1341 for getting rid of that difficulty in future, and for placing the Income Tax upon that particular class in a more just and equitable position. He cordially thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he had made.

§ MR. HICKS
said, that he also, in common with the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) and the hon. Baronet below him (Sir Baldwyn Leighton), wished to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he had made. He desired, at the same time, to draw his attention to this fact—that the question did not merely apply to farms which the owners were obliged to take into their own hands in consequence of not being able to find proper tenants, but it also applied to land absolutely lying waste. There were in many parts of England farms that were not occupied either by a tenant or by the landlord. He understood that the whole question would be dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, there was one point with regard to this clause which was not satisfactory—namely, the way in which farm lands were dealt with under Schedule B. Of course, he was not raising the question with any idea of altering the present Bill; but, as he understood the matter, if a farm was assessed under Schedule Bit was charged a duty of 2½d. on the rent; but if the occupier was able to show that, owing to bad seasons, he had not made any profit, or had not realized the full amount of rent, then the Commissioners were at liberty to reduce the assessment so as to give the farmer relief. There could be no objection to the farmers having relief in bad seasons, providing, like other traders in the country, they paid the higher rate of Income Tax when the seasons were good. The present arrangement appeared to be altogether objectionable. If the farmers were to have a reduction in bad times, to which he did not for a moment object, he thought they ought not to be put under Schedule B, but under Schedule D. Farmers should be treated like all other traders, and should be required to keep books like all other traders, and if it was shown that they had made a profit then they should pay Income Tax on that profit, and only have relief if they could show that they had made no profit at all.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question in reference to local taxation. The right hon. Gentleman, in the remarks he had made, threw out a hint about local taxes; and he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) wished to know what the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks was, because, as he understood local taxation, the Government had no power to interfere or to deal with local taxation at all. If the right hon. Gentleman meant to suggest that local rates should be lowered in the interest of one class of persons, it might be found that everybody else would be disinclined to accept such a happy consummation for that particular class; and there would be, he thought, a great difficulty in making any satisfactory arrangement, unless the assessment committee agreed in their different districts to carry out the arrangement in some other way than it was carried out at present. What he would press upon the right hon. Gentleman was this—that he would do good service to the agricultural interest if he took care that local burdens were decreased by assisting local taxation by other modes of taxation than those which at present existed. This was in reality one of the most pressing questions of the present day, and until something was done in that direction he believed that no real relief would be given to the agricultural interest.

§ COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISE
, before the right hon. Gentleman answered the question, wished to call attention to the position of landed property under Schedule A. Heretofore it had always been the custom to assess the property of the country every three years. The last valuation was in May, 1879, and there would be no fresh valuation until May, 1882. What he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman was, whether he did not think it would be advisable to have a new assessment this year? There had been a complete revolution in the value of lauded property throughout the country, and the Returns supplied by the Surveyor of Taxes in 1879 would be altogether at variance with those supplied in 1881. He would, therefore, suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there should be a fresh assessment this your. He knew that it was not advisable that there should be annual assessments. An assessment every three years was the 1343 general rule. Assessments occasioned great trouble and annoyance, and involved a considerable amount of expenditure. Therefore, he would not advise annual assessments; but this year was an exceptional year, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to undertake that one should be made of the value of property under Schedule A.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
would also like to have an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to what was exactly meant by the information he had conveyed to the Committee. He wished to know how the concession generously given to land in the occupation of the owners at the present time could be extended to any valuation for the purposes of local rates? Under the existing law there was a process by which any landlord holding land which produced no return could apply to the assessment committee and obtain a reduction of rates. If the Bill which he had introduced when the late Government were in Office had passed into law, an annual opportunity would have been afforded by which any person could have his assessment reduced every year on showing that there had been a decrease in the value of his hereditament. He certainly regretted that the measure was riot enacted, and was not in force at the present moment. As his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had pointed out, the effect of remitting and reducing local taxation in the case of one particular class of persons might produce dissatisfaction among other persons in the same parish whose property or trades might have been injuriously affected by the same causes—namely, bad seasons and general depression. He only wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in extending the remission of the Properly Tax to local rates also, ire might be acting from an entirely different point of view and under altogether different circumstances.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, that before the right hon. Gentleman replied ho should like to ask question in respect to the concession proposed to be made by the Government. He very much agreed with what had fallen from his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) and the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex 1344 (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) in regard to local rates; but what he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman was this. He understood that it was intended by the Government to take the necessary measures for remitting Income Tax on Schedule A and Schedule B in cases where the farm was in the occupation of the owner against his will, and without his deriving a profit there from. But did the right hon. Gentleman mean to provide for the case of a landlord whose tenant had become bankrupt, and had failed to pay the rent he ought to have paid? This would be a case where, although the land was not in the occupation of the owner, he would have received no rent at all, and he was afraid that in these days it was a case that only too commonly occurred. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would make some provision for such an occurrence.

MR. GLADSTONE
In reply to the last question by the right hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), I may say that it is a matter which has not come under my consideration. My attention has been confined to the relief of the persons distressed alone, and has not been turned to the case of landlords whose tenants have become bankrupts. Under any condition of things a tenant may become a bankrupt or get into difficulties; but that is a case to be met by the ordinary law, and it is no part of the subject I have had under consideration. It will remain exactly where it does now. There is no question at all that any system of remission, in regard to local rates, must be done by course of law, and cannot be done by the Government; and, therefore, before any proposal can be made which is likely to affect the question of local rates, hon. Members, who are interested in the subject, will have ample opportunity for considering it. The whole matter has come upon me suddenly, and I have only been able to give it a very hasty examination. It only seemed fair that when we proposed to tax the income of the landowner we should do so on some principles of justice, and on the supposition that we were really dealing with income, and I simply suggested that if a man should not be taxed on an income he has not got, it would seem to follow that he should not be rated upon an income he has not got. I am very doubtful whether it would be advisable 1345 to alter the present system of assessment, and the machinery for levying and collecting the Income Tax. This machinery is difficult and complicated, and I should not certainly venture, on my own responsibility, to make any alteration until there lied been a thorough and careful inquiry into the whole matter.

MR. ILLINGWORTII
suggested that if the concession were given by the Government it should not be confined to the agricultural interest. The pressure was equally great in some of the manufacturing districts of the North of England. It would be very acceptable to employers of labour and gentlemen engaged in commerce in the manufacturing districts just now to have shorter periods in which the assessments might be levied. He thought the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was unanswerable—that if remissions of this nature were to be made in adverse times they ought to abandon the present system of assessment, and insist upon the Property Tax being levied in full when times were good.

§ MR. BIDDELL
asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain the great difference there appeared to be in the taxation of the latter's farming constituents in Mid Lothian, and his (Mr. Biddell's) in West Suffolk. He was aware that the different modes of letting land would in some degree account for the difference between ten farthings in the pound and the seven which the Scotch paid. He was also aware that this difference had existed from the first institution of the present tax; but no time would make good an injustice. It would be best understood if he put the case of two farms of equal merit and size—the one in England, the other in Scotland. Take a farm of 400 acres in England, it would be taxed as follows:—Rent—say 25s. per acre—£500. Tithe—say 6s. per acre—£120. Total £620. From this total one-eighth was allowed to be deducted, £77 10s., leaving a net total of £542 10s., which, assessed upon at ten farthings in the pound, would give for the farmer to pay £5 12s. 10d. In Scotland, the rent would include the tithe and the parish rates, which, taking them at £50–2s. 6d. per acre—about the same in both countries,—would make a total sum of £670—for the Scotch farmer to be assessed upon, at 1346 only seven farthings per pound, and would give for him to pay £4 17s. 8d., or about 15 per cent less than the English farmer. He knew how desirable it was to get on with the Bill, and therefore did not like to trouble the right hon. Gentleman; but proposed that he should explain the matter at some future stage or opportunity, more especially as the case involved figures suddenly put, and which possibly might be incorrect.

MR. GLADSTONE
replied, that the difference had, as the hon. Member was aware, existed from the first, and arose from the Scotch farmer hiring under other terms, his rent including the tithe and half the rates; but he would suggest to the hon. Member to furnish him with his calculations, and he would be happy to explain the point at some future time.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 21 (Provisions of Income Tax Acts to apply to duties hereby granted) agreed to.
Clause 22 (Provisions of Income Tax Acts to apply to duties to be granted for succeeding year) agreed to.
Clause 23 (Assessment of Income Tax under Schedule (A) and (B), and of the inhabited house duties for the year 1881 — 1882, 32 & 33 Viet. c. 67) agreed to.
Clause 24 (Interpretation of "servant" and "other person" in exemption from inhabited house duty).

§ MR. ANDERSON
moved, in page 10, line 25, after "1878," to insert— Houses that are not strictly inhabited houses but which are institutions of a public or an educational character, and which can be called 'inhabited' solely because a servant or caretaker dwells in some small part of them, shall not be assessed to the inhabited house duty, except in respect of the annual value of such part of them as is in the actual occupation of the servant or caretaker, and if such annual value comes within the limits of the tax. The Amendment was aimed at a practice which, in regard to the Inhabited House Duty, had long been looked upon as a grievance. The law had been interpreted by those who levied the Inhabited House Duty to mean that it should be levied on the full rental of the house, whether it was strictly an inhabited house or not, provided anybody lived in it at all. Thus a large public institution, worth, perhaps, £1,000 a-year, if it bad 1347 as much as a caretaker living in it and occupying one or two rooms, was rated at its full rental. This had long been felt to be a great grievance. A few years ago the London merchants succeeded in passing an Amendment by which it was provided that merely having a caretaker living in a house should not subject a large establishment to the duty to the extent of the whole rental, provided that the establishment was used for purposes of gain; and it did appear to him that a large establishment not used for the purposes of gain had, à fortiori, a much stronger claim for relief than places used for gain. It was most unfair that such institutions as Museums, Colleges, Schools, or other public buildings of various kinds, should be charged the duty on their full rental value because it happened that a caretaker occupied a room in them. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question in reference to this particular grievance a month or two ago, and the right hon. Gentleman replied that the Treasury instructed the tax collectors not to levy on educational establishments, and that they gave a wide and liberal interpretation to the term "educational establishments." But when he (Mr. Anderson) came to inquire into the facts of the case, he found that however much that might be the understanding of the right hon. Gentleman and the desire of the Treasury, the practice of the tax collectors was to levy the tax in a great many cases all over the country in a most capricious fashion. Some establishments were allowed to escape altogether, while others, in precisely the same position, were heavily taxed. He was informed that of late a new instruction had been sent out by the Treasury, and that the grievance would, to some extent, be mitigated. But unfortunately in one of the cases which had occurred there had been an appeal to the Court of Session, and the Court of Session decided that the tax was a justifiable statutory tax. Having been so decided by a Law Court, he was very doubtful whether a mere instruction from the Treasury would be sufficient to cause the practice to be discontinued in future. It would certainly be in the power of any tax collector to say that any instruction of that kind was not to overrule and set aside a decision of the 1348 Law Courts. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to grant relief by a statutory enactment of the kind suggested by the Amendment. and he trusted that the words he proposed would be accepted.
Amendment moved, In page 10, line 25, after "1878," to insert "houses that are not strictly inhabited houses, but which are institutions of a public or an educational character, and which Can be called 'inhabited' solely because a servant or caretaker dwells in some small part of them, shall not be assessed to the inhabited house duty, except in respect of the annual value of such part of them as is in the actual occupation of the Servant or caretaker, and if such annual value comes within the limits of the tax."—(Mr. Anderson.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GLADSTONE
My hon. Friend proposes this Amendment because he is afraid that, in consequence of a declaration of the law by the Court of Session, the authority of the Executive Government will not avail to give the necessary remissions of duty. Now, the Executive Government were parties to obtaining that declaration of the law. They were unwilling that any statutory right should be established against them; but they see no difficulty in the relaxation of the conditions, and they are even disposed to add something to that relaxation. I can, therefore, assure my hon. Friend that he need be under no apprehension at all upon the ground he has stated—namely, that the declaration of the Court of Session will be an obstacle to giving this just relief in remission of the tax upon houses beneficially occupied by any person acting under the name of caretaker or servant. And the additional relaxation we propose to give is that in the case of buildings such as those referred to by my hon. Friend—buildings held in trust by municipalities for the advancement of either science or art—the assessment will be limited to beneficial occupation.

§ MR. ANDERSON
said, after that declaration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer he should not press his Amendment.

§ MR. W. FOWLER
wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a small but important point in connection with this clause. There were many large buildings in the City 1349 of London in which more than one caretaker was required, and under the peculiar wording of the Act of 1878, it had been suggested that in cases of that kind the house should be dealt with as an inhabited house. That appeared to him to be an absurd proposition, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would say that under this Act it was not intended to put it in practice.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, the matter should receive attention.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 25 (Amendment of 43 & 44 Viet. c. 19, s. 53) agreed to. Clause 26 (Provisions as to assessment to inhabited house duty on houses let for short periods).

§ MR. WHITLEY
said, he did not think attention had been sufficiently directed to this clause, nor did he believe that hon. Members fully realized the effect which it would have upon the owners of property, especially in our large cities and towns. The Inhabited House Duty was essentially a tax upon occupation; but the effect of this clause would be to transfer the incidence of taxation from the occupier to the landlord. It was difficult to realize the extent of the prejudicial result which this proposal would have with regard to property in large towns. He believed almost every hon. Member connected with those places would know that, say, eight-tenths of the houses in them were not let in annual tenancies, but at three, six, and even one month's notice. If, therefore, the owner of property were made liable not only for Property Tax, but also for Inhabited House Duty in cases where he might not receive his rent, their position would be greatly prejudiced. He was convinced, from the representations made to him from many quarters, that the owners of property in large towns had no idea of the extent to which they would suffer. They would ho unable to protect themselves, because it was almost impossible to get tenants for their houses, and it would necessarily bear very hardly upon them if they were exposed to this extra taxation. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would 1350 ascertain the vast amount of property held in every large town upon occupation of under 12 months, he would see that his proposal would produce a very serious injury to the owners of property therein. For that reason he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the clause, which, as it stood, simply called upon one class to pay a tax that another class ought to pay, and agree to its postponement.

§ MR. T. COLLINS
agreed with the hon. Member for Liverpool in thinking that the Committee were not at ail aware of the effect which this clause would have. For his own part, having been a Commissioner of Income Tax for many years, he had never heard of such a proposal as this being made. Certainly, ho did not think the clause was understood throughout the country as making the owner, instead of the occupier, liable for Inhabited House Duty if the house was let for any period less than a year. Many houses in Yorkshire were let out three months' tenancies. The Inhabited House Duty was essentially a tax levied upon the occupier; but the country was now given to understand that the owner was responsible. In view of the great importance of the proposal in its effect upon property throughout the country, he suggested that the best course would be to omit the clause from the Bill, and then, at some future time, when the country had fully considered it, it might, if necessary, be brought up again. It had rather the appearance of stealing a march upon the country to make the owner liable for the occupier's tax.

MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE
pointed out that the Inhabited House Duty was always paid by the occupier in the case of houses let upon lease. That was not the case with the Land Tax, which was always paid by the landlord, unless he covenanted with the tenant to the contrary. He did not think the Treasury ought to impose further conditions upon landlords in order to make them liable for default of the tenant more than they were at present; but, according to this clause, every landlord would be liable for House Tax in cases where the property was let for a less term than one year.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, that the term "Inhabited House Duty" implied occupation, and had, therefore, always been 1351 the tenant's tax. The distinction between the landlords' taxes and the tenants' taxes was perfectly well known at present; but, as he understood the clause, it would entirely relieve the occupier from the payment of a tax which had always been paid by him and throw it upon the landlord, notwithstanding any previous contract that might exist between the parties.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, the object of the clause was to prevent the recurrence of loss, which, under the present arrangements, had occurred to the Revenue. At the same time, he should be sorry that a proposal such as that contained in this clause should be adopted without full consideration on the part of the House; and he was, therefore, willing that it should be omitted from the Bill.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE
contended that the duty under the next grade of the scale would fall more heavily on estates of between £300 and £500 than those in any portion of the scale; and he therefore hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would receive with favour his proposal to extend the duty of £1 on every £50 to those estates.
Amendment moved, in page 12, line 19, to leave out "£300" and insert "£500."—(Mr. Alderman Lawrence.)

MR. GLADSTONE
said, he was not convinced that the operation of the duty would be more severe at the particular point indicated by the Amendment of the hon. Member than at any other; but as it would afford relief to a large number of persons, and as there would be no great loss to the Revenue in consequence, he was willing to extend the limit of £300 to £500.
Amendment agreed to.
On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

§ MR. GREGORY
said, the Committee would be aware that the Probate Duties 1352 were considerably raised last year by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had upon that occasion taken some objection to the measure, but had been unable to pursue the subject fully in consequence of the dispersion which occurred at the General Election. There was, however, no doubt that the former alteration had a very considerable effect in the way of increasing the charge on estates. The present Bill now proposed a further advance. Upon an estate under £4,000 the old duty was £80; it was, under the arrangement of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, raised to £130, and the present Bill would increase the duty to £147. The original duty on an estate under £10,000 was £180; under the present Bill it would be £297. In the ease of estates under £30,000, the old duty was £400; it was raised last year to £690, and would now be increased to £897. He admitted that lineal descendants would be relieved—that was to say, those in direct descent would be relieved to the extent of 1 per cent; but, as he understood it, there would be no relief for those in remoter degrees of consanguinity. This alteration was very material in view of the possibility of the Probate Duty being extended to real estate, and should be borne in mind by those who were in favour of that change. He did not raise any objection to the amount of the duty, but thought it right that the Committee should understand the real effect of the clause.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, the aim had been to make the scale almost entirely equal. He felt rather dissatisfied with the arrangement proposed, because the ½per cent Probate Duty was not the exact equivalent of the Probate Duty which had been given up. It was something less, and if they had not been led by a desire to keep to round numbers the charge would have been a little higher. It was perfectly true that the change did not operate with perfect equality as regarded lineals and collaterals; but this change had been instituted on the principle that the residue generally went to the lineal. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gregory) might be assured of the correctness of the general assertion that the lineals would receive relief somewhat greater than the tax, while they would have no expense in connection with the payment of the 1353 duty. On the other hand, the Department would get earlier payment.

§ MR. DODDS
pointed out that under the proposed assessment every £100 had to bear its proper share of the duty, and that the blots which existed in the old system, and had been complained of for so many years, were now got rid of. No doubt, some estates had now to pay which formerly escaped duty altogether.

MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE
said, that the clause made no alteration whatever with regard to the legacies received by collaterals, who would have to pay the same amount of duty as before. They would have to pay more only in case they were residuary legatees. He hoped the principle would be brought to bear upon freehold legacies, which now had to pay an infinitely smaller amount than they ought to pay.

§ MR. WHITLEY
wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was proposed that the duty should be paid upon affidavit instead of on probate? At present the duty had to be paid before it was possible to ascertain the value of the estate, and in case of error the practice was to pay back the excess in fees. Of course, in the case of a mistake—say, of £1,000—it would be very inconvenient to receive the overpayment in this way and not in cash. If it was thought desirable to change the present practice, and transfer the duty from probate to affidavit, perhaps some directions might he given to the officers to settle the form of the affidavit before the Probate Duty was paid. If the money was returned in fees it would cause great difficulty to the Profession. He had heard no reason for the change that was proposed up to the present time, and should, therefore, be glad to receive some explanation with regard to it. Numbers of representations had been made to him from the Profession, and he was sure that the removal of the difficulties to which he had referred would be received with great satisfaction.

§ MR. DODDS
said, he was in a position to re-assure the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley). He had brought this point under the attention of the authorities at Somerset House, and had received from them very satisfactory assurances as to the way in which the proposed alteration would be worked. The conclusion at which he had arrived, after fully considering the question, was, 1354 that there would be no difficulty whatever in connection with it. Some difficulty existed at the present time in ascertaining the amount of the estate, but, in future, payment would simply be made upon the affidavit; the duty, however, would not be charged until all preliminaries were settled—until it was ascertained whether there were any difficulties with regard to probate, and whether any caveat was entered. He was assured there would be no inconvenience under the new system. On the contrary, there would be the benefit of deducting the debts in a way that was not before practicable. For his own part, he was grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for this benefit.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 (Power to deduct debts and funeral expenses when deceased died domiciled in the United Kingdom).

§ MR. GREGORY
said, the object of the Amendment he was about to move was to insure that if affidavits were made of the debts of the deceased, they should not be taken as an admission of liability, as between the creditor and the estate or representative of the deceased. On applying for probate a person had to swear in an affidavit that such and such amounts were due to certain persons. But it was well known to be impossible, in many cases, immediately after the death of the deceased to ascertain what the debts were. Many of the debts sworn to might be doubtful, and be only confessed afterwards, in the course of administration. In case of litigation it might materially prejudice the estate of a debtor to have it put in evidence that he had made an affidavit to the best of his knowledge and belief that certain debts were due by him. If the Solicitor General would say that the party in question would not be prejudiced, he would give up his Amendment. He regarded it as a most serious matter that the affidavit should be held to be an admission of liability; and as the insertion of his Amendment would, at all events, do no harm, he trusted it would meet with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not think it afforded anything like an adequate protection to say that the admission made in the affidavit would be withheld by the office, which could be compelled by the ordinary process to produce it. 1355 Amendment moved, In page 13, line 9, after the word "exhibited," to insert "but such Schedule, or any statement therein, shall not be taken as an admission or evidence of a debt as between a creditor and the estate or representative of the deceased."—(Mr. Gregory.)

§ MR. DODDS
thought the Amendment would encourage laxity on the part of executors in the preparation of statements of debt, and that it might induce some persons to put in claims for which there was no foundation. On the whole, he did not think the Amendment was ready required, and he trusted his hon. Friend would withdraw it.

MR. GLADSTONE
The whole change we are making is a change for the benefit of the taxpayer. In giving him that relief we run the risk, more or less, of his entering debts in order to get a large remission of the Probate Duty; and we must, therefore, have some security for correctness in the case that debts are not put in for that purpose. If a man has a debt about which he is uncertain, no doubt his proper course is not to enter it, but to wait and claim rebate afterwards. The hon. Member will see the danger of persons being encouraged to include debts not meant to be acknowledged, without suffering any inconvenience whatever; and it is, therefore, quite necessary that the effect should be against him, as far as it goes, in order to prevent the abuse of the very considerable opportunity we are giving for a somewhat culpable laxity.

M. GORST
said, the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) seemed to be entirely at issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the effect of this clause. While the former hon. Member argued that the affidavit would not be an admission of liability as between debtors and creditors, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to indicate that it would be an admission. In this conflict of great authorities, he thought the Committee would be instructed by an opinion from the hon. and learned Solicitor General. If lie would state whether or not the affidavit would be an admission as between debtors and creditors, they would be better able to appreciate the arguments of the hon. Member and the Prince Minister.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
said, he did not think there was any necessity for him 1356 to inform the Committee whether or not the affidavit would constitute an admission of debt. At the same time, he was quite unable to see the slightest inconsistency between the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockton and those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He should, therefore, not attempt to reconcile a difference that he was unable to distinguish.

§ MR. GREGORY
was understood to say he could only gather from the observations of the hon. and learned Solicitor General that he did not differ from him with regard to the admission made by the affidavit. It was to meet the cases of persons who were willing to give the best statement they could under the circumstances that he wished the Amendment inserted. He believed that the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman would have little practical operation, as it would be impossible for representatives to depose to debts until they had investigated them, or for the office to accept statements of debts without the subsequent production of vouchers for the payment of them.

MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE
would point out to his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory) that all he had been alluding to with regard to defrauding the Revenue might occur even now in the matter of partnership. When a man had been a partner in a concern, the Inland Revenue Department knew nothing about his debts, and all that the hon. Member had said about a statement concerning them being inaccurate would apply to every statement of any partner.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
could not agree with the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, who said that he could see no difference between the statement of the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds). The statement of the hon. Member for Stockton was that these words that his hon. Friend proposed would do no harm, and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was that they would do a great deal of harm—at any rate, he had understood that to be the right hon. Gentleman's argument. This showed a material difference in the appreciation of the two. The words the hon. Gentleman proposed were open to the objection taken by the Prime Minister—namely, that the risk the Re- 1357 venue must run was so great that it ought to be guarded in every way that could be thought of. If the representatives of the Exchequer told them that they required this safeguard they ought to be very chary indeed in depriving them of it. Though everyone admitted the great boon that was conferred, and, in a certain sense, the act of justice that was done in levying the Probate Duty so as to exclude debts, yet the risk was very considerable. They were making an experiment, and the Government should be very cautious and careful in every step they took.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, this was not so much a question of law as a matter of common sense. Under this Bill they were enabling parties to gain considerable advantage by making an affidavit of the amount of the debts due from them—by setting forth in an affidavit a schedule of their debts. "But," said his hon. Friend opposite, "let them have the full benefit of this affidavit as against the Government, by its being accepted as a positive evidence of the amount due from them; but take care not to put them to any disadvantage in the event of their putting down a debt which is not actually due, or, at all events, an amount which is in excess of that which they have to pay." The matter was one which did not admit of argument, and if the parties were prepared to make an affidavit, he thought they might fairly be left to the consequences of their position.

MR. GORST
said, the speech of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) showed how desirable it was that the Committee should be enlightened as to the law on the subject by Her Majesty's Solicitor General. The hon. Member for Burnley argued in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory), which was advanced on the ground that the Schedule would be taken as an admission of liability. He wished to know from the hon. and learned Solicitor General whether that was the case? Surely the Committee were entitled to know, as a matter of law, whether the Amendment was or was not necessary. The hon. Member (Mr. Gregory) wished for an answer to the question. He (Mr. Gorst) was happy to see that the hon. and learned Attorney General had just come into the House; and now, perhaps, he would tell 1358 them whether, as a matter of law, the Schedule of this account would or would not be taken as an admission between the creditors and the executors. On receiving his answer, the Committee would know whether the Prime Minister ought to refuse the Amendment on the ground that it was desirable that the Executive should be under every possible safeguard, or whether he should accept it on the ground that it would make clear that which would otherwise be obscure.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
found it very difficult to believe that the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down was really serious in this matter. Of course, this statement would be admissible, and would be evidence as against the person making it. It would not be conclusive evidence, still it could be used for what it was worth. He had not answered the question before, because he had not thought the hon. Member was serious in putting it.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, he should be happy, after what had been said, to withdraw the Amendment.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he experienced some difficulty in rising to speak on this question after the statement of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) that this was not so much a question of law as a matter of common sense. He wits afraid to say anything, as the hon. Member said the matter did not admit of argument, and had pronounced upon it in the spirit of "Rome has spoken, and the cause is finished." Infallibility had at length spread to England, and was, seemingly, concentrated in the hon. Member. He (Mr. Warton), however, claimed to possess an opinion of his own on the matter, and it was that the question really did, to some extent, admit of argument. There was one reflection which he should like to submit to the hon. Member for Burnley and the Committee, and it was this—that if any representative or executor should be so foolish as to put down a wrong statement of debts, he would be running a very great risk for a very small gain. No one would run such a risk for the sake of saving 1 per cent, or, perhaps, ½ per cent on £100, £200, or £300. This consideration, perhaps, had not struck the hon. Member for Burnley; but now that he was aware of it, perhaps he would tell the Committee, presently, 1359 whether it made any impression on him. The hon. Member seemed to think that the amount the State might be defrauded of was a small matter. He (Mr. Warton) complained of the waste of time on the part of the occupants of the Front Ministerial Bench. First, they made a pretty little speech refusing to accept the Amendment, but saying nothing on the legal question; and then, when repeated protests were made as to the absence of an opinion from the Government, they got up in order to say that they did not think hon. Members meant what they said. He was glad to hear that what he was saying with regard to waste of time met with the approval of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds); and he hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would not again be led into a useless wrangle. Let the Committee bear in mind that a person would run a very great risk by putting down a fictitious debt for the purpose of saving a mere trifle.

§ MR. GREGORY
felt that he had not received that support which would entitle him to press the Amendment to a division. As to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), he would point out that the affidavit would be mere primâ facie evidence, and that they ought to require vouchers to be prepared for any subsequent action.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 30 (As to forms of affidavit).

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, he had a question to propose on this clause, which he had intended to bring up on Report; but perhaps the Government would tell him whether he ought to proceed with it now. The Inland Revenue Commissioners were to sell stamps, and he complained that the Government were changing the method of disposing of stamps without making the necessary compensation in the case.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, that, according to the proposal, postage stamps and receipt stamps could be used alternatively.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, it included other forms of stamps. He was informed that it was a question affecting the distributors of stamps, and he was not certain how the matter stood.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
The only change is in another clause.
Clause agreed to.
1360 Clause 31 (Probate or letters of administration to bear a certificate in lieu of stamp duty).
Amendment moved, in page 13, line 34, after "Probate," insert "and;" and after "Matrimonial," leave out "and Admiralty."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

§ MR. WARTON
I should like to know what this Amendment means?

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
It is only a verbal alteration.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved, in page 13, line 37, leave out "setting forth," and insert "showing."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved, in page 13, line 38, after "delivered," insert "and that such affidavit, if liable to stamp duty, was."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 (Provision for return of duty overpaid).

§ MR. DODDS
said, he had several Amendments to this clause; but it would save time if he mentioned them all at once, and not separately as they arose. The clause, as it was drawn, seemed to him scarcely so liberal as it ought to be; therefore, he had given Notice of these Amendments, which touched the point the Committee had been discussing—namely, the amount to be deducted from the deceased's estate on account of debts. His first Amendments were to leave out certain words in order to insert others of a much more comprehensive character.
Amendment moved, In page 14, line 4, after "deceased," insert "at the time when the grant was made, or if at any time within three years after the grant, or within such further period as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may allow, it shall appear that no amount or an insufficient amount was deducted on account of debts and funeral expenses."—(Mr. Dodds.) Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. DODDS
said, ho had understood that the preceding and the following Amendments would be accepted by the Prime Minister. The adoption of the last Amendment had rendered unnecessary one standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. 1361 Gregory), which was to insert after "deceased," the words "it shall be shown that a sufficient amount has not been deducted or allowed for the debts of the deceased."
Amendment moved, in page 14, line 9, after "value," insert "or, as the case may be, the amount or corrected amount of deduction."—(Mr. Dodds.)

§ MR. GREGORY
As the hon. Member has said, I have an Amendment down before this; but I do not propose to move it. Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved, In page 14, line 13, after "deceased," leave out to "certificate," inclusive, in line 14, and insert "were at the time of the grant of probate or letters of administration of greater value than the value mentioned in the certificate, or that any deduction for debts or funeral expenses was made erroneously. Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 (Provision for payment of further duty).
Amendment moved, In page 14, line 17, after "stamped," leave out to "excess," in line 19, inclusive, and add "for the amount which, with the duty (if any) previously paid on an affidavit in respect of such estate and effects, shall be sufficient to cover the duty chargeable according to the true value thereof, and shall at the same time pay to the said Commissioners interest upon such amount."—(Mr. Gladstone.) Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. DODDS
said, the next two Amendments, which stood in his name, were covered by the alterations already made in the Bill, therefore he would not move them. The next was in the name of the Prime Minister.
Amendment moved, In page 14, line 20, after "grant," insert "or from such subsequent date as the Commissioners may, in the circumstances, think proper."—(Mr. Gladstone.) Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved, in page 14, line 25, after "ascertained," insert "or, as the case may be, the corrected amount of deduction."—(Mr. Dodds.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
1362 Clause 34 (Provisions as to obtaining probate, &c., where gross value of estate does not exceed three hundred pounds).
Amendment moved, in page 14, line 28, leave out "deceased."—(Mr Dodds.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved, In page 14, line 28, after "person," insert "(inclusive of property by law made such personal estate and effects for the purpose of the charge of duty, and any personal estate and effects situate out of the United. Kingdom)."—(Mr. Gladstone.) Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved, In page 14, line 28, after "person," insert "dying on or after the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one."—(Mr. Dodds.) Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved, in page 14, line 31, after "deliver," insert "to the proper officer of the court or."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved, in page 15, line 3, after "probate," insert "and."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved, in page 15, line 3, after "matrimonial," leave out "and Admiralty."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved, in page 15, line 7, after "of," leave out "the notice by the officer," and insert "notices by officers of Inland Revenue."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved, in page 15, line 11, leave out "the officer is," and insert "officers of Inland Revenue are."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved, in page 15, line 13, after "president," insert "or judge."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN
The next Amendment is in the name of Mr. Patrick Martin, and is as follows:— Clause 34, page15, line 18, add.—"Provided however, That in every case where district regis 1363 trars are now paid in Ireland by fees, and it shall be shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury that such registrars may be damaged under the provisions of this section, then the commissioners shall direct that each such registrar respectively shall be paid a fixed salary equal to the net annual amount of profits derived by them from such, fees, on an average, of five years immediately preceding the commencement of this Act, or sums of money, at the option of the Commissioners, equal to the damage sustained by each such registrar.' This Amendment cannot be put, as it proposes to increase the taxation of the people, and that increase can only be proposed by a Minister of the Crown, and not by a private Member.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 (Provision as to inventories where gross value of estate does not exceed three hundred pounds).
Amendment moved, In page 15, line 19, leave out from beginning of clause to "seventy," in line 24, inclusive, and insert "'The Intestates, Widows, and children (Scotland) Act, 1875,' and 'The Small Testate Estates (Scotland) Act, 1876,' as amended, by 'The Sheriffs' Court (Scotland) Act, 1376.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.) Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved, in page 15, line 25, leave out "deceased."—(Mr. Dodds.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved, In page 15, line 25, after "person," insert "dying on or after the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one."—(Mr. Dodds.) Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved, In page 15, line 27, after "pounds," insert "whoever may be the applicant for representation, and wheresoever the deceased may have been domiciled at the time of death."—(Mr. Gladstone.) Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 (Effect of false statement of value as under three hundred pounds).
Amendment moved, In page 15, line 34, after "obtained," leave eat to "value," in line 37, inclusive, and insert "in Conformity with either or the two preceding sections."—(Mr. Gladstone.) Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
1364 Clause 37 (Relief from legacy duty in cases under three hundred pounds) agree to.
Clause 38 (Power to Commissioners to require explanations and proof in support of affidavit or inventory).

§ MR. GREGORY
did not by any means object to this clause; on the contrary, not only did he think the Commissioners would have power to alter an account, but he thought they should be required to do so where necessary; but what ho did object to was the want of limitation as to time. As the clause stood, it was totally indefinite in that respect, and an executor or administrator might be liable for all time to be called on for a further account. If a man was liable to be called on at any time, practically, he could never hand over the residue to the legatees. He thought, therefore, that some period should be fixed during which the Commissioners had power to call upon an executor for an account, and, to his mind, the period should be one year after the death of the deceased. By that time the Commissioners ought to have made up their minds as to the accounts of the deceased; consequently, it seemed to him that his proposal was a reasonable one.

THE CHAIRMAN
Does the hon. Member move the Amendment on the Paper?

§ MR. GREGORY
replied in the affirmative. Amendment moved, In page 16, line 11, leave our "and from time to time," and insert "within one year after the death of the deceased."—(Mr. Gregory.)

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. In the opinion of the Revenue authorities the clause was necessary for the proper protection of the Revenue. Its absence might lead to fraud.

§ MR. WARTON
trusted his hon. Friend would press the Amendment. It was absurd for the noble Lord to talk of fraud; but perhaps it would be well if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory) would consent to give a little more time—say two years—in which the executor would be required to act.

§ MR. WHITLEY
thought it would be better to allow two years. Some time ago he was executor, and paid the duties 1365 according to the demands of the Inland Revenue Office. Two years after that he wound up the estate; but then a new clerk had been appointed in the Office, and he said the authorities were of opinion that other duties were to be paid. An executor was placed in a very difficult position when, after he had paid what were understood to be sufficient duties, he was called upon to pay additional duties. Two years would be enough time to allow, and during that period he ought to be able to answer all questions.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, at any rate, it seemed clear that it would not be proper to accept the Amendment as it now stood. If the hon. Gentleman would accept the words" within three years from the date of probate" he would consent to the Amendment.

§ MR. DODDS
suggested that the Amendment should take the following form:—"Within three years after the grant of probate or the letters of administration."

§ MR. GREGORY
moved, in page 16, line 26, after "made," leave out "by any person so dying," and insert "after the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one." The object of the clause was to extend the payment of Probate Duty to voluntary settlements. He did not object to such extension hereafter, but did not believe duty ought to be levied upon settlements made heretofore. The effect of his Amendment would be that the settlement must be made after the 1st of June, 1881; upon any made prior to that date no duty could be charged.
Amendment moved, In page 16, line 26, after "made," leave out "by any person so dying," and insert "after the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one."—(Mr. Gregory.)

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, if the hon. Member would read the clause he would see it only applied 1366 in cases of those settlements made within three months of the death of the deceased. It would, therefore, apply in an infinitesimal number of cases, and, except as a matter of principle, the change was of no great importance.

§ MR. LEWIS
remarked, that the noble Lord had answered the well-founded objection of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory) by saying it was limited by the three months' clause at the foot. He had not been able to look critically into the matter; but if it was so insignificant why did not the noble Lord give way? The Committee could not be too careful, especially in matters connected with property, in objecting to retrospective alterations. It might be in this case, as the noble Lord observed, that the clause only applied to those settlements made within three months of the death of the deceased; but the Committee must remember that in every one of these cases they were establishing precedents which, on subsequent occasions, would be cited. As to the question of voluntary settlements, the Legislature had advisedly abstained for years past from inflicting upon a person a penalty for dealing definitely with his property. It had distinctly refused to charge the same Stamp Duty upon these settlements as it did upon property left by will. Why should not the man have the benefit? The noble Lord said he intended to alter the system; but he would only do so to an infinitesimal extent. The Committee were entitled to say—"Don't inflict new burdens on the people retrospectively, and don't alter a burden which is properly payable on a particular transaction, even three months after it occurred, by increasing the duty which the Legislature has settled upon it." It seemed to him his hon. Friend was not only right in principle, but from a common sense point of view.

§ MR. WARTON
said, this was only another instance of the injustice of the policy of the present Government. He hoped the noble Lord would respect the rights of property, and agree to the Amendment. If not, the Committee ought to go to a division.

§ MR. WHITLEY
asked if it was worth while to complicate the clause for the purpose of catching people just three months before their death. As he understood the noble Lord, all settlements 1367 were good except those made three months before death? In his opinion, it would be wise if the clause were made to read "all settlements made before the passing of the Act."
Amendment negatived.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
moved, in page 16, line 11, after "interest," insert "in such property."
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 (Delivery of accounts on oath) agreed to.
Clause 41 (Double duty payable, in case of default) agreed to.
Clause 42 (Cesser of legacy and succession duties at the rate of one per cent. in certain cases) agreed to.
Clause 43 (Charge of legacy duty on legacies not amounting to twenty pounds).

§ MR. DODDS
moved, in page 18, line 3, after "of residue," to insert"—
"Under the will or the intestacy of a person dying on or utter the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one."
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44 (Power to Commissioners to accept composition for legacy duty under a will).

§ MR. DODDS
, with the view of giving more elasticity to the clause, moved in page 18, line 12, after "names," to insert "or description of class."
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Miscellaneous.
Clause 45 (Reduction of stamp duty on silver plate).

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
moved the omission of the clause.
Clause omitted.
Clause 46 (Amendments of the Stamp Act, 1870) agreed to.
Clause 47 (Stamp duty on transfers of county stock) agreed to.
Clause 48 (Stamp duty on stock certificates to bearer) agreed to.
1368 Clause 49 (Stamp duties of one penny may be denoted by postage stamps, and vice versa).

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, he understood that under the new regulations the Post Office would appoint the distributors of stamps; and, therefore, those people who had hitherto distributed stamps would lose a considerable amount yearly. lie wished to know if the Government would take the case of these people into consideration. The justice of the case might be met by a small compensation. The Government were making a change which, on the whole, would be beneficial; but in carrying it out no one interest ought to be prejudiced.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, the vested interests in the sale of stamps appeared very small. The House had always felt it to be its duty Li make an alteration in respect to stamps without having to compensate the sellers of stamps. The reform now proposed was much needed, and he could not recognize any vested interests.

§ MR. LEWIS
asked if it was possible to make any arrangement as to the destiny of the revenue from stamps when issued? He did not see how the difficulty was to be got over; but it appeared to be a complication which was most unfortunate. He would not say it was not outweighed by the public convenience; but there seemed this disadvantage—that whereas hitherto they hail been able to keep the revenue from stamps perfectly clear, they would not be able to do so under the altered arrangements. They were now about to confuse the items of revenue without the means of dissecting them. They all knew the revenue of the Post Office came in a very large sum—one gross item—on the one side of the balance sheet, and that the expenditure on the other side went out as an annual charge on the country. It ought not to be forgotten that they were mixing up two branches of the revenue which hitherto had been distinct.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, that on careful consideration it had been found the advantage to the public would outweigh the statistical disadvantage. The Inland Revenue and the Post Office were considering the best means of obtaining a satisfactory statistical arrangement.

§ MR. LEWIS
inquired which portion of the revenue would be credited with the amount derived from stamps? Would the Post Office get one portion, and the Inland Revenue the other, or would the Post Office the whole or the Inland Revenue the whole?

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, at present they knew the proportion of the two classes of stamps; and it would be perfectly easy hereafter, by Rule of Three, to arrive at a just apportionment of the revenue.

§ MR. DODDS
said, he had intended to move an Amendment with the object of rendering valid the bonâ fide use of receipt stamps as postage stamps, and vice versâ, before the passing of this Act. He did not know whether an alteration of that kind could be made; if it could on Report he should be very glad.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, it was proposed to have a uniform stamp for both purposes.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 50 (Repeal of enactments in Schedule) agreed to.

MR. GLADSTONE
moved, in page 9, after Clause 23, to insert the following Clause:— (Particulars to be stated in collectors' receipts.) Where any collector of the duties on inhabited houses and of income tax under Schedules A and B has not, in a demand note delivered previous to payment, distinctly described the property assessed, and specified the amount of the assessment, and the rate at which the duties are charged, the description of the property, the amount of the assessment, and the rate of charge shall be specified in the receipt. Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.