CONSIDERATION. [SIXTH NIGHT.] (Hansard, 16 July 1894)

HC Deb 16 July 1894 vol 27 cc31-115 31

§ Bill, as amended, further considered.

§ SIR J. LUBBOCK
rose to move, in page 12, line 30, after "of," insert— 32 Any property which is by virtue of the statute of the thirty-ninth year of George the Third, chapter seventy-three, not liable to Legacy Duty, and such property shall not be aggregated with any other property for the purpose of fixing the rate of Estate Duty, or. This Amendment, he said, raised no Party question, and he trusted, therefore, that it would be considered entirely on its own merits. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a somewhat similar Amendment on the Paper, but it differed in two respects. In the first place, the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was confined to works of art, and excluded collections of scientific objects; in the second place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer excluded bequests to Universities and Colleges. He could not understand why scientific collections should be excluded. Surely all the arguments which applied to art applied to science also. He submitted to the House that bequests of collections to Universities and Colleges were quite as useful as those to any other Institutions. He hoped, therefore, that they would be included. His Amendment was framed on the existing law. At present such collections were exempted from Legacy Duty. The Government were now imposing a new duty, and he submitted that the same considerations held good. To refuse the Amendment would be a distinct discouragement to science and art, while to accept it would inflict very little loss on the Treasury. He begged to move his Amendment.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 30, after the word "of," to insert the words— Any property which is by virtue of the statute of the thirty-ninth year of George the Third, chapter seventy-three, not liable to Legacy Duty, and such property shall not be aggregated with any other property for the purpose of fixing the rate of Estate Duty, or.

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
thought that an Amendment of this kind was rather a severe lesson upon the making of concessions by the Government. The first proposal was to exempt bequests for national purposes, and immediately that concession was made the hon. and learned Member for York attempted to give the exemption an unlimited character. He did not, however, object 33 to including in his Amendment "scientific objects." That was reasonable enough, and he should be very glad to incorporate it in his Amendment, but the Amendment of his right hon. Friend was a very different one. It had a very different list to that of the hon. and learned Member for York, and the bodies were also of a very different character. It would be out of the question to accept the specification of exemption in the Act of George III. He must adhere substantially to the Amendment of which he had given notice. There was a clear distinction to be drawn in favour of Municipal Corporations and County Councils, because they were bodies representing the general community, and through them the public would have a voice in the use and enjoyment of the things bequeathed.

MR. GRANT LAWSON (York, N.R., Thirsk)
said, there were one or two reasons why the Amendment, which had been proposed by the right hon. Member for the London University, was better than that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the first place, it proposed to apply to the Estate Duty the principle and practice which had been in use for so many years, and which had been the subject of legal decisions, whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment raised quite a new definition in law.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
So does the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for York.

MR. GRANT LAWSON
had not that Amendment with him, and did not recollect its terms. There was another reason why the Amendment under discussion was better than that of the Government, and that was that it would involve no delay in setting up estates, whereas the proposal of the Government that the duty should be remitted on these various articles which were of national importance or historical interest would result in delaying the winding-up of the estate, because the rate of duty could not be fixed. No such difficulty would be incurred under this Amendment.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
It would have to be decided by a Court of Law.

MR. GRANT LAWSON
Do I understand that a Court of Law would have to decide whether the articles came 34 under this section of the Act of George III.?

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
If it was disputed it would be for a Court of Law to decide.

MR. GRANT LAWSON
said, then he came to his original point, that the Courts of Law had already decided all questions on this subject, because this had been in force ever since the 39th year of George III., and any questions that could possibly arise must already have been decided.

§ SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)
said, he thought the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer fully met the point. There was one ground on which it should be preferred to the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for London University. In the days of George III. vicars and churchwardens were, no doubt, as corporations sole, representatives of the community, but their places as such had since been taken by the representative bodies created by the various Municipal and Local Government Acts. He was very glad Municipalities were included in the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Gifts left to Municipalities were certainly gifts left to the nation; and besides this exemption would contribute to the formation of local collections of objects of national and historic interest, which were in the aggregate even more representative of national life than central collections. He thought the Government had done very much to meet the opinions expressed on this subject, and he should be glad to support their Amendment.

§ MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (Montgomeryshire)
appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the interest of higher education in Wales, to include in his Amendment gifts to Universities and intermediate schools in Wales. Those institutions had on their Governing Bodies popular representatives, and on that ground, and also on the ground of the desirability of forming local collections, it would be a good thing if the right hon. Gentleman made this addition to the national resources of Wales.

§ MR. BUTCHER (York)
desired to express his obligation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having substantially accepted the Amendment which had stood on the Paper in his name. He had not got that Amendment with him 35 in print, but as well as he remembered his object was to exempt from duty all such gifts left to institutions for public purposes; and therefore, in accepting the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he desired to reserve to himself the right to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stratford, in which it proposed to exempt gifts of this extremely limited character given to any University or learned body.

§ MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)
hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be discouraged in well-doing because of the reception given to his concession. After all, the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that there was force in raising further demands for concessions, because he had now consented to include collections of natural history, which were not covered by his Amendment as it stood on the Paper. Personally, he was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone so far; but with all respect to the authorship of the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, he should say its meaning was not very clear. They had had a plea put forward on behalf of Universities. He was inclined to think Universities were covered by the Amendment. Universities were national institutions, and therefore gifts given to Universities were gifts given for national purposes. But it would be better if the matter was made perfectly clear.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
The question does not arise under this Amendment.

§ MR. COURTNEY
replied that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was a little ambiguous; but if the right hon. Gentleman could assure the House that it covered or would be made to cover gifts to Universities, it might considerably shorten discussion.

§ MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square)
said, he presumed that if the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for London University were withdrawn, all the descriptions of property included in it might be discussed with a view to their exemption under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment. He did not suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn; but he, thought his right hon. Friend would lose nothing by so doing.

§ SIR J. LUBBOCK
said, he would withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that they might discuss the matters included in it on the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)
moved in page 12, line 31, to leave out "twenty-five" and insert "fifty-two." His Amendment was perhaps a little ungrateful. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given as a concession exemption from duty to joint annuities of £25, between husband and wife, or two elderly sisters, as the case might be, on one of the lives falling in. He was anxious to raise the exemption to £1 a week. He had made a calculation as to the financial result which raising the exemption from 25 to 52 would involve to the Treasury. In the case of the death of one of the lives in a joint annuity of £52, if the other life was £60, the value of half the annuity, if a male, was only £150, and if a female £180. If half the annuity fell in at 70 years the value to a man was £110, and to a woman £120. If the life dropped at 75 years, the value to a man was £80, and to a female £90. The value in the vast majority of cases would therefore be under £300, and that would only mean 30s. in duty to the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said it hardly paid the Treasury to collect those small amounts; and he was sure everyone would agree it was not worth while putting a widow to the trouble and inconvenience—at a time of sorrow and difficulty—of having the matter of the annuity gone into for the sake of a few thousand pounds to the country, especially as the expenses would be nearly as much as the Estate Duty would bring into the Treasury. He hoped, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept the Amendment; but if the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to do so, he would not press it to a Division.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 31, to leave out the words "twenty-five" and insert the words "fifty-two."— (Mr. Bartley. )

§ Question proposed, "That the words 'twenty-five' stand part of the Bill."

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
said, he could only repeat what he had said before on the subject. What they had got to do was to establish an equality between the exemptions made in one class and the exemptions made in another class; and if they gave in one particular class of investments larger exemptions than were given in another class they would be placing the whole principle of exemption on an unsound basis. In his illustrations of what the duty on joint annuities of £52 a year would bring into the Treasury, the hon. Gentleman took the cases of very old people. But a man might be killed or a woman might be killed at an early age, and the £52 a year capitalised would mean £1,000. He could not, therefore, accept the Amendment.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
said, that in this instance he agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than with his hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman in giving away joint annuities of £25 had opened a leak in the vessel which would be much larger than the right hon. Gentleman supposed, because the exemption was not restricted to persons of small income; and joint annuities of £25, which might be worth £400 or £500 for the purposes of aggregation and graduation, might be withdrawn from every estate that passed. An annuity continued much longer than was supposed. In fact, to give a person an annuity was to give them a long lease of life; and one of the results of the concession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be the creation of a large number of joint annuities of £25 in order that so much of the estate, at least, might be placed beyond the grasp of the Treasury. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was justified in refusing the Amendment.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 37, after the word "section," to insert the words— It shall be lawful for the Treasury to remit the Estate Duty or any other duty leviable on or with reference to death in respect of any such pictures, prints, books, manuscripts, or antiquities as appear to the Treasury to be of national or historic interest, and to be given or bequeathed for national purposes, or to any County Council or Muni- 38 cipal Corporation, and no property the duty in respect of which is so remitted shall be aggregated with any other property for the purpose of fixing the rate of Estate Duty."—(Sir W. Harcourt. )

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
moved to leave out of the proposed Amendment the words— such pictures, prints, books, manuscripts, or antiquities as appear to the Treasury to be of national or historic interest, and to be, and to insert "property." The objection to the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that instead of making the exemption definite it left it to the sweet will of the Treasury to apply exemption or not to apply it. If an estate were left to a Corporation the Treasury would have to decide whether or not it was an estate of historical or national interest, and then to decide whether or not the obligation to pay duty should be remitted. In a matter where there might be a doubt or difference of opinion of that kind the decision should be placed in the hands of the Courts of Law, and not in the hands of the officials. When it was a question of general property left to the nation he admitted that the Treasury or the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, to whom the Treasury would no doubt hand over the task, should have the power of remitting the duty; but in the matter of property vaguely described, and subject to the definition whether it was national or historical, the question should be left to a Court of Law and not to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out from the word "any" to the word "given," in line 4, and insert the word "property."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)

§ Question proposed, "That the words 'such pictures, prints, books, manuscripts,' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
said, the hon. Member wanted to substitute general property for specific property. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for York, which he had accepted, and the Act of George III., regulating the matter in former days, mentioned specific objects, and not property generally, and the insertion of pro- 39 perty generally in his Amendment was totally out of the question. The hon. Member also wanted the question of the character of the property—whether it was of national or historic interest—debated in a Court of Law. He could not conceive of a worse tribunal in which to raise such a question, and its decision on the matter would not even be final, for it would be subject to appeal. Surely it was better to leave to the Treasury the decision of the question, subject to the criticism of the House if they decided wrongly. Hitherto the Treasury had decided these matters without much difficulty, and very properly. Under the Amendment of the hon. Member things that were not appropriate to a public collection might be left to a Public Body, and though they might not be accepted by the Public Body they would be exempted from the duty. He was sure the hon. Member would see that his Amendment was one the Government could not accept.

§ SIR S. MONTAGU (Tower Hamlets, Whitechapel)
cited the case of Mr. Tate, who had given to the nation not only a collection of pictures, but £80,000 to erect a Gallery. How would the Treasury under the Bill treat such an otter if the person who made the offer died soon after? They would remit the duty on the pictures, and charge the duty on the money. He thought the Treasury should have the option of remitting the duty on whatever property was left to the nation.

§ MR. QUILTER (Suffolk, Sudbury)
said, the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer invested the Treasury with the power of discriminating between the objects that were and were not objects of national and historic interest. It would be very desirable if other Public Bodies had the same power. For instance, the authorities of South Kensington Museum had to accept any collection left to them, even though they were the old boots of distinguished men. He thought it was a large order to expect that the Treasury, in addition to their other duties, should be able to decide whether or not a collection was of national and historic interest and should escape duty; and he should like to ask whether a collection of Oriental china, of very great value and of immense interest, or a collection of old musical instruments would be covered by the Amendment?

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.)
said, that if the hon. Member for King's Lynn had any reasonable prospect of carrying his second Amendment on the Paper, to strike out of the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the words "or to any County Council or Municipal Corporation," he should be prepared to support the Amendment now before the House, because he could not see that there was any ground for the distinction the Chancellor of the Exchequer had drawn between books, pictures, and manuscripts, and money or other property when it was left to the nation. But he knew the right hon. Gentleman had given in to the pressure of the Municipal Corporations, and had agreed to insert the words "any County Council or Municipal Corporation." If therefore the hon. Member for King's Lynn succeeded in carrying this Motion, these bodies would be excused payment of Death Duty on any money or land which might be left to them. That would be a bad thing to do, and he was not prepared to support anything of the kind. If the right hon. Gentleman could give them a hope that he would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Somerset they would be able safely to give the Treasury the discretion the hon. Gentleman asked. But he failed to see any symptom of the right hon. Gentleman being likely to accept the Amendment in the remarks he had addressed to the House.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ SIR J. LUBBOCK
said, he now desired to leave out "antiquities," in order to insert "other objects." He had gathered from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would be willing to accept these words so as to cover scientific objects.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
(interrupting) said, that "other objects" would cover more than scientific objects. If the right hon. Gentleman would propose the words "scientific objects" they would be acceptable.

§ SIR J. LUBBOCK
said, that if that were done he did not think the words would cover ancient statues of great value or ancient coins, or collections of old china, old glass, gems, or studies by ancient masters. It was dangerous to mention specific articles, as there might 41 be other things of great interest and value left which would not technically come within the clause. It would be left to the Treasury to determine whether certain articles should be accepted as coming under the clause. They would not be bound to accept them. They could refuse them if they were not worthy of being accepted by the nation; therefore, he failed to see what would be gained by accepting the limitation suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, to leave out the word "antiquities," and insert the words "other objects."—(Sir J. Lubbock.)

§ Question proposed, "That the word 'antiquities' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
said, this was the result of concession. First of all, there were half-a-dozen proposals submitted; then when he made a concession the right hon. Baronet was not satisfied, but wished to have it extended to everything. There must be some definition of the articles to be included under the clause. An hon. Member had spoken highly of the intelligence of the Inland Revenue officials, but in this matter the discretion would be exercised by the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and surely they would have intelligence enough to be able to discharge this duty. He would agree to the insertion of the words "scientific collections."

§ SIR J. LUBBOCK
said, he would withdraw the Amendment in order to move to leave out the word "or" in line 3 of the proposed Amendment.

§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, to leave out the word "or."—(Sir J. Lubbock.)

§ Question proposed, "That the word 'or' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH
said, it seemed to him that in naming these things they were running the risk of leaving out something that it would be very desirable to include. Would it not be much better, instead of attempting to 42 specify everything, to use the words "works of art and scientific collections"? There might be modern statues as well as ancient ones.

§ MR. BUTCHER
said, that in selecting the word "antiquities" he was perhaps a little unfortunate, as it would exclude such things as modern statues. In principle he did not see any difference between modern statues and ancient statues for the purpose of this clause. He thought it just as reasonable to exempt the one from duty as the other. It was desirable above everything in this House to be modest, but he was afraid that on this occasion he had been led into too great a fit of modesty, and had made the clause too narrow. Fully recognising as he did that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had met the case in a very fair way, he would ask him if words could not be introduced into the Amendment to prevent its undue limitation.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
said, that when he had made his concession he had thought that that would be final. If he accepted the words suggested by the right hon. Boronet opposite what would there be to protect him from further demands on the part of hon. Gentlemen in other quarters? He should be willing to adopt the words "works of art and scientific collections." He trusted that he should be protected against further appeals in this direction.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, he was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to go so far, and he, with other Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House, would do what he could to protect the right hon. Gentleman from further demands. He thought it right to say that many people considered this a very important matter, although the Opposition had discussed it very briefly, and with a desire to come to a conclusion as quickly as possible. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not think that it had been pressed unduly.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
Will the right hon. Gentleman move to leave out "or antiquities," in order to insert "works of art or scientific collections"?

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
said, he thought the word "antiquities," which was not a thoroughly English word, should be left out.

§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, to leave out the word "antiquities," and insert the words "works of art or scientific collections."—(Sir W. Harcourt.)

§ Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

§ SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)
said, he must say a word on behalf of "antiquities." Antiquities might not be works of art, and works of art might not be antiquities.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, that the Amendment would imply that pictures were not works of art. No doubt they were not always works of art, but he did not think the two things should be put in different categories. The best method of dealing with this question would be to provide that the clause should apply to articles "left for preservation and not for sale." He had an Amendment on the Paper to that effect.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, after the word "national," to insert the word "scientific."—(Sir J. Lubbock.)

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. FREEMAN-MITFORD (Warwick, Stratford)
said, he desired to move, in line 5 of the proposed Amendment, after "purposes," to insert "or to any University or learned body." His object was to provide that if a man left any valuable collection of works of art or articles of scietific interest to a University or learned body, it should be exempted from aggregation, and no longer subjected to the risk of disappearing. The right hon. Gentleman had included County Councils and Municipal Corporations in the list of bodies that were to be exempted, but surely Universities had a far more catholic scope than either Municipal Bodies or County Councils. The Royal College of Surgeons and the Hunterian Museum, for instance, were institutions to which people might very well leave valuable collections, and it would be very uufair to the heirs of such people if such bequests were aggregated like the rest of the estate. The very moderate Amendment he had put down needed no lengthy words to commend it.

§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 5, after the word "purposes," to insert the words "or to any university or learned body."—(Mr. Freeman-Mitford.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
said, he thought he had already stated the principle on which he was prepared to accept Amendments. No one could accuse him of indifference to the Universities of England, but those Universities were not in any sense representative bodies—except in that House. That was to say, the public had no rights over the property of the Universities. The Universities and learned bodies could do with their property, so far as the public at large was concerned, whatever they liked. If they chose to say these objects, scientific or artistic, might be seen by some people and not by others, they were perfectly entitled to do so. County Councils and Corporations were representative bodies, and he did not think that they could safely go beyond these. He rested his case on that principle. As had been well said, so far as the possession of museums and such things were concerned, these bodies were merely local sections of the nation. Loan collections were sent down to them from time to time from the national museums and galleries, and in this way local collections were established. He was not saying that they should not encourage the Universities, but that they were not on the same footing as these other bodies. As to "learned bodies," it was difficult to say what was a learned body, and he did not think it was safe to go beyond the limits which had been specified. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, the noble Lord behind him, and his (Sir W. Harcourt's) hon. Friend below the Gangway on the Ministerial side of the House thought he had already gone too far.

§ SIR J. LUBBOCK
said, he did not think they had arrived at the end of this question yet. They were discussing it as though those who left these objects to Universities and Municipalities were doing an injury to the nation and ought to be discouraged. Surely they ought to encourage these bequests as far as 45 possible. No one would deny that these bequests, if made to Universities and schools, were as useful as if made to representative bodies. He did not see what the fact of a body being representative had to do with the point. The question was, would it be to the advantage of the nation that bequests of this kind should be made? If it would they should not be discouraged. It seemed to him as though the Government were looking with a jealous eye upon these bequests. ["No, no!"] Then why did they not encourage them? Although Universities and Colleges might not be representative bodies the managers and trustees had not power to use these articles to their profit. They held them, practically, for the benefit of the public—in fact, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin was of opinion that these bodies would be covered by the words of the Amendment. If the hon. Member went to a Division he (Sir J. Lubbock) would support him.

§ SIR F. S. POWELL
said that, as a Member of the Court of the Victoria University, he desired to put in a plea for that University—both for the University itself and also for the colleges, which were rapidly advancing in popularity, and to which important bequests were made. It was a mistake to suppose that any bequest to these Universities would not be open to the public. So far as the Cambridge University was concerned, its museum was open to the public once a week. The same liberality would be shown by other Universities. He therefore hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, having gone so far, would go one step further. He was confident that he would not regret it.

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH
said, it seemed to him absurd that the Town Councils of Oxford and Cambridge should be relieved from duty on bequests of this kind—bequests, for instance, of scientific collections—and that the Universities of those towns, which had far better means of utilising such bequests for the public advantage should pay duty. As the right hon. Gentleman had gone so far, he thought he might well include Universities.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I concede the Universities.

§ MR. COURTNEY
Then I move to omit the words "or learned body."

§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the proposed Amendment to leave out the words "or learned body."—(Mr. Courtney.)

§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment to the proposed Amendment."

§ MR. FREEMAN-MITFORD
said, that some of the learned bodies bore as national a character as the Universities.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
thought they ought not to go on discussing the question after the concession he had made.

§ MR. CARSON (Dublin University)
said that, as a University Member, he felt deeply grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the concession he had made.

§ MR. BUTCHER
thought the various colleges of the Universities should be placed on the same footing as the Universities themselves in regard to this concession.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ Words, as amended, inserted.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
, in moving an addition to Clause 15 exempting from the Estate Duty pensions and annuities payable to the widows and children of the deceased officers, said the addition was necessary, because, although an annuity or pension payable entirely by the Government would, as the law stood, be exempt, yet if the officer during his lifetime had contributed towards the amount, it would make it subject to the duty. He desired, therefore, to make it clear that the exemption should apply in all cases. He had discussed this matter with gentlemen who were interested in the subject, and they regarded the Amendment, he believed, as a satisfactory solution.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 37, at end, add— Estate Duty shall not be payable in respect of any pension or annuity payable by the Government of British India to the widow or child of any deceased officer of such Government, notwithstanding that the deceased contributed during his lifetime to any fund out of which such pension or annuity is paid."—(Sir W. Harcourt.)

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

§ MR. THORNTON (Clapham)
said, that when the House in Committee re- 47 solved that manuscripts should be taxed upon their capital value, he decided that on the Report stage he would make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make an exception in the case of the manuscripts published by the Historical Manuscripts Commission, although he confessed he did not do so with a very good heart, or with much hope of success. Still, he would ask the House to listen to him for a few minutes while he tried to render less hard the heart of the right hon. Gentleman. The Historical Manuscripts Commission had during the last 50 years issued a large number of volumes of historical records, and these volumes had been indebted for their great value to the access given to manuscripts of great importance which were to be found in various parts of the country. He feared that this change in the law would militate against the publication of these documents, not in the sense that owners of them would be deterred from allowing access to them, but by reason of the expense which would have to be incurred in putting and keeping them in order. As anybody cognisant with the subject well knew, there were in many places most valuable documents which were in a condition of the greatest confusion, and he contended that if they were to be subject to duty on the death of the owner, the liability would act as a great deterrent to the owner in the matter of seeking them out and putting them in order. The tendency would, in fact, be to neglect them. Since he placed his Motion on the Paper he had endeavoured to discover the current prices of letters of a holograph character. He was very much struck by an observation made by the Member for Rochester, to the effect that it would be very difficult to place any value upon them, and he had in his hand a pamphlet giving the current values of some of these letters. These would show a great irregularity in the value, as well as the great sums at stake. Taking documents of the 16th century, he found that a signed letter of Henry VII. was to be sold for £48, an autograph letter of Henry VIII. for £8, a holograph letter of Lord Burleigh for £25, a signed letter of Queen Elizabeth to Charles IX. of France for £18 18s., a holograph letter of Mary Queen of Scots for £125, and a signed letter, Maitland of Lethington, for £25. Passing on to the next 48 century, they had offered a holograph letter of Swift for £40, one of Sir Joshua Reynolds for £25, three or four of Dr. Johnson for £60, one fetching £22 10s.; a letter of Robert Burns £35, and a song £32, and a letter of Lord Bolingbroke £6 6s. High prices ruled, too, for holograph letters and autographs of Addison, Boswell, the Chevalier de St. George, Pope, Burke, David Hume, Lord Byron, Charles Lamb, and Shelley, and the values, he ventured to assert, were daily increasing. He might mention that, only recently, a friend of his, a Member of the House, had discovered in his muniment chest the whole of the correspondence between Lord Bolingbroke and his secretary about the Treaty of Utrecht. It was very difficult to put a value, for purposes of duty, upon such documents; and he was certain that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to relax his intention in regard to this matter, the right hon. Gentleman would receive the thanks of literary men throughout the country, and would assist in keeping up the high character which historical learning in this country now possessed. In order to maintain that character, access to public documents was absolutely necessary, and it could never have been attained had it not been the practice of noblemen and gentlemen in allowing their manuscripts to be searched. Nobody denied that this literature was of a highly valuable character, and he did appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to do anything which would interfere with the success of the work of the Historical Manuscripts Commission.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 37, after the last Amendment, to insert the words— Estate Duty shall not be payable in respect of manuscripts which have been published by the Historical Manuscripts Commission, and which, since such publication, have neither been alienated by sale or gift."—(Mr. Thornton.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
said, he had great sympathy with the object of the hon. Member, and certainly coincided with him in the enormous interest attaching to the publications mentioned in the Amendment. He thought they were by far the most interesting books of 49 modern times, but he was afraid he could not differentiate in the way proposed. To do so would not, indeed, be commensurate with the argument of the hon. Member. A large part of the publications of the Historical Manuscripts Commission were not MSS. in extenso, but were only extracts or catalogues. He was very interested to hear the announcement as to the recent discovery of papers, and if the hon. Member would return good for evil by obtaining for him a sight of the letters of Lord Bolingbroke to his secretary respecting the Treaty of Utrecht he would be extremely obliged to the hon. Member. As was well known, many manuscripts could not with wisdom be published, such as those which disclosed the secret history of the American War, and which, although not published, were referred to by the Historical Manuscripts Commission. Interesting as the subject was, he was afraid the Amendment was not one which the Government could accept.

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.)
said, he could not help thinking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not opposed in principle to this Amendment. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman might, perhaps, see his way to accept the Amendment in another form. The particular objection he had raised was that many of these manuscripts from their very nature could not be published, but could not that difficulty be overcome by inserting after "published," the words "or catalogued"? The principle which it was desired to establish was, it seemed to him, a sound one, and it was one which they had endeavoured to enforce on the right hon. Gentleman, in many previous discussions on the Bill, with regard to heirlooms which might be of importance not only to the family but also to the nation. These manuscripts were in many cases of greater historical value than jewels or other heirlooms of that kind; and a poor family might find it impossible to retain them on account of the heavy duties imposed by the Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman had admitted, these historical manuscripts formed a most important part of the history of this country, and the fact that they had been carefully preserved in many cases was the proof of the value attached to them by the owners. Surely their being so preserved there for the benefit 50 of the history of the country ought not to create a liability for heavy duties on the death of successive owners? He confessed that that did seem to him to be something akin to injustice, and, therefore, if his hon. Friend pressed the Amendment to a Division, he would support him in the protest against what was undoubtedly a very great hardship inflicted by this Bill.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
said, that once again he found himself to side with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If manuscripts of public interest were left to a Public Body they were already exempt from duty; and, further, he asked the House to note that the Amendment only proposed to grant exemption to such manuscripts as were published by the Historical Manuscripts Commission. Therefore, it would apply to only a small number, and not to the most interesting of those in existence. If anyone had manuscripts he wanted to bring into the market, he had nothing to do but give them to a County Council, which would be sure to sell them the day after, probably for about half their value. There was nothing in the Amendment to prevent that being done. But, if there were to be exemptions, he would rather exempt a man's acres than his papers.

§ COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)
said, his hon. Friend was obviously rather a Philistine. But he had mistaken the object of the Amendment, which was to grant the exemption to all manuscripts which had either been published or referred to by the Historical Manuscripts Commission. If this exemption were passed, there would be a motive to people who had manuscripts to put them in order and bring them before the Manuscripts Commission as early as possible. He did not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his reply, paid sufficient attention to that point.

§ Question put.

§ The House divided:—Ayes 174; Noes 236.—(Division List, No. 182.)

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
moved, in page 12, line 37, after the last Admendment, to insert the words—

"(1)Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained no Estate Duty or further Estate 51 Duty shall be leviable in respect of property passing on the death of a deceased person—

"(a)which is given or devolves to or for the benefit of any of the Royal Family; or

"(b)which is given or devolves to or for the education or maintenance of poor children in Ireland, or the support of any public charitable institution in Ireland, or for any purpose merely charitable.

"(2)Provided always, that nothing in this clause contained shall exempt any property passing on the death of a deceased person from the payment of a duty equivalent in amount to the Probate Duty which would have been payable before the passing of this Act had such property been personal estate."

The hon. Gentleman said the purpose of this Amendment was, in effect, no other than to carry on the existing exemptions in the Probate Act. These exemptions had existed since the commencement of the Succession and Legacy Duty Acts in almost exactly the words he had put down. With regard to Section C, he did not propose to move that, because he considered the Committee had decided what action should be taken with regard to that particular property. His Amendment related that property which went to the Royal Family should be exempted from duty except in respect of an amount equivalent to the Probate Duty. That exemption had existed, as he had said, since the passing of the Legacy Duty Act, and was adopted in the Succession Duty Act, and from then to this day no Legacy or Succession Duty had been levied in regard to property passing to the Royal Family. The Probate Duty had been levied except in case of property passing to the Sovereign, who required no confirmation of any testamentary disposition; but with regard to gifts to any other member of the Royal Family, Probate Duty was payable, but not Legacy or Succession Duty. The Estate Duty set up by the Bill was composed of two parts—partly of the increased Probate Duty and partly of the merged Succession and Legacy Duties. That increased charge was very considerable. He did not know whether it was intended by this Bill to place for the first time through the agency of this Estate Duty—in case no such exemption as he proposed was made—upon the Royal Family a Succession and Legacy Duty of 1 per cent., inasmuch as this formed part of the merged Estate Duty. He did not think 52 that could be the intention of the Government. It would be noticed that his Amendment did not repeal the Probate Duty, because he provided that— Nothing in this clause contained shall exempt any property passing on the death of a deceased person from the payment of a duty equivalent in amount to the Probate Duty which would have been payable before the passing of this Act had such property been personal estate. He now came to paragraph "b," which proposed to continue the existing secular exemption in respect of property— Which is given or devolves to or for the education or maintenance of poor children in Ireland or the support of any public charitable institution in Ireland or for any person merely charitable. In its wisdom the Legislature had thought fit to grant to Ireland, in this case, as in other cases, exemption from taxes levied upon other parts of the United Kingdom. As in the case of the Royal Family, he thought that if this exemption was not to be continued some reason should be given. He did not see why a different principle should be adopted now—he did not say with regard to that part of the Estate Duty which embodied Probate Duty—butwith regard to that part of the Estate Duty which consisted of the Legacy and Succession Duties. He begged the Committee to consider that every halfpenny of Legacy and Succession Duty hitherto levied at 1 per cent. formed part of the Estate Duty under the Finance Bill. Therefore it was necessary, unless a new principle was to be adopted, that his Amendment, or something like it, should be carried, because otherwise the Government would be imposing a new tax on both the classes he had mentioned. The Royal Family was a large and increasing class, and he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would feel that if an entirely new tax was to be placed upon them the least he could do was to give a reason for it.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 37, after the last Amendment, to insert the words,—

"(1)Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained no Estate Duty or further Estate Duty shall be leviable in respect of property passing on the death of a deceased person—

(a)which is given or devolves to or for the benefit of any of the Royal Family; or
(b)which is given or devolves to or for the education or maintenance of poor children 53 in Ireland, or the support of any public charitable institution in Ireland, or for any purpose merely charitable.

(2)Provided always, that nothing in this clause contained shall exempt any property passing on the death of a deceased person from the payment of a duty equivalent in amount to the Probate Duty which would have been payable before the passing of this Act had such property been personal estate."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)

§ Question proposed, That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
said, he entirely disputed that this Bill added anything to the liability of the persons to whom the hon. Member had referred. The exemptions of which he had spoken would be continued as now. These persons had always paid Probate Duty, and now it was proposed that they should pay Estate Duty. He demurred altogether to the assertion that Legacy and Succession Duty was merged in the Estate Duty. On the contrary, the Legacy Duty was, to a large extent, discharged altogether. In fact, it might be said to have gone.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
There is 1 per cent.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
continuing, said, No; and that while it was perfectly true that there would be a higher payment under the Bill, there was no reason why the persons named by the hon. Gentleman should not pay the Estate Duty. The Government saw no reason why any such exemption should be made. It was true that Probate Duty was not paid in respect of gifts to the Sovereign, but he could conceive of no argument whatever for making exemptions under the Bill to members of the Royal Family, who at present had an immunity which they would continue to enjoy. As they paid Probate, so they would now pay Estate Duty; but the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson Bowles) seemed to have in view the keeping up of the old Probate Duty, which was discharged under the Bill, for the purpose of putting the tax upon the Royal Family.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, he had mentioned also the Irish charities.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
said, there was no additional burden put upon the Irish charities either. He thought that the suggestion to keep alive a separate system for the purpose of charging the two classes of persons mentioned in the 54 Amendment was not a practical proposal, and ought not to be accepted.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ MR. BUTCHER
moved, in page 12, line 37, after the last Amendment, to insert the words— Estate Duty shall not be payable upon any death upon which, but for this section, it would become payable, in respect of any annuity granted by an employer to an employee, or the widow of an employee, in consideration of the past services of such employee. He said he thought the Amendment which he proposed would be of considerable interest in the country. Its object was to obtain a remission of duty in cases where an employer having made an arrangement by which an injured workman was to receive an annuity, that annuity fell in. The House might consider the case of a workman injured in course of his employment to whom the employer gave £200. In case of a gift that amount would go out of the employer's estate, and, of course, would not be chargeable with duty. But if, instead of giving the workman a lump sum down, the employer did what was very much better in the interest of the workman, and expended £200 in the purchase of an annuity during his life, in case of accident, or for the benefit of his widow in case of death, what happened would be this: that if the workman or his widow died during the life of the employer, the employer, when the annuity fell in, would have to pay duty upon the value of the annuity. Surely that was neither fair nor just, nor was it to the interest of the working classes that there should be procedure of the sort. He was not saying that a generous employer would not make the best possible provision for his workmen without any regard to the circumstances attending the possible falling in of an annuity, but he did think that the State ought to encourage generosity as between employers and their workmen by making exemptions of Estate Duty in such a case as he had described. He would ask the Solicitor General to favourably consider his proposition, and to take into account that unless the exemption were granted the duty might be evaded by the payment of a lump sum down instead of in the form of an annuity.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 37, after the last Amendment, to insert the words— Estate Duty shall not be payable upon any death upon which, but for this section, it would become payable, in respect of any annuity granted by an employer to an employee, or the widow of an employee, in consideration of the past services of such employee."—(Mr. Butcher.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR J. RIGBY
said, this was another instance of the ingenuity of hon. Gentlemen opposite in endeavouring to find out exceptional instances under which there should be no payment of the duty. In all probability a case would never arise to which this Amendment would apply, and he did not suppose that anyone ever heard of an employer, charging his estate with an annuity in favour of a workman or a servant. He should think that it would be only once in a hundred thousand times that an employer having charged his estate with an annuity to an employee, that annuity fell in. If there were no charge there would be no passing of property and no Estate Duty.

MR. GRANT LAWSON
said, there must be a good many instances in which employers gave annuities to their old servants, and he knew some cases himself. He was sorry that the Attorney General should have cast a slur upon the employers of this country. If a man covenanted to pay an annuity to a person and that person died, the estate of the man who had made the covenant was increased by the death of that person, and he was certain that if the estate was increased in value the framers of the Bill intended to create something for the State out of the increase of property. These matters had to be regarded with a view to graduation and aggregation. The Attorney General had paid hon. Members on his side of the House a compliment as to the ingenuity with which they sought for exceptional cases, but this, at all events, was a question of great importance, because a remission of the sort must have the effect of placing the estate in a position in which the lower Estate Duty had to be paid. According to the clauses of the Government a man would have to pay upon his own money when an annuity fell in.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said, he was somewhat puzzled by the speech of the 56 Attorney General, and he should like to put a question or two to the Solicitor General in order to clear up several important points. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to mean that the exemption applied only to cases where the property was charged, and not to cases where an employer covenanted to pay a workman an annuity for life, and that to make an employer pay Estate Duty when that annuity was not a charge upon the estate but only a covenant to pay would be a great hardship. That was an intelligible view enough, but the question was whether it was the view which the Government took in the Bill. As he read Sub-section 2 of Clause 2 of the Bill it made no difference whether an annuity was charged on an estate or whether there was only a covenant to pay, because in either case it was clearly property passing on the death of the deceased, and actually would pass to the man who originally gave that property, and revert to him although he had only promised to pay the money and did not charge it upon his estate. If the Attorney General was right, and if a man having made a covenant to pay an annuity of £25 a year or £2,500 a year had not to pay Succession Duty in case of such annuity falling in, well and good, and the Amendment need not be pressed; but if he (Mr. Balfour) was right in his rendering of Sub-section 2, and, as he thought, the Government meant to catch this as every other kind of property in their net, then it was obvious that the speech which the Attorney General had made was irrelevant from beginning to end, and that they must require a new defence of the action of the Government.

§ MR. R. T. REID
said, he was happy to be able to assure the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that the Bill was not so drastic as he appeared to imagine. If a man promised or covenanted to pay a certain amount by way of annuity to a workman during life, upon the death of that workman no property would be released at all and no Estate Duty could be calculated. But if the annuity had actually been charged on the property, it would, upon falling in, naturally have to pay Estate Duty. He thought that matter must be perfectly clear.

§ MR. BARTLEY
said, he should like to understand whether the Government meant that if a parent covenanted to give a certain amount to a child and that child died during the life of the parent, there would be no Estate Duty payable, or that in the case of a marriage settlement of so much a year the amount would not be taxable if the child should die before the parent.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
The Estate Duty would not be chargeable upon a covenant.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH
moved, in page 12, line 37, at end, add— Estate Duty shall not be payable in respect of any advowson or church patronage which would have been free from Succession Duty under Section 24 of The Succession Duty Act, 1853.'

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. BUTCHER
moved, in page 12, line 37, after the last Amendment, to insert the words— If any property passes on the death of the deceased to any charity or charitable institution or hospital, such property shall not be aggregated with the rest of the property passing on the death of the deceased, but shall form an estate of itself. He said the House would see that the Amendment was framed in the interests of charity. So far as charities were concerned, he would point out that if ever there was a time when relief ought to be given it was the present, because many of the large London hospitals were dependent upon revenues derived from agricultural lands, and owing to the depressed condition of agriculture they had suffered severely. Consequently, he thought they ought even to stretch a point in favour of hospitals. But the Amendment affected other interests. In the case of a man who settled £5,000 upon his son, but who chose to give £50,000 to charities, the £5,000 would be aggregated with the £50,000, and instead of paying 2 per cent. the son would have to pay 4 or 5 per cent. He asked the House if that was reasonable? Surely if a man was benevolent enough to give a large sum of money to charities it would not be fair to say that that sum should pay Estate Duty and be aggregated for that purpose with the rest of his property. The House would understand that he 58 did not propose by this Amendment to exempt from duty all gifts to charities and hospitals. What he proposed to do was to charge the duty at the proper figure, so that if a man separated a charitable bequest from the rest of his property, the separated properties should only pay the amount of Estate Duty appropriate to the individual amounts.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 37, after the last Amendment, to insert the words— If any property passes on the death of the deceased to any charity or charitable institution or hospital, such property shall not be aggregated with the rest of the property passing on the death of the deceased, but shall form an estate of itself."—(Mr. Butcher.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR J. RIGBY
said, he had enjoyed the benefit of as much experience as anyone in the House with reference to these charitable bequests. He admitted that there were many estimable charities, but he maintained that it was impossible to pick out the meritorious ones at a time like the present. To grant this concession would not be in harmony with the declarations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer made on the same subject earlier in these discussions. The majority of these testamentary gifts to charities were animated by very doubtful motives, and he thought that no encouragement ought to be given to wills that were described as charitable and benevolent, but were not in general either charitable or benevolent.

§ MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.)
said, he hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment. He had every respect for hospitals and charities, but he had no sympathy with people who left money to them when they had no further use for it themselves. These charitable bequests were a sort of fire insurance, and he hoped the Government would not encourage them.

MR. MOWBRAY (Lancashire, Prestwich)
said, he understood this Amendment was moved in the interest of the residuary legatee who might take a very small amount of property out of the hands of the executor, and yet would have to pay a very large Estate Duty, because his small property would be aggregated with any large bequest which the testator might make to a charity. 59 He hoped the Government would do something to remedy this great injustice.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said, the Attorney General had given them two arguments against the Amendment. He said, in the first instance, that to make this concession would be inconsistent with a declaration made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to some previous Amendment on the same subject. He had a great regard for the consistency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and should be glad to aid his colleagues in maintaining it. But he did not know that the maintenance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's consistency was a good argument against this Amendment. What was the more substantial argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman? It was that he had had au unique experience in dealing with testamentary gifts to charities, and that his experience convinced him that the great majority of those who left money to charities were animated by contemptible or wicked motives, and that nothing ought to be done to encourage them. The object of his hon. Friend's Amendment was to secure, in the first instance, that the residuary legatee should be protected from payment of duty on charitable bequests, although but a very small portion of the estate might pass to him. The hon. and gallant Gentleman behind him (Major Rasch) seemed to agree with the Attorney General that testators made these bequests from unworthy motives. Did not the hon. and gallant Gentleman see that these testamentary bequests would be promoted by the Bill and diminished by the Amendment? Suppose testators should have a desire to spite their natural heirs by leaving some of their money away to hospitals and public institutions, what an additional pleasure to the persons representing those institutions—what an additional drop of gall in the cup of the unfortunate heir that this money would go upon the principle of aggregation to increase the tax inflicted upon the heir! He altogether objected to assist the wicked in their path of wickedness, but it seemed that the Government were desirous of placing an additional weapon in the hands of those malevolent beings, while he was desirous of depriving them of the power, not of leaving part of their property away to whom or for whatever objects 60 they chose, but, in leaving it away, of saddling the rest of the property not left away, with an additional burden. That was the proposal of the Government. He did not think, however, the House need concern itself much with either the morals here or the prospects hereafter of those wicked monsters. Whatever the object of the Bill might be, it was not, at all events, a missionary effort. But they might have some regard to the destination of these bequests to charitable institutions though their benefit might be possibly the last motive of these testators. What did it matter to the House whether they meant to spite their heirs or not if the recipients of the bequests were some of the great London hospitals or other public institutions greatly in want of money? He agreed that if this Amendment would encourage testators to spite their heirs, he should have nothing to do with it; but if they were to have regard to the motives of these black-hearted gentlemen who were disposed to leave their money away in this manner, the House ought to do everything in its power to increase the amount of money so given away rather than diminish it. In America bequests were often made during lifetime, and when he reflected upon the amount of money given in that way to public institutions, and compared it with the comparatively thin and poverty-stricken stream which flowed into the coffers of our great charities and philanthropic societies, he felt that they set us an example which we should do well to follow. We had had, of course, many instances even in recent times of such bequests, but they should not be discouraged even after death. While agreeing with his right hon. Friend that this Amendment was largely made in the interests of the heir' and not so much in the interests of the charities, he still felt that in cases where money was not given for any malignant purpose, such as was suggested, but from a desire to benefit some public institution by a bequest of which it stood in need, care should be taken to avoid the injury which would nevertheless fall on the ordinary natural heirs of the testator taking the rest of the property. At an earlier period of the discussion on the Bill he had expressed these opinions to the House, and must apologise for repeating them, but he ven- 61 tured again to hope that the Government would see its way to making some concession in this matter.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
said, that this was too large a concession to make, because the effect on the Revenue would be of a serious character.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
No; it is only a question of the mode of aggregation.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
confessed that he did not understand upon what principle this claim to exemption rested. The Statute of Mortmain was established to prevent real property from being given away in this manner, and he asked for whom was this particular relief sought? It was not for the heir, but for the benefit of the residuary legatee. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the stream of liberality did not flow very fully in England with reference to charities. An institution like St. George's Hospital relied upon its income being supplemented by large bequests, and the authorities found they were not disappointed. No doubt, this was the case with many institutions of a similar character. There were other motives in these matters than the malevolence of testators towards heirs as had been suggested. Some years ago a great bequest was made for the Established Church in Scotland, and was said to be the largest sum ever paid as a premium against fire. Various other motives might also be attributed to persons making these bequests. For his own part, however, he was bound to speak in the interests of the Exchequer. It would be an injury to the Revenue to make such an exception as this, and one which he did not think hon. and right hon. Members opposite could sufficiently appreciate. It would, in fact, involve a very large deduction from the Revenue, and he must once more remind the House that they had to provide £5,000,000, or thereabouts, for a public object, in regard to which the expenditure had been authorised by Parliament. Their duty was to find means to meet that expenditure, and it was not his duty to cut down the Revenue by accepting Amendments of this kind. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not support the Amendment.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had forgotten in his argument that what was proposed here was not that money be- 62 queathed should be exempted from duty, but that it should be made the subject of separate aggregation. He did not think the principle of aggregation would give the right hon. Gentleman much money, or that he would lose much by adopting it in this particular instance. But the right hon. Gentleman had himself agreed to exempt from all duty the megatherium or the picture of the president of the London County Council as a work of historic interest.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
They are not money.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, the recipients might be depended upon if it were possible to do so, whether in the case of a megatherium or anything else, they would turn it into money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was refusing to aggregate separately any sum whether large or small left to a charity; he wanted to get the last drop of blood, the uttermost farthing out of a contribution made even to his own property, St. George's Hospital. That seemed hardly reasonable, and he would rather see the megatherium charged and let the legacy to the hospital go free. But he would point out that this principle of separate aggregation had been adopted in more than one instance in the Bill; in several cases small gifts of property were to be separately aggregated and made estates of themselves. That was all that was asked in this case, and not exemption of duty at all. Consider the hardship in the case of a man who was not particularly in love with his eldest son. In the first place, he must point out that this duty would not fall necessarily on the residuary legatee. The Attorney General and the Solicitor General, who knew more about this Bill than anybody else, constantly made the assumption that there must in all cases be a residuary estate and a residuary legatee. But it was a matter of constant occurrence for people to leave by their wills more property than they possessed, and the specific legacies had to be paid rateably. It was not the fact, therefore, that this large burden would always fall upon a residuary legatee, for in many cases there would be no residue for it to fall upon. Take the hard case of a man leaving £1,000,000 to a hospital and £500 only to his son. What would be the result? By the separate aggre- 63 gation proposed the hospital would pay £80, and the son £2 10s. But, as matters stood, the son would have to pay at the rate of £40. Not only would he be deprived of his patrimony by his wicked, malignant father leaving practically all his property to the charity, but he would be fined £40 instead of £2 10s. Surely that was never in the contemplation of the Government. In fact, there appeared to be a good many things in the Bill which were never in the Government's contemplation. At all events, in this case there seemed to be no reason why the Amendment should not be adopted, as it sought not exemption from duty, but only separate aggregation.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, that the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to vote against the Amendment on account of the loss which it would entail on the Revenue would have been more effective if the right hon. Gentleman had given the House some idea of the estimated extent of that loss. The House had not been informed by the right hon. Gentleman of more than the general effect of any portion of this measure. So far he had spoken of the necessity of providing £1,000,000, but he now talked about £5,000,000. All that the House had to do with this year, in regard to the Death Duties, was £1,000,000, and they were only now concerned with one year. As the Amendment did not touch the duty, but only the aggregation, the difference which its acceptance would make to the Exchequer could not, in his opinion, he very large. They had only the ipse dixit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that loss would be sustained.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
said, that statement was founded not merely upon his ipse dixit, but on the opinion formed by gentlemen who were most competent to judge, and who assured him that in no other part of the Bill would the loss be so great as if this Amendment were accepted.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, if that were the case they must assume that there was some foundation for the statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made; but still he was unable to see how so great a loss was to fall upon the Revenue simply by the aggregation of property passing away from a family separately from that left to the family. He would ask whether it was just or 64 equitable that where property was left away from a family, the property left to the family was nevertheless to be charged as if that other property remained in the family? Was not that departing from the doctrine of equality of sacrifice? which, although it was, he believed, repudiated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, yet most of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters put it forward on public platforms. The principle of aggregation landed the Government in every kind of anomaly and injustice. It was full of inequalities, and it was now admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was anticipated a large revenue was going to be realised from the aggregation of property left away from a testator's family with that left to the family.

§ MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)
reminded the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon an Amendment dealing with insurance had stated that the loss to the Revenue would be £500,000, and the right hon. Gentleman now stated that he anticipated a loss of more than half-a-million from the acceptance of the present Amendment. That must be the case, as he had stated that this would make the largest inroad into the Revenue of any Amendment proposed in regard to revenue from Death Duty taxes.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I was speaking not merely of the present, but of future years.

§ MR. HENEAGE
thought that future years might be left to take care of themselves. The House had been told exactly the same tale as to losses of Revenue in regard to other Amendments, and all other statements could not be literally accepted. If all the losses anticipated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the acceptance of Amendments could arise the total loss would amount to at least three times as much as the right hon. Gentleman proposed to get.

§ MR. DARLING (Deptford)
said, the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had hardly done justice to the argument of the Attorney General, who objected to the Amendment, and desired the clause to stand in its present form on the ground that it was desirable not to discourage testators from leaving bequests to hospitals and other public charities. The Amendment, it was ob- 65 jected by the hon. and learned Gentleman, would prevent people from making such bequests at all, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer objected to the loss which the State would sustain from this pernicious practice of leaving money to hospitals and other public and charitable institutions instead of leaving it to the persons to whom otherwise it naturally would go. If it were said that this Amendment could not be accepted because it would interfere too much with the scheme and framework of the Bill how did the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer justify Clause 4 which told them how they were to determine the amount of the Estate Duty and went on to say— Provided that any property so passing in which the deceased never had an interest or which under a disposition not made by the deceased passes immediately on the death of the deceased to some person other than the wife, or husband, or a lineal ancestor, or lineal descendant of the deceased, shall not be aggregated with any other property, but shall be an estate by itself, and the Estate Duty shall be levied at the proper graduated rate on the principal value thereof; and so on. Why, if the settlement was not made by the deceased, was it right to deprive the Exchequer of this money, which would have come from the aggregation of the estate, and wrong to do it if the settlement or will was made by the deceased? In the one case the property was not going to a relation, and this exception was made so as to prevent its being aggregated. But in the present case, where the money was to go to a hospital, no such exception was to be made for the conflicting reasons that (according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer) the State would lose, and (according to the Attorney General) if the Bill were left as it was no one would leave money to hospitals which, as he said, was a desirable state of things to bring about. It had been assumed that people leaving property behind them would never bequeath a large amount to hospitals and a small amount to their relatives. But he believed the late Sir Erasmus Wilson left £260,000, of which £200,000 was to go to the College of Physicians or the College of Surgeons and £60,000 to the widow and other persons. He could not see the justice of asking the surviving relatives to pay duty at the high rate of 7 per cent., because the £60,000 came out of an aggregated estate of £260,000, Clearly the 66 Attorney General's reason was the one actuating the Government; that was to say, the desire to discourage people from leaving money to charities in any shape or form. Now that this was seen to be the object of the Government, he hoped that people who were likely to be benefited by hospitals and charitable institutions in London would take note of it.

§ Question put.

§ The House divided: — Ayes 158; Noes, 217.—(Division List, No. 183.)

§ On Motion of Mr. R. T. REID, the following Amendments were agreed to:—

§ Page 12, line 41, leave out "procedure for."

§ Page 12, line 41, after "obtaining," insert "of."

§ Page 13, line 3, leave out "on," and insert "in respect of."

§ Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 5, to leave out the word "settled."— (Mr. H. T. Reid. )

§ Question proposed, "That the word 'settled' stand part of the Bill."

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, this was a portion of a further Amendment which largely increased the area of property for taxation. The clause said— Where the gross value of the property real and personal on which Estate Duty is payable on the death of the deceased, exclusive of settled property, does not exceed five hundred pounds, and where the gross value does not exceed three hundred pounds, the fixed duty shall be thirty shillings, and where the gross value exceeds three hundred pounds, the fixed duty shall be fifty shillings. He objected to leaving out the word "settled" in order to insert after "property" the words "settled otherwise than by the will of the deceased." Whether the property was settled by deceased or otherwise it did not seem to him to matter at all, and under cover of leaving out "settled" a large increase of the tax would be raised. It seemed to him that the Amendment was a breach of the arrangement made with the Irish Members. Almost all the properties in Ireland were small, and it was largely in deference to the representation of the Irish Members that these exemptions were made. Now it was proposed in a large number of cases to withdraw them.

§ MR. E. T. REID
said, the hon. Member quite exaggerated the effect of the Amendment. With the Amendment the clause would read— 67 Where the gross value of the property real and personal in respect of which Estate Duty is payable on the death of the deceased, exclusive of property settled otherwise than by the will of the deceased, does not exceed £500.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 19, at end, add— Where the fixed duty of 30s. or 50s. is paid within 12 months after the death of the deceased, interest on such duty shall not be payable."—(Mr. R. T. Reid.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

§ MR. BARTLEY
said, he quite agreed with this Amendment, but he thought it should be distinctly understood that it was not much of a concession as the highest interest that could be claimed during the 12 months would be only 1s. 6d, and the lowest would be 8d.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ MR. BARTLEY
said, he had to move the insertion of a new scale in place of that which appeared in Clause 17. He was sorry to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt) was not in his place, as he had hoped that he would have considered, even at the last moment, that some alteration might be made in the scale he proposed. In the Committee stage another scale which he proposed was not accepted, and he now ventured to move this new one with the object of doing away with grievous anomalies which would arise near the points where the line was drawn by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The scale he proposed seemed to be very much fairer in every way than that of the Government, and he thought it would not materially affect the receipts of the Exchequer. The scale given in the Bill named a number of points at which a large jump was made in the duties imposed. The jumps thus made were biggest at the bottom and smaller as the scale went up. He thought that was somewhat anomalous, and that the scale should make larger jumps at the top than at the bottom. As it was, the scale would inflict immense hardship on those persons whose estates happened to be near the line, and the result must be to induce such persons wherever they possibly could to bring their estates below the line. It must be obvious that in valuing personal estates and even Stock Exchange securities of the first 68 class it was possible to vary the rate 1 or 2 per cent. according to the scale given in the Stock Exchange lists, and it would be comparatively easy in this way to bring an estate below the fictitious lines drawn in the Bill. Under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scale an estate of £500 would pay a duty of 50s., while an estate of £600 would pay a duty of £12, so that practically £9 10s. extra would be paid for the additional £100. Therefore, the additional £100 would be made to pay at a higher rate than that of the highest possible scale on which a millionaire was charged. He wished to ask the House whether this was a reasonable proposal? Then they came to the scale of £1,000. A man leaving £1,000 would pay £20 duty, but a man leaving £1,100 would pay 33 per cent., i.e., he would pay no less than 13 per cent. or more than double that which a millionaire would pay for this extra thrift of £100. Surely that was an anomaly. Again, if a man left £10,000 he paid £300; if he left £11,000 he paid £440 — for an extra £1,000 he paid no less than 14 per cent. On £25,000 he paid £1,000 duty, but if he left £26,000 he had to pay £1,170, or 17 per cent. on the extra £1,000. The higher they went the worse it became, and when it came to £250,000 and £251,000, he paid no less than 132 per cent. on the extra. On that part of the scale a man paid so much that his estate had better be of smaller amount. He thought this scale showed the enormous inducement there would be, whatever the value of the estate, to cut it down to just below the margin of the various lines. The fact of bringing the amount below the margin would have the effect of bringing in less money in many cases. It was only right that the scale should be such as to induce a person to make a fair return. He asserted that this scale in the Bill had been framed in such a way as to inflict the maximum amount of hardship. The scale he proposed would remove that hardship, and make the scale fairer. It provided that in the case of an estate of £600, the duty on the additional £100 only should be on the higher scale. The same with the other amounts above given. That would make the scale as fair as it could possibly be. The simple fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not 69S present told him distinctly that the scale he proposed would not be accepted. He could not help that, however, and he would divide the House upon his proposal, because he thought it was one of the most important points that had been brought forward. The whole system of the Bill would inflict immense hardship; but if there was one thing more than another that the smaller people would resent it was that there were these extreme cases of hardship just on the line,

Where the Value of the Estate	Per Centage.
Exceeds—	£	£
Exceeds—	100 and does not exceed	500	One pound for every full sum of £100, and for any fractional part of £100.
Exceeds—	500 and does not exceed	1,000	One pound for the first £500, and two pounds for every further sum of £100 or fraction of £100.
Exceeds—	1,000 and does not exceed	10,000	Two pounds for the first £1,000, and three pounds for every further full sum of £100 or fractional part of £100.
Exceeds—	10,000 and does not exceed	25,000	Three pounds for the first £10,000, and four pounds for every further full sum of £100 or fractional part of £100.
Exceeds—	25,000 and does not exceed	50,000	Four pounds for the first £25,000, and four pounds ten shillings for every further full sum of £100 or fractional part of £100.
Exceeds—	50,000 and does not exceed	75,000	Four pounds ten shillings for the first £50,000, and five pounds for every further full sum of £100 or fractional part of £100.
Exceeds—	75,000 and does not exceed	100,000	Five pounds for the first £75,000, and five pounds ten shillings for every further full sum of £100 or fractional part of £100.
Exceeds—	100,000 and does not exceed	150,000	Five pounds ten shillings for the first £100,000, and six pounds for every further full sum of £100 or fractional part of £100.
Exceeds—	150,000 and does not exceed	250,000	Six pounds for the first £150,000, and six pounds ten shillings for every further full sum of £100 or fractional part of £100.
Exceeds—	250,000and does not exceed	500,000	Six pounds ten shillings for the first £250,000, and seven pounds for every further full sum of £100 or fractional part of £100.
Exceeds—	500,000 and does not exceed	1,000,000	Seven pounds for the first £500,000, and seven pounds ten shillings for every further full sum of £100 or fractional part of £100.
Exceeds—	1,000,000 and does not exceed		Seven pounds ten shillings for the first £1,000,000, and eight pounds for every further full sum of £100 or fractional part of £100.

§ and he undertook to say that many men who had saved small amounts would rather spend the £100 not wisely than pay this iniquitous taxation. His scale would do away with all these anomalies, and he begged to move the Amendment.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 22, to leave out from the word "scale" to the end of line 37, in order to insert—

§ SIR J. RIGBY
The scale which has been put forward by the Government has been attacked on several occasions and has always been defended. I do not think it falls specially to my duty to defend it again, nor do I think a further defence necessary. We must take a Division if the hon. Member wishes to go to a Division.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
We have had many curious incidents in the course of these Debates, but a more curious incident than that which we have just witnessed I do not think we have experienced. I will frankly say that the Bill has been a very heavy task for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and every reasonable allowance, I think, should be made for him; but that there should be no Minister here when an important financial question like this scale comes on, and when a full and reasonable speech like that of my hon. Friend is made, is almost an outrage. The Solicitor General, the Attorney General, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been doing their duty in connection with legal Amendments dealing with exemptions, and for the Government to say when we come to one of the most important parts of the Bill, "Oh, this has been debated once or twice, we had better take a Division upon it," is, I think, a most unparalleled proceeding. Of course, the Government are at an immense disadvantage. None of their supporters get up to assist them in this slightest degree except an hon. Member who sits behind them. It is, therefore, all the more incumbent on the Government to do their full duty in discussing important and reasonable Amendments. This is distinctly a reasonable Amendment. Whether it is the right scheme or the wrong scheme it is surely worthy the attention of the House. I frankly say—I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition will say upon it—that had it been at any other time than on the last evening of our proceedings we ought to report Progress upon the speech of the Attorney General. It is useless for us to sit here if the Law Officer is to get up in reply to a speech made by a gentleman perfectly competent to speak upon the question and say, "We had better take a Division." Why did he not say so on all the other questions? Why is this important Amendment to be singled out for this con- 72 temptuous treatment? With regard to the substance of this Amendment, does it not strike anybody that there is a great deal of force in the speech of my hon. Friend? It may be that his is not the best scale; but, at all events, he has made out a good primâ facie case. Everybody must have been struck with his arguments. One of them was that these great jumps in the percentages would create a tendency hostile to the Revenue and in the direction of promoting the low valuation of estates. That may or may not be a good argument. At all events, it is one that ought to be dealt with. If my memory does not betray me, these scales have not been adequately debated; they are parts of the Bill which have not been so fully debated as the other parts. Is it reasonable that at one point the tax should be £2 10s., while on an estate worth £1 more it should be £10? It must strike anyone that this is not a question of rich and poor. If it were a question out of which political capital could be made we would have found the Chancellor of the Exchequer here denouncing the landed interest and the capitalists. But it touches the poor and the middle-class people. We cannot compel the Government to argue, but I must say it is not in accordance with the traditions of the House or with the general treatment which they have shown to us in the course of these Debates, that a speech like that of my hon. Friend should not have been answered.

§ MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)
said, two things were clear—the hon. Member for Islington had made out a very good case for discussion and the Attorney General had not even attempted to reply. Considering the extraordinary character of the graduation scheme proposed by the Government he was not altogether surprised that the Attorney General was ashamed to defend it. It was not graduation at all. Used in its ordinary sense graduation was the beginning with a minimum and going up gradually to a maximum, but this clause did nothing of the sort. Whether the scheme of the hon. Member for Islington was the best one or not that could be devised to meet the anomalies he had pointed out, it was patent that the scheme proposed by the Government was not satisfactory. He intended to vote with 73 the hon. Member against such a spurious graduation, because it was in no sense fair or equitable.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, the Attorney General had told them that this graduation clause had been defended before. That was true, but it had not been defended with any kind of success. It had been defended not by arguments, but by majorities. The Attorney General had simply stood up and rated them as though he was an angry nurse. The so-called graduated scheme proposed in the Bill had every defect which a graduated scale could have. He had pointed out when the question was brought forward in Committee that the Victorian colonies in 1870 made the same mistake the Chancellor of the Exchequer was now committing, by putting the whole range of property into a few categories for taxation. When it was found that the result of this was to reduce the Revenue and to lead to subterfuge in order to keep estates below a certain mark, the Victorian Parliament increased the number of categories of property first from five to 10, and then, in 1892, to 37. He had often told the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would have to introduce an amending Act to this farrago which was called the Finance Bill, and one of the points it would be necessary to amend would be the extraordinary length of the jumps made from one category to another. In the right hon. Gentleman's scale no principle of graduation was followed; it was simply the outcome of a nonsensical rule of thumb. The scheme of his hon. Friend, on the other hand, was a rational, consistent, and scientific one, and if he went to a Division he should support him.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
The extraordinary performance, or want of performance, on the part of the Attorney General has been already commented upon by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I do not think the House realises the full character of the proceeding to which we have just been subjected. It is perfectly well known that an amicable arrangement has been come to by which the Debate on the Report stage shall finish to-night, for the convenience of both sides. Taking advantage of that arrangement, the Attorney General has done what he never would 74 have had the audacity to do otherwise. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that with that arrangement in view the ordinary expedients by which an Opposition can obtain decent courtesy and treatment from those who are responsible for the management of the Debate cannot be resorted to. The Opposition being deprived of those means the Attorney General abuses the situation, and simply tells the House that this matter has been discussed before, and that it is not worth arguing again. We have no means of compelling the Attorney General to talk sense; but, at all events, we might get out of him something in the nature of a reply to a serious argument, and I think it is intolerable that the hon. and learned Gentleman should think it proper and befitting his position and the position of the House to get up in this cavalier manner and give the go-by to the perfectly reasonable and unanswerable arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington. It cannot be that the Attorney General has been animated by a desire to save time in the course he has adopted, for earlier in the day the Chancellor of the Exchequer treated us to a long and interesting disquisition upon his own reminiscences in connection with Lord North's manuscripts. One must feel, therefore, that whatever motive may animate the Government in their present policy of silence, it is not due to a desire to save time in this stage of our proceedings. In the Committee stage on the Bill the Government did not argue on this question; they simply voted. Let us now have some little variety; let us have argument on the present occasion instead of voting. In the meanwhile, I must repeat the protest I got up principally to make, that this mode of treating arguments addressed to the Government from this side of the House when we are defenceless on account of our own agreement is not, under the circumstances, worthy of the Government nor of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

§ SIR J. LUBBOCK
said, that of course they could not expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be always in his place; but certainly some Member of the Government ought, in ordinary courtesy, to reply to the reasonable arguments that had been put forward on this important 75 matter by the hon. Member for Islington. Why did not his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury, who was present, defend the scheme? It was true that the question came up in Committee, but it was very briefly discussed, and the remarks then made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that he had not grasped the full effect of the scale laid down in the Bill. That scale was not a reasonable one, and it would prove to be a great discouragement to thrift. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give the House some reply.

§ MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)
observed that it was difficult to understand why the Government insisted on their scale in face of the arguments which had been used to show its impracticability. If this scheme of graduation was wrongly conceived there could not be the slightest doubt that it would not merely operate as a check upon thrift, but that it would lead to evasion in all directions because, however it might be with people of large properties who would not be able to tell within £10,000 or £50,000 what the amount of their property would be, it would be the case with people with small earnings who had saved £10,000 that they would be able to reckon up to within £100 or so the value of their property and they would be so able to arrange matters by making gifts during their lives that there would be a great loss to the Revenue. Although it was the larger estates which brought in large sums to the Treasury, it was the multitude of estates which brought in the multitude of payments on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer must rely. This scale of the Government was a great temptation to immorality. They had already one or two schemes of graduation in vogue, and he appealed to anybody who had had a small income whether it must not put the greatest strain upon a man's conscience when there was a certain point which made all the difference whether he was to pay or not. The truth was, that in all these cases of graduation it was easy to make a continuous instead of a discontinuous graduation, and then they would remove every temptation to fraud and evasion. This was a matter of business; he had always understood the House of Commons was an Assembly of business men who could 76 come to a really practical conclusion, but when these practical arguments were put before the Government all they had to say was "Oh, let us divide and solve the matter by walking through the Division Lobby." He appealed to the Government whether really upon this pure matter of business that was a business-like way of dealing with it? Why was it necessary on such a question as this for the Government to insist on the Division being on strict Party lines? If they had left the House of Commons as business men to say what they considered it best to do, he felt sure that nine out of ten business men would condemn the graduation scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and approve of that of his hon. Friend. The Opposition made their protest not from interested motives, and not certainly with any desire to waste time, but solely from the conviction they had that this scale of the Government proceeded upon a wrong principle, would lead to fraud and evasion and loss of Revenue, and he failed to understand why this business matter was not treated by the Government in a business spirit.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
disclaimed any want of courtesy on the part of the Government towards hon. Members opposite, but he would remind them of the legal maxim, Interest rei publicæ ut finem sit disputationibus. It was to the public advantage that there should be some end to disputations. Did anybody seriously believe that at this eleventh hour the whole scheme of the Government upon this graduation was now to be changed? They had discussed this matter before at great length, and the Government had stated their reason for adhering to the scale they had chosen. To adopt the scale proposed by the hon. Member would require that the Government should alter the whole of their graduation. ["No, no!"] Oh, yes. He was speaking of that which he knew. He had had calculations made of what would be the result of adopting this graduation of the hon. Member, and the loss from it compared with the graduation in the Bill would be £643,000; therefore, he had no hesitation in saying that if they adopted it they must raise the maximum of the graduation far above 8 per cent.—probably it would amount to something 77 like 15 per cent.—to realise the revenue which they intended to raise by this Bill. Was it feasible or reasonable to suppose that at this last stage of the Bill they should make such a change as would necessitate the reconstructing of the Bill altogether, and practically revolutionise the whole scheme of the Bill? Under these circumstances, he could not think it necessary to repeat the whole discussion over again which they had had on the Committee stage. The scheme of the Government had been before the country for three months; they had, he supposed, heard all the objections that could be raised against it. They had been answered by the Government as well as they could be answered, and a Division taken on the question. [Mr. BARTLEY: Not on this scale.] At all events, in the Division that was taken the Government stood by their own scale, and the scale of the hon. Member was on similar lines to his present one. He hoped, in these circumstances, that the House would now come to a decision on the subject.

§ COLONEL KENYON - SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)
could not help thinking that had the Chancellor of the Exchequer been in the House when the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was speaking he would hardly have left his argument so completely unanswered as it was. In Committee the Chancellor of the Exchequer even then expressed the opinion that the large steps which he seemed to think inevitable had in them a certain measure of hardship and injustice. If there was injustice and hardship in the scale laid down, surely it was not unreasonable that the Government should try and accept an Amendment which would take some of that sting of injustice out. It was perfectly impossible that this proposal of the Government could be upheld in face of the counter proposal made from the Opposition side of the House without breaking through every principle of fair play and common sense in this matter. The Government might say they would get £643,000 more by their scheme than by that proposed by the hon. Member. What of that if they got it by a gross act of injustice and inequality? When the country had the two schemes before them they would recognise in the scheme proposed by the hon. Member for Isling- 78 ton the principles of fair play and of a real and genuine graduation, whilst the scheme of the Government was one which inflicted injustice upon the poor, the middle-class, and the rich alike.

§ Question put.

§ The House divided: — Ayes 143; Noes 81.—(Division List, No. 184.)

§ On Motion of Mr. R. T. REID, the following Amendments were agreed to:—

§ Page 14, line 1, leave out "further," and insert "settlement."

§ Page 14, line 4, leave out "further," and insert "settlement."

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH
moved, in page 14, line 11, after the second "property," insert "to which he has become entitled in possession." The Amendment was intended to carry out the object he had in view in moving a new clause relating to cumulative duties in the case of Succession Duty and Legacy Duty. After the decision of the House on that clause with regard to the Legacy Duty he would not refer to that duty. But in replying to the clause the Solicitor General stated very frankly that he believed the law with regard to the Succession Duty prevented cumulative duties; and that at any rate it was the intention of the Government to leave unaltered the law on the subject. He was advised by those who were quite competent to express an opinion that the clause in its present form did not carry out that intention. The 14th section of the Succession Duty Act prevented cumulative duties with regard to personal property, and with regard to realty, cumulative duties were prevented by the facts of the case. Succession Duty being leviable on the life interest, it could not be payable before that life interest began to accrue. Therefore, an interest in expectancy that did not come into possession could not become liable to Succession Duty, as was the case with regard to Legacy Duty. The Government proposed, with regard to property the successor was competent to dispose of to alter the law so as to make the duty chargeable on the principal value instead of on the life interest. He was advised that the effect of that would be, in a case where the successor was com- 79 petent to dispose of the property, to render it probable, or at any rate possible, that the successor might have to pay duty upon an interest which did not come into possession. He did not think, as the clause at present stood, that this point was sufficiently guarded. The words were these:— And the duty shall be payable by the same instalments as are authorised by this Act for Estate Duty on real property with interest at the rate of three per cent. per annum from the expiration of twelve months after the date on which he became entitled in possession of his succession. That might be held simply to mean that the interest was to be calculated from that date. It did not seem to override the earlier words—namely, The value for the purpose of Succession Duty of a succession to real property arising on the death of a deceased person shall, where the successor is competent to dispose of the property, be the principal value of the property after deducting the Estate Duty payable in respect thereof on the said death and the expenses, if any, properly incurred of raising and paying the same, and the duty shall be a charge thereon. Those words appeared to charge the duty, and the latter words appeared merely to refer to the date on which the instalments were to be paid, and on which the interest would begin to accrue. The Amendment would make it clear that no duty could be payable until the successor became entitled, in possession, to the property. He was advised that the Amendment would keep the law exactly as it was at present. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight had given notice of an Amendment to the same effect which might or might not be better than his. If the Solicitor General preferred it he should be willing to withdraw his Amendment in its favour.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 11, after the second word "property," to insert the words "to which he has become entitled in possession."— (Sir M. Hicks-Beach. )

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ MR. R. T. REID
said, the objects of the right hon. Baronet and of the Government were precisely identical. They were to provide that Succession Duty should be payable only under the circumstances under which it was payable now. 80 He had an Amendment on the Paper lower down which he thought would meet the point raised by the right hon. Baronet. He proposed to insert words providing that "the first instalment shall be payable and the interest shall begin to run" at "the expiration of twelve months after the date on which he became entitled in possession to his succession."

§ MR. BUTCHER
said, he was glad to find that the Opposition were in complete accord with the Government as to their intentions. Their intentions were both good; but the question was, whether the words to be proposed by the Solicitor General would carry out those intentions? Many persons were of opinion that they would not, for the reason that the Amendment appeared only to refer to the date at which the first instalment would be payable. If there was an interest in expectancy—that was to say, if a man was entitled to property in the event of his surviving somebody else, if he did not survive no duty ought to be payable. Under his right hon. Friend's Amendment no duty would be payable until the man came into possession. That went to the question of principle, but the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment only had reference to the date when the duty would become payable. It might be that in the interval one or two other duties would have fallen due, and in that case, no doubt, the whole of the duty would be postponed till after the succession had come into possession, but there might be several duties then payable. The first instalment of several duties would have to be paid after the property had fallen into possession. If the property passed from A to B, inasmuch as there might be several interests in expectancy, when the unfortunate B came into his inheritance he would find that there were several Death Duties to be paid. They recognised that the intentions of the Government were excellent, but they did not think it would do harm to insert the Amendment proposed. If the Solicitor General did not think it would do harm let him accept it.

§ MR. BYRNE
said, that he also would make an appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General. The hon. and learned Gentleman, if he understood him aright, did not object to the words of the Amendment on the ground 81 that they were improper. On the contrary, he agreed that they would effect what everyone desired, and what his own Amendment would bring about. He (Mr. Byrne) did not think the Amendment before the House, if accepted, would prejudicially affect the Solicitor General's proposal later on.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, he shared the doubt as to whether the Amendment of the Solicitor General guarded the danger attempted to be dealt with by the right hon. Baronet. The question divided itself into two parts, one of which would be met by the Solicitor General's proposal, and the other of which would not. One part of the clause touched the value of the property, whilst the other settled the time when the duty would become payable. His doubt arose on the matter of property. In Clause 22 they found the following:— The expression 'property' includes real property and personal property and the proceeds of sale thereof respectively and any money or investment for the time being representing the proceeds of sale. These words were in part taken from the Succession Duty Act, but they had been altered to suit the necessities of the present case.

§ MR. R. T. REID
We do not interfere with succession.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, they must remember that they were dealing with Succession Duty alone, and, therefore, it would have been almost better to have to deal with the subject by reference to the Succession Duty Act. The Government had established here a new system of valuation in respect of property to which the successor had become entitled in possession. The words "the value is the principal value of the property" clearly referred to the property to which the successor had come into possession. As regarded the period at which the duty would become payable, and at which the interest was to run, the clause was clear. He was satisfied as to that, but the doubt he felt was as to the definition of "property."

MR. GRANT LAWSON
was surprised that during the discussion the most alarming words of the clause—"and the duty shall be charged on the property"—had not been alluded to at all. His right hon. Friend wanted to limit the 82 amount of duty, and the Solicitor General wanted to limit the time at which the duty was to be payable by the person coming into the property. The charge on the property continued, and it was impossible to conceive that there could be a charge which was not payable by somebody; yet, according to the Solicitor General, if he one came into possession, there was no person charged, although there was a duty chargeable.

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH
said, he confessed he liked his words better than those of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, preferred his own Amendment; therefore, on a matter of drafting, he (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) would have to give way.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ On Motion of Mr. R. T. REID, the following Amendments were agreed to:—

§ Page 14, line 14, leave out "thereon," and insert "on the property."

§ Line 17, leave out "from," and insert "and the first instalment shall be payable and the interest shall begin to run at."

§ Line 18, leave out "he," and insert "the successor."

§ Line 19, after the second "and," insert "after the expiration of the said twelve months."

§ Line 24, after "duty," add— and in the case of any agricultural property where no part of the principal value is due to the expectation of an increased income from such property, the annual value for the purpose of Succession Duty shall be arrived at in the same manner as under the provisions of this part of this Act for the purpose of Estate Duty.

§ Amendment moved, in page 14, line 29, after the words "Estate Duty," to insert the words "derived from personal property."— (Mr. R. T. Reid. )

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)
said, that as he had an Amendment on the Paper to the same effect as that of the Solicitor General, and as the hon. and learned Gentleman had offered no explanation of his proposal, he (Sir R. Temple) hoped he might be allowed to 83 say a few words by way of explanation. By the Act of 1888 it was the intention of the late Government to make a concession to the landed interest, or rather to the interest of real property, which was very unequally burdened with local rates throughout the Kingdom. The comparative injustice of the incidence of these burdens were complained of at the time, and it was for the purpose of giving relief that the particular concession was arranged by the late Government. The concession was that a certain sum of several millions sterling were to be paid annually out of the moneys received from the then Estate Duty levied upon personal property. Personal property did not contribute to local rates; therefore, out of the Probate Duty it was to give a contribution in aid of these rates. This contribution was supposed to be tantamount to a relief of 6d. in the £1. This was a substantial advantage conceded to real property by the late Government, and that advantage was contributed from personal property. Now, by this Bill it was proposed that the advantage should be given to local rates from the new Estate Duty in substitution for the relief given from the duty paid by personal property. The money obtained from the Estate Duty would be obtained largely, no doubt, from personal property, but partly, also, from real property; therefore, the concession to be made to real property was made out of the fund to which real property contributed. It was to remedy that that he had placed his Amendment on the Paper. With that Amendment, or with the one now moved by the Solicitor General, the matter would be put right. It might be urged that the local rates were to receive the same sum as before, and that the new Estate Duty levied from personalty would be sufficient to meet the demand. That no doubt was true, but it was well that the fact should be stated pretty clearly on the face of the Bill for the satisfaction of real property that felt keenly the unequal burdens imposed on it in respect of local rates.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ On Motion of Mr. R. T. REID, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 14, line 33, leave out "chargeable with Estate Duty," and insert "in 84 respect of which Estate Duty is leviable."—(Mr. R. T. Reid. )

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, he wished to substitute for the phrase "British possession" the words "any place out of the United Kingdom." He could notbut think that an insufficient amount of attention had been given to the fact that it was proposed to impose this duty on foreign countries in a different way to the way in which it was proposed to apply it in the Colonies. It was proposed to allow a deduction in the case of the Colonies, while in the case of foreign countries no deduction would be given. This, of course, was setting up a differential treatment. At the Conference sitting at Ottawa, a resolution had been passed pointing out that in consequence of the Favoured Nation Clauses with other countries, Her Majesty's Government were precluded from adopting preferential treatment with the Colonies as to commerce. The matter was one which the Government must deal with. They had to decide whether they had power to extend to the Colonies a differential duty under the Finance Bill as compared with that they accorded to foreign countries. He had read the Favoured Nation Clauses in our Treaties with foreign countries, and they seemed to him to prohibit Her Majesty's Government from meting out to foreign countries a worse treatment than they allowed their own Colonies. The point of it was that the Colonies were of that opinion themselves. And a further point was that when he had asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Colonies were right in their opinion the right hon. Gentleman had not given him an answer, but had said the subject was an important one, as to which he could not make a statement across the Table of the House. The Treaty with France, dated the 28th February, 1882, declared that Frenchmen should be put on exactly the same footing as was given to the people of any third nation— In all matters relating to the exercise of commerce and industry and in respect to residence whether temporary or permanent, the exercise of any calling or profession, the payment of taxes or other impositions. Then, again, the German Treaty prescribed that the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty should not be subjected to any 85 higher or other tax than the subjects of the third nation most favoured in that respect—words somewhat wider even than those contained in the French Treaty. He submitted that before attempting to impose upon investments in France or Germany differential or less favoured treatment than was accorded to investments in the Colonies, it was their duty to ascertain whether those countries took the same view as the Chancellor of the Exchequer professed to take, that these Favoured Nation Clauses did not in any way prohibit us from according preferential treatment to our Colonies in respect of the Estate Duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that these Favoured Nation Clauses did not apply to the Colonies at all, and that they only applied to countries with whom we could make Treaties, and that that was not our position in regard to our Colonies. But did France, and Germany, and Belgium take the same view? If they did not, what sort of a situation would the right hon. Gentleman find himself in when the Act was put in operation? It would be found that there was a great disadvantage awaiting the investment of English capital in France, Germany, and Belgium as compared with investments in the English Colonies. Such investments would be subjected to more onerous treatment than in the Colonies, and, for instance, there would be undoubtedly a damaging effect on French as compared with Colonial investments. Was it likely that France, who had gone out of her way to find a quarrel with us as to a strip of land in the Congo, would allow an occasion like this to slip without protest? Was it not likely that Germany would join with France in the protest? Why, there was a stronger case here for international remonstrance than in the case of the Congo Treaty. He believed there was a very serious danger in this attempt to discriminate between the Colonies and other countries, especially when the return would be very small. Now he came to the Colonies themselves. This clause as it stood represented the concession made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the appeal of the Colonies of the 12th June. He did not think it was at all a satisfactory answer to the representations made to the right hon. Gentleman, and he believed that a letter 86 of the 13th June from the leading official representative of the Colonists—which had been promised but which had not yet been laid on the Table—gave expression to the dissatisfaction felt. He had, in fact, been informed by the leader of the official colonial representatives that the Colonies were by no means satisfied with the concession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would like to know what would be the result if they passed the clause in its present shape and form? They would dissatisfy the Colonies as well as possibly several foreign countries, and all for the sake of a very small return. It was to prevent such troubles that he ventured to move the Amendment standing in his name.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 42, to leave out the words "British possession," in order to insert the words "place out of the United Kingdom."— (Mr. Gibson Bowles. )

§ Question proposed, "That the words 'British possession' stand part of the Bill."

§ MR. R. T. REID
said, this was not the first time the hon. Member had spoken on this Amendment, because he brought the matter forward in Committee and expressed the same views on that occasion. Everyone must feel that the topic was a delicate one, and he did not think that the desire for further discussion of this subject largely prevailed among hon. Members. It was to be regretted that the hon. Member should have thought it necessary to contrast the Colonies with foreign countries in this matter, especially as the opinion of successive Law Officers had been given with regard to it. No good purpose could be served by making such a comparison. He appealed to the hon. Member that it would be more wise and sensible to allow this question to stand as it had been settled by the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did not think that the best way of avoiding quarrels was to raise these questions, and he hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would not further pursue a subject in regard to which he could not expect the Government to accept his Amendment.

§ MR. BYRNE
said, he supposed they might take it to be the opinion of the 87 Law Officers of the Crown that nothing in the Act infringed or entrenched upon the provisions of the Most Favoured Nation Clauses in the Treaties referred to, and, that being so, he would advise his hon. Friend that they were bound to accept that opinion, and that it was not desirable to further press the Amendment.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ On Motion of Mr. R. T. REID, the following Amendments were agreed to:—

§ Page 15, line 10, leave out "chargeable," and insert "leviable."

§ Page 15, line 13, leave out "chargeable," and insert "leviable."

§ MR. BRODRICK
said, he had the advantage of introducing in Committee the Amendment he now proposed, and which was bound up with another Amendment of his lower down on the Paper. He did not, however, propose to argue the question on the present Amendment. No doubt the Solicitor General was aware that there was a strong feeling on the Opposition side of the House that the pledge given to the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for East Manchester and St. George's, Hanover Square, that there should be equality of treatment for realty and personalty, was not fulfilled or given effect to in this clause. There was absolutely no reason why this restriction as to personal property should have been inserted. What was in the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman in putting it in did not meet the necessities of the case. His idea, no doubt, was that where probate had been paid upon property under a settlement that property should be exempted from Estate Duty, but it evidently had not occurred to him that property which had paid Succession Duty and not Probate Duty would be subjected to a much heavier charge. When he came to his later Amendment he would be prepared to show that the difference in the exemption given to personalty at the expense of realty in some cases amounted to 50 per cent., 75 per cent., and even to 90 per cent. He wished to place personal and real property on the same level. When he raised the point on the last 88 occasion the Solicitor General professed that he had been taken by surprise by the figures then put before him, and instead of dealing with those figures, he addressed himself more to the draftsmanship of the clause and not to the equities of the position. However, this was a matter he would discuss on the later Amendment, and at present he would content himself with moving the omission of the word "personal," his object being to place personalty and realty on an equality and to secure that realty was not subjected to a charge for which personalty was exempted.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 21, to leave out the word "personal."— (Mr. Brodrick. )

§ Question proposed, "That the word 'personal' stand part of the Bill."

§ MR. R. T. REID
said, he was not quite certain which was the more convenient course to take. The Amendment just proposed would have to be read with one to be proposed later on. Of course, they did not want to discuss the matter twice over. He was unable to accept this Amendment, and was prepared, if necessary, now to adduce his arguments against it, but as the same point would crop up again he did not wish to repeat himself. This was a clause which could not possibly apply to real property; it dealt with estates which before the commencement of the Act had paid Probate Duty, and that was not applicable to realty at all. He was afraid that if the House negatived this Amendment it would make it very embarrassing for the hon. Member to propose the subsequent one.

§ MR. BRODRICK
If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes, I will withdraw this Amendment and take the discussion on the other one. Of course, if I carry that, and a change of words is thereby rendered necessary, I shall not be met with any difficulty as to drafting.

§ MR. R. T. REID
I hope I have never raised such a difficulty. I only want to know how best we can raise this point. If the hon. Member likes to withdraw this and take the Debate on the later Amendment, words can, if necessary, be brought up at a later stage should the adoption of that Amendment render such a course necessary.

§ MR. BRODRICK
said, it would perhaps be the more convenient course to discuss the whole subject on that Amendment, and therefore, with the permission of the House, he would put forward the arguments he had intended to reserve for the later Amendment. It was absolutely necessary that the House should consider the position of realty under this Bill, and compare it with the position of personalty. Accepting the whole principle of the Bill, he found that real property would pay a very much larger sum than personalty. The clause dealt with property which was settled before this Bill became law, and of which the testator had at no time any power to dispose. What would be the position of the settlement? There were generally three lives concerned in these settlements. Suppose a case where the first life had fallen before the passing of the Bill, and where £50,000 of realty and £50,000 of personalty were left to two brothers—one taking the personalty and the other the realty. On the fall of the first life the personalty would pay Probate Duty, £1,500, and the Goschen Estate Duty of 1888 (if he might be allowed to use the term), £500, and it would then be clear. That was the position of the fortunate possessor of personalty under the Bill. The realty on the fall of the first life would pay Succession Duty £387, and Estate Duty of 1888 £258—a total of £645. But instead of being clear, on the fall of the next life it would pay £2,250 Estate Duty. That made a total of £2,895 paid by land as against £2,000 paid by personalty of equal value. This was in the case of lineals. In the case of collaterals, where, for instance, the property went to a nephew, personalty paid, before this Bill, Probate Duty £1,500, Estate Duty of 1888 £500, Legacy Duty £1,500 — total, £3,500. Then the property was clear for the remainder of the settlement. On the fall of the next life, in fact, it paid nothing. In the case of realty, however, land would pay, before the passing of the Bill, Succession Duty £1,161, Estate Duty of 1888 £258—total, £1,419. But at the fall of the next life, after the passing of the Bill, the land would pay Estate Duty £2,250, Succession Duty, at 3 per cent., £1,500—total, £3,750. Therefore the £50,000 personalty would pay only £3,500, while the £50,000 realty paid £5,169. He con- 90 fidently asserted that that was a position never contemplated by those who framed the Bill. He was quite certain from the way that the Amendment was received in Committee that the Solicitor General did not have a vestige of an idea of the injustice he was perpetrating. He felt, too, he must have the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his side in this matter, because the right hon. Gentleman had told them time after time that what he desired was perfect equality. There was only one possible outlet for him, and that he would at once make a present to the Leader of the House. He might tell them that the larger sum paid in the case of personal property at the earlier stage would have borne some little interest in the interval, but what would that be as compared with the enormously extra charge now being thrown on realty? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not indulge in any theories of retrospective justice, and say that land had got off very well in the past. He, for one, could not admit that thus the sins of the fathers should be visited on the children. They must take what had been paid under the settlement as absolutely a fair basis. This was by no means a small question, for the clause would cover, in all probability, one-third, if not one-half, of the settlements made before the passing of the Act. The question of aggregation was not involved as this property would stand absolutely alone, and he did ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that the figures he had given showed that land was going to pay very nearly three times as much as formerly.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
No, no.

§ MR. BRODRICK
said, the point was not even arguable, for he had shown by the figures he had quoted that in the case of a lineal the payment on realty on the fall of the first life would be £645, and under the Estate Duty £2,250, on the fall of the next life, or a total of £2,895 paid by land, while personalty would escape with one payment of £2,000. Then, again, in the case of a collateral, the old duty was £1,419, and there would, under the Bill, be payable £3,750, giving a total of £5,169 charged on realty as against only £3,500 on personalty. If they were to have a class of hard cases arising in this way, it was certain that the injustices must be corrected by a 91 future Bill. These hardships would take their place with the inequalities, which they had endeavoured to remedy in the case of the husband and wife, and between the £500 and the £505 graduation, and the case of a man who was a collateral, and who, having property in France would pay 8 per cent. in one case, and 8 per cent. in the other—16 per cent. in all. He put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that these were injustices that ought to be remedied.

§ MR. R. T. REID
said that this matter was brought forward in Committee. He had not had time to study the hon. Gentleman's figures, but he might point out that the clause now under discussion applied wholly to the case of persons dying before the commencement of this Act, and its provisions were temporary provisions. The necessity for the clause arose from this consideration—namely, that in cases in which Estate Duty would afterwards become payable in respect of personalty Probate Duty might have been paid; but in reference to realty no such contingency could arise, because probate could not be paid in respect of real estate. The arrangement had been made that in case the probate had been paid upon personalty, the Estate Duty should be forgiven. Personalty had alone borne the burden of the Probate Duty hitherto. In regard to the strong case put by the hon. Member, he admitted that, if it was assumed that all the sums mentioned were paid on the same date and at the same hour, the result would work out that realty would pay an apparently excessive sum as compared with personalty. Yes; but that was exactly the fallacy that underlay the whole of the hon. Gentleman's figures, that they took no notice of the dates on which the different payments were made. Very often it might have happened that 10, 12, or 15 years ago the Probate Duty had been paid, and interest during that time ought to be reckoned in the calculation. That did not apply in the case of the person coming into possession of real estate. He made this concession to the hon. Gentleman: that, if the interval was very short between the payment of Probate and the time when the life fell in on which Estate Duty would have to be paid, the scheme of the Bill would be in favour of personalty and against realty; if, on the other hand, the interval was 92 comparatively long, it was in favour of realty and against personalty. But taking it roughly, the thing worked out equally and he thought the plan would be found to be fair as between realty and personalty. Under this Amendment long periods were established between the payment of probate and the first will and the time when the first life fell under the settlement. There were cases where realty would pay more than personalty, and other cases where personalty would pay more than realty. What they had to do was to take the average. It seemed to him that upon the whole realty fared very well. There could not be absolute precision in these affairs, but he repeated that on the average it would be found that realty came out distinctly well as compared with personalty.

§ MR. WYNDHAM
said, he admitted that the hon. and learned Solicitor General had given them a very good reply to the case which had been stated; but the primâ facie fact remained that there was a great difference between the incidence of the impost upon personal property and upon real estates under settlement. He noticed that the hon. and learned Gentleman confined his argument to the case of lineals instead of dealing with collateral successions. The hon. and learned Gentleman had admitted that, in certain cases, injustice would be done under this clause, and he failed to understand why such injustice should be done. In the very case that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself had put, whereas personalty would only have to pay £3,500, real estate would have to pay £5,159, or a disparity of taxation amounting to nearly two years' income of the estate. The hon. and learned Gentleman had defended the clause on the ground that its effect would be merely temporary, and he had pointed out that it dealt only with cases where a first life in settlement had come to an end before this Bill became law. But why should there be this temporary injustice? Would the fact that the clause was temporary be any consolation to the man who suffered present injustice? Then the hon. and learned Gentleman said that in the second place this clause dealt with Probate Duty upon personal property, and that the Probate Duty had not been paid upon realty in the past, and that real property would have to 93 pay more in the future in order to make up for its exemption in the past. It was no doubt the case that realty had not paid Probate Duty in the past; but if this forgiveness of the Estate Duty in consideration of Probate Duty already paid created an injustice as between personalty and real property, they said that the fact that in the past real property had not paid Probate Duty would not console those persons who were suffering injustice at the hands of the Government now. In the third portion of his argument the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that his hon. Friend had apparently taken no notice of the fact that this Probate Duty was paid a long time ago, and that interest might be assumed to have accrued to the Treasury during all these years, and that it was only fair now to place a greater burden upon realty in order to exact from it the payments which it had hitherto avoided.

§ MR. R. T. REID
was understood to say that in the case of personalty released under this clause by reason of payment of the Probate Duty, it might be that the Probate Duty was paid a long time ago.

§ MR. WYNDHAM
(continuing) said, he thought the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman rather weakened than strengthened his case. He admitted that this plea could only be put in where the Probate Duty was paid a long time ago. The hon. and learned Gentleman was really inviting them to a repetition of arguments from which he (Mr. Wyndham) would willingly refrain. He pointed to the disparity in the past, and they on their side could rejoin if they wished with arguments to show that that disparity was not without its justification. They had constantly brought forward cases of anomalies and injustice which were invariably met by the cry for symmetry. Only that evening the hon. Member for Islington brought forward a most glaring anomaly, and it was swept aside by the statement that under this Bill a great scheme had been arrived at which would equalise the Death Duties, and that it was impossible to depart from the principle of that magnificent conception. That was all very well, but he could hardly conceive that a responsible Government should perpetuate injustices under the guise of giving symmetry to a Budget Bill. The 94 Chancellor of the Exchequer had excused himself for refusing to make changes in the Bill at this the eleventh hour, but he might remind the right hon. Gentleman that even the most eminent academicians did not disdain to avail themselves of Varnishing Day in order to correct any small defects that they might have discovered to exist in their pictures.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
said, he might remind the hon. Member who had just sat down that if to-day was Varnishing Day, it was Private View Day to-morrow. The Government absolutely accepted the principle of equality, and they did not go back upon that principle at all. He would like to point out that the case for payment of the Probate Duty was not at all the same as that for payment of the Probate Duty. Probate Duty being taken out of the estate, they were not comparing like with like. Coming to the question of equality, he must deny that any inequality in the treatment of the two classes of property would occur under the provisions of the Bill in the future. At the same time, they could not have equality in every instance. It really depended upon the period in which the life fell. In one instance there was a considerable difference of time, and there would be an advantage to personalty in some cases, whereas there would be an advantage to realty in other cases. What the Government maintained was that in any two parallel cases the balance would be about equal, and that therefore they did not depart from any principle of quality. No inequality would occur in future under the provisions of the Bill in the treatment of the two classes of property. It was, he maintained, impossible to secure absolute equality in every case. The whole question depended on the period at which the life fell, and he denied that the Government proposals would, as had been argued, always have the effect of operating to the disadvantage of realty as compared with personalty.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)
suggested that it would be advisable for the Government to take this opportunity of making a recantation of the meaning they had attached to the words in question. The matter had already been dis- 95 cussed to some extent in Committee, but he would call attention to the incidence of duty in cases where persons died before and after the commencement of the Act. Suppose A died a few days before the commencement of the Act, leaving a limited interest in his personal property to B, who died after the commencement of the Act. The proviso in the clause was that if A's estate paid Probate Duty upon what was left to B, then B's estate would not have to pay. The question put to the Government was whether in any event two duties could be payable together. Certainly, the clause was quite clear that in the case he had put B would not have to pay Estate Duty. But suppose Probate Duty had not been paid on A's estate, and B was called upon to pay, what about A's estate afterwards? He submitted that it was obvious A's estate would still remain liable to pay the money. The duty cumulative and both estates would be apparently liable. The Government said that was not the case, and that in no event could both A and B be called upon to pay duty. Assuming that construction was right, this curious result would follow. It was said that the object of these provisions was to make executors diligent in paying Probate Duty; but evidently, instead of making A's executors diligent, this would have exactly the opposite effect, and cause them to delay the payment in order to throw it upon B. It almost recalled the incident of the schoolmaster who punished one boy because another had broken his companion's head, for A would be rewarded by exemption from payment of Probate Duty because B's estate would be liable to pay. Surely the clause meant nothing of the kind, and A's estate must in any event remain liable for payment of Probate Duty whether B. had to pay Estate Duty or not. The second sub-section stated distinctly that in the case of a person dying before the commencement of the Act, the duties mentioned in the first schedule should continue payable. Some satisfactory explanation ought to be given by the Government, and if they still insisted on the meaning previously given he would ask the House to divide. As, however, the Solicitor General had a subsequent Amendment in the same clause (Clause 21, page 15, line 25) after 96 the words "has been paid," to insert "or is payable" that showed what the intention of the clause was, and that in any event the unpaid duty would have to be paid whether B's estate had paid it or not.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 23, to leave out from the word "Act," to the word "unless," in line 25.— (Mr. Bousfield. )

§ Question proposed, "That the words 'in respect of which property' stand part of the Bill."

§ MR. REID
was not quite sure that he rightly apprehended the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, but it was clear the clause could only be interpreted by retaining the words proposed to be expunged by this Amendment, because without them the whole meaning of the clause would be cut down from the Government's point of view. A declaration would be substituted that in respect of all property settled before the passing of this Act no duty at all would be payable. That was how the words would read, and there was no question of latent ambiguity or doubt. The Amendment could not be accepted, and he hoped would not be pressed.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ On Motion of Mr. R. T. REID, the following Amendments were agreed to:—

§ Page 15, line 25, after "Act," insert— or the duty payable on any representation or inventory under any Act in force before The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881.

§ Line 25, after "paid," insert "or is payable."

§ MR. BYRNE (Essex, Walstamstow)
moved, in page 16, line 1, to leave out "a" and insert "any." This was in one sense a merely clerical alteration, but was required by the Amendment which came afterwards.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Formal Amendments.

§ MR. BYRNE
moved, in page 16, line 1, leave out "which has taken effect before," and insert "whether made before or after." A rather important question of principle was raised here, and it was desirable that the words should be inserted, making the clause apply to dispositions of property 97 in the future as well as in the past. It was reasonable and fair that the same principle should be applied in cases of income of property settled by husband or wife. In other parts of the Bill similar views had been carried out. It did not seem right that where money had been settled on marriage the survivor should be called upon to pay upon his or her own property.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 1, to leave out the words "which has taken effect before," in order to insert the words "whether made before or after."—(Mr. Byrne.)

§ Question proposed, "That the words 'which has taken effect before' stand part of the Bill."

§ MR. R. T. REID
said, the question, of course, would be where the property came from. It was not right now to ask the House to enter on a discussion upon cross-remainders. The effect of the Amendment would be to apply not to these cases alone, but to all transactions whatever. It was a pity these questions should be raised over and over again, and it was really not very encouraging to the Government in their efforts to meet the views of hon. Members opposite. This point relating to husband and wife had already been exhaustively discussed in Committee, and he could not change the attitude he had then taken up.

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH
said, that if his hon. Friend went to a Division he should vote with him. He did not see why the sub-section should not be made applicable to the future. No doubt it had given rise to more than one discussion since the first proposal of the right hon. Member for Grimsby that all property passing between husband and wife should be exempted from duty. He entirely exonerated the hon. and learned Member from any charge of failing to keep his promise; but he did not think that an exact representation had been given of what then took place. He had then called attention to the possibility that surviving husbands or wives might have to pay Estate Duty on property which had been their own. That objection was entirely acceded to on the part of the Government, who acknowledged that that was not the intention, and the hon. 98 and learned Gentleman promised, if it was found to be the effect of the Bill, that he would introduce a sub-section to prevent it. Not only was there this hardship in the case of existing but also as regarded future settlements, and property should not be liable to duty in the event of again coming into the possession of the persons who had formerly possessed it. The Exchequer would not lose by this exemption, because if it were not granted, new settlements might be so made as to secure the same result. The hon. and learned Gentleman had charged the Opposition with obtaining concessions in order to get something more; but if this principle was right, it ought surely to be applied to the future as well as to the past. That was all his hon. and learned Friend desired.

§ MR. BUTCHER
could not understand why, if this exemption was justly applied to this very useful class of settlements before the Act, it should not equally apply to them after the Act came into operation. The principle had been admitted by the Solicitor General to be just and equitable, and he should support the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman well knew there were reasons familiar to all lawyers why these particular kinds of settlements were useful where the husband gave the first life interest to himself and then to his wife. He had no desire to enter into a discussion on cross-remainders, but it was hardly right for the Solicitor General to meet these objections by saying that a conveyancer would be easily able to evade payment of duty in these cases.

§ Question put.

§ The House divided:—Ayes 182; Noes 120.—(Division List, No. 185.)

MR. BOUSFLELD (Hackney, N.)
said he wished to move as a new subsection to the clause— (6.)"In the case of any land in respect of which Estate Duty is leviable, where the person accountable for the duty have elected to pay it by yearly instalments, and such land is farmed by the owner himself or person accountable for the duty, there shall be allowed in respect of every instalment of duty an abatement at the rate of 10s. per acre in respect of every acre of such land under cultivation for wheat in the year preceding the date when the instalment became due. This Amendment was designed to meet the case of the yeoman farmer or owner 99 farming his own land and to deal with a question of national importance—wheat supply. The object of the Amendment was, as far as possible, to discourage the rapid going-out of cultivation of wheat land. It was admitted on all sides that the new Estate Duty, by denuding the land of capital, would tend to turn wheat land into pasture. That was a fact which could hardly be controverted. The duty would have the effect of displacing a large number of agricultural labourers, a circumstance which was of great importance in relation to our food supply. Already two-thirds of our wheat supply came from abroad. We produced only some 7,000,000 quarters per annum, whilst we imported 30,000,000 quarters. We were every year growing more and more dependent on foreign supplies. In the event of war our Navy must be sufficient not only to protect our shores, but to keep open our lines of communication so as to enable us for a period of two or three years to keep our food supplies coming into the country month by month and week by week. No prudent man would shut his eyes to the fact that one result of a war might be to cut us off from our sources of supply and compel us to rely upon our supplies. Even if our Navy might be sufficient to prevent an enemy landing on our shores, we might find ourselves in the position of a beleagured fortress, being unable to keep open our lines of communication, and, seeing that we only kept in the country provisions for three months, the outlook was serious. In this Bill they were about to deal a blow upon the man who farmed his own land—a blow which, though it might not prevent him farming, at all events would prevent him from continuing the growth of wheat. The object of the Amendment was to enable him to go on growing wheat. The amount which he would be saved would be small—only 3s. a quarter, but that would be sufficient to induce him to go on wheat growing. More than a third of the land upon which wheat used to be grown had gone out of cultivation during the past 25 years. The danger was a growing one, and would be intensified by the system of taxation we had adopted. He did not propose to elaborate the case more. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members said 100 "Hear, hear." He was sorry they should think that an eventuality of this sort which was certainly a possibility was not a thing worth considering in relation to this new mode of taxation. He respected the cheer, however, in one sense, and would bring his remarks to a speedy conclusion. As to cost, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have no excuse on that ground. He might, even at the eleventh hour, make the concession. There were over 2,000,000 acres of land in this country under wheat cultivation. About a quarter of that would come under the Bill at a time paying the eight yearly instalments, and if a fifth of that were cultivated by the owners it would make 100,000 acres. A charge of 10s. an acre would come to £50,000, but that would only be the amount charged when the Bill came into full sweep. In the first year it would not be more than one-tenth or £500. The question of cost to the Revenue, therefore, was not a very serious matter, but he ventured to hope that it would be discussed as a question of principle. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might say that this would be introducing the thin end of the wedge of Protection. It would only be so in the sense that they would be protecting themselves against a national danger. Protection would tend to increase the price of wheat, but this proposal would have an exactly opposite effect. It would be relieving the owners of the land of a part of their burden, and enable them for national purposes to continue a particular system of cultivation.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 5, to insert, as a new sub-section, the words— (6)In the case of any land in respect of which Estate Duty is leviable, where the person accountable for the duty has elected to pay it by yearly instalments, and such land is farmed by the owner himself or person accountable for the duty, there shall be allowed in respect of every instalment of duty an abatement at the rate of 10s. per acre in respect of every acre of such land under cultivation for wheat in the year preceding the date when the instalment became due."—(Mr. Bousfield.)

§ Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
said, this was a most singular proposal, and it would have most singular effects. If such a 101 scheme was to be adopted it must be, he thought, for the successors of the present Government to propose. He must point out to the hon. and learned Member that he doubted very much whether in the agricultural interest it was advantageous to encourage the cultivation of wheat in this country, as it was considered on the whole to be the least remunerative crop that could at present be grown. It would, however, only be in cases where men died that the growth of wheat would be encouraged, and he hoped that all the owners of wheat-land would not die within a year. It was, therefore, evident that there was a large quantity of land on which wheat-growing would not be encouraged for a long series of years. He could not accept the Amendment.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 19, at end, to insert— The expression 'agricultural property' means agricultural land, pasture, and woodland, and also includes such cottages, farm buildings, farm houses, and mansion houses (together with the lands occupied therewith), as are of a character appropriate to the property."—(Mr. R. T. Reid.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)
wished to know whether by one of the curious legal fictions to which Members were now getting accustomed "lands" meant "waters"? In view of the increasing interest that was being taken in the cultivation of fish, there was an increasing value in fishponds, and such like waters, which were formerly of very little value. If the Law Officers assured him that for this purpose land was water and water was land he should be very glad to accept the assurance.

§ MR. R. T. REID
"Lands" mean waters.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ MR. R. T. REID
moved, in page 16, line 21, to leave out the words "or held upon the trusts of." He said he had accepted these words as an Amendment in Committee, thinking they were harmless. He now found that they were unnecessary, and that it would be injurious to insert them.

102

§ Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 21, to leave out the words "or held upon the trusts of."—(Mr. R. T. Reid.)

§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

§ MR. BYRNE
moved, in page 17, line 7, to leave out "whether." He said it seemed to him that a tenant-in-tail in possession was a person who might fairly be deemed to be competent to dispose of property, but that a tenant-in-tail not in possession, and who never came into possession, could not be regarded as competent to dispose.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 7, to leave out the word "whether."—(Mr. Byrne.)

§ Question, "That the word 'whether' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

§ MR. BYRNE
next moved, in page 17, line 7, to leave out "or not," and insert "and a person entitled to a base fee continuing after his death." He said he trusted that the Attorney General would give him some answer to this Amendment. When the matter was discussed in Committee he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the point was covered by one of the sections of the Act, and he (Mr. Byrne) had put the Amendment down again in order to get a definite opinion on the point.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 7, to leave out the words "or not," and insert the words "and a person entitled to a base fee continuing after his death."—(Mr. Byrne.)

§ Question proposed, "That the words 'or not' stand part of the Bill."

§ SIR J. RIGBY
said, he certainly had said that it was not necessary to provide here for the case of a lease fee not continuing after the death, and he was of the same opinion now.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ Other Amendments agreed to.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY
said, he had placed on the Paper an Amendment in page 18, line 16, to leave out from "shall," to end of line 20, and insert— mean property, whether heritable or moveable, the title to which is by any disposition 103 will, deed of entail, settlement, or other deed given to any persons in succession, whether by way of life rent, or life rents and fee, or by way of substitution. (14)For the purposes of Section five, subsection (b), the expression 'competent to dispose of such property' shall in the case of entailed property be held to apply to such institutes or heirs of entail as can disentail without consents. He said the object of the Amendment was to secure the equalisation of taxation as between England and Scotland. After considerable debate on the proposal in Committee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an undertaking that the matter would be looked into, and as a result of that undertaking he was glad to find an Amendment standing in the name of the Lord Advocate. He (Mr. Murray) could not help thinking that the method proposed in his own Amendment was, as far as draftsmanship was concerned, the better of the two, but he admitted that for all practical purposes there was no difference in the result that would be secured. He (Mr. Murray) began at the one end, and the Lord Advocate began at the other. Under these circumstances, it would be for the convenience of the House that he (Mr. Murray) should not move the Amendments standing in his name.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,) Clackmannan, &c.
then moved the Amendment standing in his name. He said, it appeared to him better to make a substantive provision on the subject than to deal with it by reference.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 20, at end, insert— Where an entailed estate passes on the death of the deceased to an institute or heir of entail who is not entitled to disentail such estate without either obtaining the consent of one or more subsequent heirs of entail, or having the consent of such one or more subsequent heirs valued and dispensed with, Settlement Estate Duty as well as Estate Duty shall be paid in respect of such estate, but neither Estate Duty nor Settlement Estate Duty shall be payable again in respect of such estate until such estate is disentailed, or until an heir of entail to whom it passes on or subsequent to the death of the institute or heir first mentioned, and who is entitled to disentail it without obtaining the consent of any subsequent heir or heirs, or having the consent of any subsequent heir or heirs valued and dispensed with, dies."—(The Lord Advocate.)

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

104

§ Amendment proposed, in page 18, after line 20, insert— Where an institute or heir of entail in possession of an entailed estate who is not entitled to disentail such estate without either obtaining the consent of one or more subsequent heirs of entail, or having the consent of such one or more subsequent heirs valued and dispensed with, has paid Estate Duty in respect of such estate, and afterwards disentails such estate, he shall be entitled to deduct from the value in money of the expectancy or interest in such estate of such one or more subsequent heirs, payable by him to them in respect of their consents having been granted or dispensed with, a proper rateable part of the Estate Duty paid by him as aforesaid."—(The Lord Advocate.)

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 32, after the word "proper," to insert— The Court may in such order specify the time and place at which, the person by whom, and the advertisement or notice after which the sale shall be made, and may ordain the person in whom the property is vested to grant a disposition thereof in favour of the purchaser, and if the person in whom the property is vested refuses or fails to do so, the Court shall grant authority to the clerk of Court to execute such disposition, and such disposition so executed shall be as valid as if it had been executed by the person in whom the property is vested."—(The Lord Advocate.)

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 42, after the word "vested," to insert— and shall be a first charge upon the property after any debt or incumbrance for which an allowance is directed to be made under this Act, in determining the value of the property for the purpose of Estate Duty."—(The Lord Advocate.)

§ Amendment agreed to.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY
said, the Amendment standing in his name upon the Paper and another Amendment that went after it dealt with two different questions, but both having relation to the same subject. He might say that this plan of applying to the Court for the granting of a charge upon an estate to the person applying, not the proprietor, was certainly unfamiliar to them, and in Committee he ventured to submit that the clause would be found to be not very workable. That remark, he thought, had been justified by the insertion of the Amendment just now by the Lord Advocate. In the clause as it stood not only would the unfortunate proprietor of an estate be bound to have the estate charged, but the result of the words used 105 would be so stringent that the remedy given against him would be very much in advance of that given in the kindred provision in the case of England. He would not only be liable to be sued as the English proprietor on the covenant in the mortgage, but he would also be liable to be distressed by summary diligence, which, if he might translate it for the benefit of the English lawyers, was equivalent to this: that he would have the same execution distressed against him as if he signed a bill of exchange for the amount; that was to say, that within six days he could be made bankrupt. He therefore hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, together with these words, which were not down on the Paper— That nothing herein contained shall make the duty recoverable by these Sub-sections (a) and (b) recoverable at any earlier time than if it had been recoverable by direct action against the persons legally liable for the duties.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
We agree.

§ Amendment proposed, in Clause 23, page 18, line 42, at end, add— Provided also that summary diligence shall not be competent thereupon."—(Mr. Graham Murray.)

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 42, at end, add— This section shall not affect the continuance after the 30th day of June, 1895, of the duties existing prior to this section taking effect."—(Mr. R. T. Reid.)

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. BIGWOOD (Middlesex, Brentwood)
said, by the Amendment standing in his name his object was to save the smaller brewer, who might be called the cottage brewer, and to ensure if possible a better description of beer finding its way to the agricultural labourer. There was a time when the Liberal Party were very anxious indeed to improve the quality of the poor man's beer and to lessen its cost, and he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in this popular and democratic Budget he could not find ways and means to relieve these unfortunate men, who might be regarded as a diminishing quantity. This Amendment was directed only to the case of the exemption of those who brewed over five quarters of malt per week—for 106 that was what a thousand barrels amounted to—and on that the increased duty amounted to 3d. per bushel, or considerably over 6 per cent. on the cost of the malt, and in the case of the smaller brewers it would amount to almost the wages of one man in the entire year. If the right hon. Gentleman could make this concession it would be very popular. Of course, it was for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether the Revenue could afford to lose so much money, and the right hon. Gentleman knew better than he did the amount which would be lost; but he (the hon. Member) was of opinion that the loss would be comparatively small compared with the good it would do. He had no wish at that time of the evening to press the matter or to repeat arguments which had been brought forward before, and he should be glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer's reply. He therefore begged leave to move his Amendment.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 21, line 10, after the word "gravity," to insert the words— But this extra Excise Duty of 6d. per gallon shall not be chargeable upon those brewing 1,000 barrels or less per annum, and a graduated and reduced duty shall be chargeable upon all persons brewing less than 5,000 and more than 1,000 barrels per annum."—(Mr. Bigwood.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
said, he feared his feeling for the brewers had been blunted by the frequently repeated assertion of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Bonsor) that under no circumstances would the brewers pay this tax at all. The hon. Member had said that over and over again, and therefore he did not see that there was any particular ground for the exemption of brewers who were not going to pay. Some people were said to be more loyalist than the King, and the hon. Member was more of a graduator than Her Majesty's Government. If they were to apply the principle of valuation to brewers, and to graduate the taxation of Excise licences according to the amount a man dealt in, they must apply it to the dealers in every commodity—to publicans, tea dealers, and so forth. But the real truth was that these small brewers had the relief already. The hon. Member 107 for Wimbledon (Mr. Bonsor) was very much surprised when he quoted the Income Tax Returns of the brewers, but out of 10,000 brewers only 2,000 paid the tax, and therefore the small brewers got the relief they desired in respect of the Income Tax if they did not pay. This was the reason why he could not accept the Amendment.

§ MR. BIGWOOD
said, that after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman he would not press the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. ROUND (Essex, N.E., Harwich)
moved the following Amendment, in page 22, line 15, at end, insert— In estimating the annual value of any lands for the purpose of Schedule B, according to The Income Tax, 1853, the General Commissioners of Income Tax for England and Wales may, if they think fit, estimate such value at less than the gross estimated rental at which such lands are assessed to the rate for the relief of the poor. In submitting this Amendment to the House he might say his object was to make it clear that the Commissioners of Income Tax might assess properties at the annual value without necessarily following the poor rate assessment. As he understood it, the law that governed assessments was the Statute of 1842. What he contended was, that sometimes the plan laid down in the Act was not followed, and that an unreasonable mode of assessment was followed, particularly in country districts where the assessment was not uniform. The poor rate assessment was often not reasonable, and the Income Tax assessments very often followed the same basis. A case occurred the other day in the County of Suffolk where an appeal was brought up at the Ipswich Quarter Sessions. In this case the farmer was assessed at double the rent, which seemed to him to be most unreasonable. All he wanted was that the Income Tax Commissioners if they thought fit should assess the property according to their own idea of the value, and should not necessarily take the poor law assessment as their basis.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 15, after the word "Act," to insert the words,— In estimating the annual value of any lands for the purpose of Schedule B, according to The Income Tax Act, 1853, the General Commissioners of Income Tax for England and Wales may, if they think fit, estimate such value at 108 less than the gross estimated rental at which such lands are assessed to the rate for the relief of the poor."—(Mr. Round.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
said, the Amendment was unnecessary because, under the existing law, the Income Tax Commissioners were not bound to take the assessment of the Assessment Commissioners. No doubt, as a rule, they would follow it, and where the assessments were well managed there was no reason why they should not do so. He thought the case referred to by the hon. Member must be a very rare one, but he could assure him that what he desired to accomplish existed already, and that the Commissioners were not bound by the assessments of the Assessment Committee.

§ MR. BARTLEY
said, it was quite true the Commissioners had the power, but it was very rarely that they used it, as they generally fell back upon the poor law assessment, and when a strong case was made out they said "have the other assessment altered, we cannot consider it until you have."

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH
said, he also knew several cases where the Surveyors of Taxes had persuaded the local Commissioners that they had not the power to reduce the assessment of the Income Tax below the assessment of the poor rate. After what the right hon. Gentleman had said as to the state of the law, in which he entirely concurred, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would direct the Inland Revenue Commissioners to issue such instructions as might set the matter right. This was a real grievance, not only in respect of the Income Tax in such cases as those referred to, but also in the case of the tithe. In those cases—many of which were to be found in Essex—where farms stood at a nominal rent, the Assessment Committees were extremely reluctant to lower the assessment of the poor rate to the actual rent of the farm, because by doing so they increased the rates falling on other occupiers in the parish, and therefore it was extremely important that the Commissioners should exercise their discretion and assess the Income Tax quite irrespective of the poor rate. If they did not, it was quite impossible for the owner of 109 the land to avail himself of the provisions of the Tithe Act of 1891; not only would he be overcharged for Income Tax, but he would be unable to obtain that relief from tithe that Parliament intended for him.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
said, that if instructions were issued he hoped the right hon. Gentleman and his friends would induce the Assessment Commissioners to estimate property at its real value.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. DARLING (Deptford)
was proceeding to move the following Amendment standing in his name— Provided that wherever the incomes of any married woman and her husband do not together amount to the sum of £500 a year, the income, profits, or gains of any such married woman shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be her own separate income, and she shall be chargeable with Income Tax thereon as though she were actually sole and unmarried."—

§ MR. SPEAKER
pointed out that the Amendment being similar to that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would be better for the hon. Gentleman to raise the discussion on the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
said, that if the Amendment of the hon. Member was negatived he should not be able to move his.

§ MR. DARLING
said, he would not like to reduce the right hon. Gentleman to such a pitiable condition.

§ MR. SPEAKER
In point of Order, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have had precedence.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
Unfortunately the hon. Gentleman seems to have moved his upon the wrong clause, upon Clause 33 instead of Clause 34.

§ MR. DARLING
said, this was a discovery that was not made in Committee; but as the Chancellor of Exchequer did not accept his Amendment, he would raise the discussion upon that of the right hon. Gentleman.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
moved, in page 22, line 42, at end, add— Where the total joint income of a husband and wife charged to Income Tax, by way either of assessment or reduction, does not exceed five hundred pounds, and, upon any claim under this section, the Commissioners for the general purposes of the Acts relating to Income Tax are satisfied that such total income includes profits of the wife derived from any profession, employ- 110 ment, or vocation chargeable under Schedule D, or from any office or employment of profit chargeable under Schedule E, they shall deal with such claim as if it were a claim for exemption, or relief, or abatement, as the case may be, in respect of such profits of the wife, and a separate claim, on the part of the husband, for exemption, or relief, or abatement in respect of the rest of such total income. He put down this Amendment in consequence of the discussion that took plaee in Committee, and to meet the case that was then referred to as worthy of consideration—namely, the case of the schoolmaster and his wife. It was said it was very hard, where a schoolmaster married a schoolmistress, that the two incomes should be added together, and Income Tax charged as though it were one income. In consequence, they had endeavoured to meet that case, and had treated the several incomes below £500 a year as having a separate abatement. This Amendment was different to that of the hon. and learned Member, inasmuch as it did not include incomes from investments. It would be obviously unfair to give a person deriving an income from investments an advantage that was not given to another individual who earned £500 a year.

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

§ MR. DARLING
said, that of course, so far as he was concerned, he could not think of opposing the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, because it conceded a great part of what he proposed in his Amendment which he brought forward in Committee. However, he could not see how it would be unjust to extend the right of exemption and abatement to women who derived their incomes from investments as well as from earnings, because if she had not married she would obtain the abatement, whether the income were desirived from invests or not, and under the Married Women's Property Act they had as full a right of spending their incomes uncontrolled, as though they had not married. It might be gratifying to the hon. Member for West Ham and others to get the matter settled in such a way as to safeguard the rights of schoolmasters, and to leave vested property out in the cold. There were a number of people who were not well off, but who had small incomes, which, taken with that of their husbands did not amount to more than £500 a 111 year, and these people received no relief whatever from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whose Amendment seemed from the very unscientific words at the beginning of it not to realise the fact that it dealt with two separate incomes of two separate persons. It began with the words "Where the total joint income of a husband and wife." What they were dealing with was not joint income at all, but two separate incomes—the one the income of the husband, and the other the income of the wife, and there was no reason for distinguishing between the case where they were earned by manual or intellectual labour and where they were the result of invested property. Of course it would be foolish to resist this Amendment, which, after all, was a concession to arguments used in Committee. He had done what he could to perfect this measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to make it worthy of the right hon. Gentleman's reputation as a financier. They had hoped the Bill would have been more logical than it would be if this Amendment were accepted instead of the one he (Mr. Darling) had put down, but of course they should do nothing in the world to defeat the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

§ MR. GROVE (West Ham, N.)
said, that both on behalf of his constituents and many thousands of working people throughout the country he thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his concession. He knew that, under the circumstances of the case, it had been difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to go so far, for the right hon. Gentleman had to guard the interests of the Public Purse at the same time as he gave consideration to the claims of those who appealed to him in a matter of this kind. It might, in fact, be said that the right hon. Gentleman had to adopt a dual personality—to be at once Hyde and Jekyll, He had to be hard, mean, stingy, avaricious and at the same time liberal, generous, open-handed, and just. But the beneficent fairy had touched the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion and led him to propose this Amendment. This was most gratifying, not only because thousands of working men and women would be benefited, but because it showed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had accepted a principle which 112 they on the side of the House had long striven for—namely, that taxation should be adjusted differently in the case of earnings, and in the case of income that principle was now once and for all adopted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would call down on his head the curses of many future Chancellors of the Exchequer, but he would also receive the blessings of many thousands of his toiling fellow subjects. It had been objected to the Amendment that it did not go far enough; but inasmuch as it relieved the claims of the necessitous and yet did not materially encroach on the Revenue, it must be admitted that on the whole a happy mean had been struck. Because the Amendment was of this character, and was thoroughly in harmony with the Liberal and Democratic spirit of the most popular Budget of modern times, he cordially supported it.

§ MR. BARTLEY
welcomed the step which had been taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This was no doubt the thin end of the wedge towards the recognition of the principle that a difference ought to be made between the taxation of industrial incomes and the taxation of spontaneous incomes. That was a principle for which he had contended many times, and he hoped that before long its application would be carried further.

MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts, Mansfield)
said, that he was afraid he should be charged with ingratitude by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said that he did not regard the concession which had been made with as much complacency as the hon. Member for West Ham. When this question was discussed in Committee the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not attempt to deal with the principle involved, but took the strictly practical objection that the Revenue would suffer to the extent of half a million, or perhaps £700,000 a year. He also urged that it would be unreasonable that the wife of a man having £10,000 a year should not have her income taxed. Then, when it was pressed upon him that relief might be given in the case of small incomes only, he promised to consider the suggestion. The result of his consideration had been that he now proposed the separate assessment of married women's incomes only when they were derived from some oc- 113 cupation or profession. But small incomes were small incomes, whether they were so derived or were derived from investments; and though the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal would, no doubt, assist many deserving persons needing such assistance, it would leave a large class of equally deserving persons in their present position as Income Tax-payers. He could not help thinking that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer's poverty, and not his will, which led him to make so limited a concession, and, if that were so, he (Mr. Williams) hoped that an improvement in the national finances would make it possible to adopt in its completeness the principle now only adopted partially. The law would then be logical, while help would be given to a large and struggling class of the community.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ On Motion of Sir W. HARCOURT, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 23, line 2, leave out from "value," to "the," in line 6, and insert "estimated otherwise than by relation to profits."

§ On Motion of Mr. R. T. REID, the following Amendments were agreed to:—

§ Page 23, line 15, after "occupier," insert "or assessable as landlord."

§ Page 23, line 19, leave out from "occupier," to "undertook," in line 20, and insert "and."

§ On Motion of Sir W. HARCOURT, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 23, line 29, at end add— Where the amount of the assessment in the case of lands (inclusive of the farmhouse and other buildings) is more than one-eighth, and in the case of any house or building (except a farmhouse or building included with lands in assessment) is more than one-sixth, below the rent, after deducting from such rent any outgoing which should by law be deducted in making the assessment, this section shall not apply.

§ MR. BARTLEY
moved, in page 23, line 36, leave out "three" and insert "five." He said he did not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept the Amendment. As the right hon. Gentleman was aware, under the present rule of the Treasury, in the case of savings banks, small penny banks, and so on, there was a rebate up to the amount of £3. But it must 114 be borne in mind that this Bill extended the rebate from £120 to £160, and, therefore, made a much larger exemption in many of these institutions. Where they had a number of these accounts the whole amount could be got back if the institutions chose to apply to the Inland Revenue Office in order to get a rebate. The work of the Office, however, would be something tremendous if all these claims were sent in.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 23, line 36, to leave out "three," and insert "five."—(Mr. Bartley.)

§ Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Bill."

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I will accept the Amendment.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ SIR R. TEMPLE
had an Amendment on the Paper on Clause 41 to leave out Sub-section (2), which provided that the instalments payable to the Naval Defence account shall cease to be payable after March 31st, 1894, and that the sum by which the aggregate payments made to that fund under Section 2 of the Naval Defence Act, 1889, before March 31st, 1894, exceed the authorised expenditure of £10,000,000, or any less sum which on the completion of the contract vessels has been actually expended on those vessels, shall be paid from that account into the Exchequer. The hon. Baronet observed that as they were now approaching the end of this Debate—[Laughter.] He did not know that there was anything extraordinary in that statement. He only desired to say that he did not intend to press his Amendment. He might, however, explain that the object of the Amendment was to show that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to appropriate a sum of £280,000, the surplus of last year's Budget, which did not belong to him, but which properly belonged to the Sinking Fund, and ought to be applied to the reduction of the National Debt. He was quite certain that this was a misappropriation of public money, but at such a late hour he would not press the Amendment.

§ On the Motion of Mr. R. T. REID, the following Amendments were agreed to:—

115

§ Schedule 1, page 27, line 21, leave out "on his death."

§ Schedule 1, page 27, line 21, after "him," insert— Under which respectively Estate Duty has been paid, or under any other disposition under which Estate Duty has been paid.

§ Schedule 2, page 27, line 32, leave out "& 44."

§ Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.