HC Deb 11 June 1894 vol 25 cc852-87

[TENTH NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 4.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY (Buteshire)

rose to move, in page 3, line 11, after "property," insert "in which case the further Estate Duty shall not be payable." The Amendment was meant to carry out what he believed was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the course of the discussions on the last day the Committee met the question of altering the phraseology of Sub-section 3 altogether came up for consideration; and until the right hon. Gentleman did that there would be no difficulty in showing that the Amendment was necessary. The clause as it stood was governed by the initial words of its first sub-section; that was to say, that it only came into effect where property liable to Estate Duty was settled by the will of the deceased, and remained settled by virtue of any disposition. The Amendment applied only to the latter of those causes. The view of the right hon. Gentleman in framing the clause was not doubtful. Put in non-technical words it was this—that if they put on 1 per cent, in respect to a settlement, then the whole of the members of the family, who took one after another under the establishment, were enfranchised of that payment of 1 per cent, in addition to the Estate Duty, which was paid at once. Take the case where a man succeeded under a disposition which was not made by himself; that was to say, where the deceased was a person who had taken under a disposition not made by himself, and where there were other takers that followed him. In that case the property would remain settled by virtue of a disposition. He would not say on which side lay the right in the controversy which had taken place on the last day between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the Opposition as to whether an estate, in technical terms, remained settled if the person who took was in a position to dispose of that estate, but he put his Amendment down from the point of view of the way it affected them in Scotland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had used phraseology which was not technical in Scotland. "Settled" had no technical meaning in Scotland. On the other hand, it was language which, if used in a popular sense, one would have no difficulty in applying to conveyancing in Scots law. Suppose property was directed to go under a settlement to various persons—A, B, C, D, in turn—it might be that when C, say, succeeded under that settlement he might be in a position in which by law he was capable of defeating the settlement altogether so far as his successors were concerned. He would be a person "competent to dispose" of such property; nevertheless, he did not do anything in his lifetime to dispose of the property. The property would remain settled and would go under the settlement, and not according to the ordinary Law of Intestacy. Under the scheme of the Government a person might be charged the 1 per cent, duty without getting any return for it.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 11, after the word "property," to insert the words "in which case the further Estate Duty shall not be payable."—(Mr. Graham Murray)

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

MR. R. T. REID

said, he did not enter into the question of what the meaning of the words "remain settled" might be. It was possible that there might be a person "competent to dispose" who might not dispose, and there might be a remainder over so that the settlement would still continue. The object of the hon. and learned Gentleman was the object of the Government, but he would suggest that instead of the some-what technical phraseology proposed the Amendment should take the following form:— During the continuance of any settlement the further Estate Duty shall not be payable more than once.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

said, those words would no doubt meet a blot in the section, but they would not meet his point. The words at the beginning of the section were absolute, that was to say, wherever an estate remained settled there must be the 1 per cent, paid on the death of the person competent to dispose. The object of the Amendment was to cover a case in which a person, who, though competent to dispose, did not do so.

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, that it was the intention of the Government that under all settlements one further Estate Duty should be paid and no more.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that the object of his hon. and learned Friend was to prevent an enfranchising fee being paid where nothing was enfranchised. Perhaps, however, it would be well for the Government to take the point into consideration between now and Report, the Committee accepting the Solicitor General's Amendment in the meantime.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, to add at the end of Sub-section (b) and during the: continuance of any settlement further Estate Duty shall not be payable more than once."—(Mr, R. T. Reid.) Question proposed, "That those words be there added.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, be objected to the word "further"; it seemed to him that the Estate Duty itself should be levied no more than once.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he did not wish to debate the matter in a hostile sense seeing that they were all intending the same thing. The clause was rather ambiguous. It said— (b) If Estate Duty has already been paid in respect of such property since the date of the settlement, neither the Estate Duty nor the further Estate Duty shall be again payable in respect thereof. The Solicitor General proposed to introduce at the end of the clause these words— During the continuance of any settlement the further Estate Duty shall not be payable more than once. Nobody was competent to dispose of property unless he had barred the entail and become possessor in fee. He hoped it would be made clear that so long as steps had not been taken to break the entail or settlement payment would only be once claimed in respect only of Estate Duty or further Estate Duty. When the process of disentail had been gone through the tenant in possession was competent to dispose and a different state of affairs would exist.

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, the Committee would do well to accept the Amendment according to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's. The words proposed would carry out the undertaking given.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

said, that perhaps when they came to look into this matter the Government would see his point. The Solicitor General's Amendment would prevent the Estate Duty being paid more than once, but his (Mr. Graham Murray's) Amendment would prevent a man paying the further Estate Duty at all if he really got nothing from the settlement.

Question put, and agreed to.

*MR. BUTCHER

said, he wished to move to add a new sub-section, as follows:— (c) If the only life interest in such property arising on the death of the deceased be that of a husband or wife of a deceased, the further Estate Duty shall not be payable. The object of the Amendment was to except cases of marriage settlement from payment of the further or 1 per cent. Estate Duty—that was to say, in cases where there was the ordinary settlement first on the husband for life, then on the wife for life, and then on the children. In this case, he thought, only Estate Duty should be paid, and not the further Estate Duty. This he took to be the intention of the Government, judging from the contents of a Parliamentary Paper issued by them and published in The Times of the 21st of April, 1894. The Parliamentary Paper contained the following:— Settled property having paid Estate Duty will be exempt from further payment of that duty during the continuance of the settlement, but in consideration of that exemption will pay an additional Estate Duty of 1 per cent. But that additional duty is not to be paid where the only life interest is that of the deceased's wife or husband. According to this, when they paid Estate Duty on the death of the husband they did not pay additional Estate Duty when the only other interest was that of the husband or wife of the deceased. The two main grounds for the Amendment were first that marriage settlements should be treated somewhat more leniently than other forms and settlements. He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman had a rooted objection to settlements both as Chancellor of the Exchequer and as a man, but his objection ought hardly to extend to marriage settlements which were really the embodiment of thrift and foresight, their object in the vast majority of cases being to make provision for the children. But he put the Amendment on a wider ground. He asked the Committee to say that property passing on the death of the husband to the wife should not be dealt with in the same way as if it passed to a stranger. He did not base his Amendment on the old legal fiction that husband and wife were one, but he did base it on the ground of the social requirements of life and on grounds of public policy. He maintained that property passing from a husband to a wife should not be treated as if it were property going out of the family altogether. In this matter the example of the Colonies might be quoted as forming a precedent. In New Zealand the wife taking from the husband who died intestate paid no duty at all. In Victoria when a person died testate or intestate the widow and children paid only half duty.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 11, after the word "property," to insert (c) And if the only life interest in such property" arising on the death of the deceased be that of a husband or wife of the deceased, the further Estate Duty shall not be payable."—(Mr. Butcher.)

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

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, that from the Government Memorandum, he gathered that the mere arrangement whereby a life interest was to be given by a wife to a husband or a husband to a wife was not to be regarded as belonging to that class of settlement by which property was so tied up that it was necessary for extra duty to be paid in respect of it.

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, the only question was how far the Amendment corresponded to the words used in the Memorandum. He understood the Memorandum to apply to the case in which a wife alone took a life interest.

SIR R. WEBSTER

Or the husband.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Or the husband.

SIR R. WEBSTER

There being no other intervening life interest.

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, as the Amendment appeared to carry out the intentions of the Government as expressed in the Memorandum, he should accept it.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. BARTLEY

said, he wished to move an Amendment to exempt settlements made prior to the passing of the Act. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, he thought, must have contemplated passing such a proviso as this, judging from something which fell from him the other evening.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 11, at end, insert— Neither Estate Duty, or further Estate Duty, shall be payable in respect of property comprised in a marriage settlement, and which does not exceed at the date of the settlement in the aggregate in value or amount the sum of £10,000, so long as such property is enjoyed under or by virtue of the settlement by the wife, husband, or issue of the settlor."—(Mr. Bartley.)

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

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, he had stated a few days ago that where settlements had been made previous to the passing of the Act they should not bear the additional duty. The Government, therefore, accepted the principle of the Amendment, but preferred to deal with it in Clause 17, which referred to all questions of distinction and of disposition previous to the passing of the Act.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 11, at end, insert— Neither Estate Duty, nor further Estate Duty, shall be payable in respect of property comprised in a marriage settlement and not in the aggregate exceeding at the date of the settlement in value or amount the sum of £10,000, so long as such property is enjoyed under or by virtue of the settlement by the wife, husband, or issue of the marriage."—(Mr. Byrne.)

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

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, they had already discussed the subject at great length, and decided upon it. He had pointed out that when a man left his money to his wife and children by will, Probate Duty had to be paid at present, but if the property was settled it did not pay duty. He did not say that these settlements were not very frequently useful, but they were, at all events, opposed to the principle of the Bill, and there was no reason why a fiscal preference of exemption should be given to them.

MR. GRANT LAWSON

said, he was afraid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had an objection to settlements of any kind.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I have never said so.

MR. GRANT LAWSON

said, the Committee would see that the Amendment had only a very limited application, applying as it did to settlements not over £10,000. His object was to protect marriage settlements in cases where the sum was a moderate one such as he took this to be. A sum of £10,000 was one which would be employed in the ordinary course for the purpose of securing that a man's widow should be provided for, and that the children should be set up in business, &c. In his opinion, it was a very hard thing that they should refuse the protection which this Amendment gave to the persons to whom this amount of money might come.

*MR. BUTCHER

said, he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that settlements ought not to be protected under any circumstances whatever. But the right hon. Gentleman in his Budget speech said that small incomes ought to be exempted fiscally. If there was to be any exemption at all it ought to apply to these small marriage settlements. He did not himself attach any special virtue to the sum of £10,000; but with regard to these small settlements, he would say that, in his opinion, it was more desirable that a man should make a settlement than a will, and he submitted that settlements ought to be encouraged by fiscal exemption. Having regard to the interests of the comparatively poor, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make this exemption.

SIR W. HARCOURT

That is exactly my difficulty. I want to equalise the disposition of property and not to encourage settlements. The Amendment is not consistent with our view of the matter.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, they had hitherto brought their batteries in vain to bear upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to this question of settlements, and it was obvious that no impression could be made upon him. He should have thought that the exemption of a marriage settlement would have appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with more force than any other; but, as he had said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would receive no impression, and he therefore recommended his hon. Friend not to proceed with the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GRANT LAWSON

moved an Amendment the object of which, he said, was to secure that settled estates should not pay the extra 1 per cent. for a benefit which the owners did not receive. He said he believed the clause had been introduced with the honest intention of protecting the owners of settled estates to a certain extent and of tempering the wind to the shorn lamb. The desire of the Government was, no doubt, that when owners of settled property had paid 1 per cent. further Estate Duty they should be protected from having to pay duty again in the next generation. It was possible, however, under the clause as it stood, that when property passed in regular succession from father to son the Estate Duty and the further Estate Duty would have to be paid on each generation. In his opinion, family settlements ought to be encouraged rather than discouraged, because regular descent from father to son was distinctly to the benefit of the farmers and the labourers on an estate. Regularity of succession was secured by breaking the succession in every generation and re-entailing. Supposing A, the present holder, were holder for life, with remainder to his son in tail, when the son B came of age or married the entail was cut off, and the land was re-settled on A for life, on B for life, and on a possible grandchild, C, in tail. Under the scheme of the Government, as soon as A died B would have to pay Estate Duty and the Extra Estate Duty. When C came of age or married, exactly the same process would be gone through, and C would have again to pay the Estate Duty and the extra Estate Duty. Thus, instead of any benefit accruing from the section to holders of the property they would from generation to generation have to pay not only the full Estate Duty, but extra Succession Duty.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 11, at end, to insert— (c) If upon the death of any person Estate Duty shall become payable in respect of any property upon which the further Estate Duty has been paid or become payable by or on behalf of such person, there shall be deducted from such Estate Duty the amount of the further Estate Duty so paid."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)

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

MR. R. T. REID

said, the object of the hon. Gentleman seemed to be that where property had been settled, and a further Estate Duty of 1 per cent, had been paid upon it, the 1 per cent, should be repaid or allowed on the next devolution of the property after the settlement had come to an end.

MR. GRANT LAWSON

said, that was not quite his meaning. His meaning was that it should be returned on the next succession.

MR. R. T. REID

said, he thought he had fairly described the effect of the proposal. The hon. Member thought that there ought to be not merely mitigation of the tax, but absolute restitution of the money that had been paid. He could not suppose the hon. Gentleman expected that this would be acceptable to the Government which had proposed the Bill. It must not be forgotten that there were cases in which the settlement lasted for many years and covered two or three generations of men. The 1 per cent. was in the nature of a compromise, and he (Mr. Reid) could not recognise that any particular class of settlement ought to be treated preferentially as against other classes of settlement provided they were all made in good faith.

MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's,) Hanover Square

The system of average and compromise is extremely pleasant to the Government, who in the end will not lose by it, but it appears to me that it will work somewhat hardly in individual cases. I think it very questionable indeed whether the broad principle laid down by the Government—namely, that of averaging cases, is a sound one. I do not think you can fairly introduce an average in taxation which will meet all cases. I quite understand that the Government are anxious to do some rough justice by this proposal, but my hon. Friend has pointed out that in individual cases injustice will be done. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentlemen denied this.

MR. R. T. REID

The right hon. Gentleman will excuse me. I do not think there is any injustice in our proposal. The re-settlement, whether it be laudable or not, is the deliberate act of the parties themselves.

MR. GOSCHEN

But in such cases the compromise will be of no advantage whatever to the parties. The inherent vice of the clause lies in the general scheme of the Government under which they average certain cases, and, by a composition, attempt to meet all cases. This is the second time in the course of this evening where it has been shown that the compromise has broken down.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he did not know that the Amendment was informed by any principle which could properly be applied to the collection of taxes, but the fact was that the whole of the Bill was devoid of the true tax-collecting principle. If the Bill were passed in its present form he would undertake to say that the confusion that would arise in endeavouring to comprehend it, and in levying the duties, would be inconceivable. He thought that everybody who knew anything of settlements and of the way in which people died out of their turn would share his feeling of absolute horror at the proposal of the Government. He bad never been able to see on what ground the extra 1 per cent, was to be levied at all. To his mind, it was a confession of the impropriety of the original Estate Duty, and a confession that the Government had not been able to cover by the Estate Duty that devolution of property which they wished to tax. He had looked through the speech which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made on introducing this plan to the House, and he found no reason assigned for this further Estate Duty except this: that the right hon. Gentleman said the duty was only to be charged once, and, therefore, they charged 1 per cent., and that if they did not do that they would lose duty. He denied altogether that they lost any duty or that settled property passed more often than property not under settlement. He would remind the Committeee that a vast part of unsettled property escaped all Death Duties because it passed inter vivos. When they came to settled property the Government said that came under their ken less often than other property, and therefore they charged an extra 1 per cent. He denied that, and he said that they had greater power over settled personalty or realty than they had over the fund of free personalty, and he therefore said that instead of levying 1 per cent, additional they ought to take off 1 per cent. He had never yet heard any valid reason assigned for levying this further Estate Duty, as it was called, but which ought to he called an extra Estate Duty. He thought the Amendment was a little difficult to apply, but he could well understand the desire of his hon. Friend to get rid of this 1 per cent, under some circumstances, and to get it back under others. He only rose, however, to protest against any further Estate Duty altogether.

SIE R. WEBSTER

said, he should not follow the hon. Member in the observations he had made on a somewhat curious duty, and his object in rising was to give fair notice to the learned Solicitor General that they would have to raise this point, if not under this Amendment, at some future stage of the Bill. They charged the Estate Duty and then a further Estate Duty, and they assumed the extra 1 per cent, was the price of extra privileges. The Amendment stated— If upon the death of any person Estate Duty shall become payable in respect of any property upon which the further Estate Duty has been paid or become payable by or on behalf of such person, or, in other words, that if the consideration failed or partially failed so that a new Estate Duty arose within the line of succession which it was intended to cover by the extra 1 per cent., in common fairness the Exchequer ought not to keep the extra 1 per cent. He (Sir R. Webster) rose because the learned Solicitor General did not seem to grasp the point. It was not that any favour was being claimed by the Mover of the Amendment, but that he was entitled to have this particular devolution of his property go without any extra payment, without any extra Estate Duty at all. He submitted it was a point that deserved consideration, and he thought it only fair to the Solicitor General to give notice that they could not preclude themselves from raising the point at some further stage, though he thought his hon. and learned Friend might be satisfied without pressing his Amendment further.

*MR. BUTCHER

said, there was one thing he should like to ask the Solicitor General, whether it was intended to charge two Estate Duties? There was a very simple case. Supposing property was settled on A for life, after his death to B for life, giving B a general power of appointment, and then to someone else, say the children. On the death of A, the first tenant for life, Estate Duty became payable and further Estate Duty would become payable. This was so under the clause. Then, when the second tenant for life died, according to the section of the clause, they charged a second Estate Duty because he was competent to appoint, having a general power of appointment, though he might never have exercised that power. On his death the property would go to the child; therefore it was plain that under those two lines they saddled the property with Estate Duty, further Estate Duty, and a second Estate Duty. He thought that ought not to be the intention of the Government.

MR. R. T. REID

It does not.

MR. BUTCHER

ventured to think that it did under the Bill as drawn. Under the case he had put, there would be two Estate Duties, and a further Estate Duty payable. As he understood, the further Estate Duty was put on as a sort of concession; instead of charging Estate Duty twice over the Government said— We will charge a further or additional Estate Duty of 1 per cent., which shall cover the entire thing. But that worked an opposite result, as he had shown in the case he had given, and he asked the learned Solicitor General to say that was not the intention of the Government, and to give effect to the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He did not for a moment suppose that the Government wished to put settlements in a worse position than other property, and yet that was the result of the clause as now drawn.

MR. BYRNE

hoped the Solicitor General would consider the question with a view to having these or some other similar words introduced into the clause. The further Estate Duty was intended, as he understood it, as a composition instead of a second Estate Duty; but if the result of paying the composition was that the persons paying it did not get the benefit they were entitled to, then it seemed only reasonable and just the amount of the composition should be returned.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he should be glad if the Solicitor General would say whether he appreciated the point.

MR. R. T. REID

I hope so; I have listened with great attention.

MR. GOSCHEN

hoped the Solicitor General not only appreciated it, but would say whether he would consider the matter between now and Report.

MR. R. T. REID

said, he had already expressed the opinion which struck him on considering the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir R. Webster) told them that unless something was suggested that would meet with general satisfaction between now and Report he (Sir R. Webster) meant to raise the whole question on Report. He (Mr. R. T. Reid) had frankly told the Committee he considered the clause a right clause, but if on consideration between now and Report he came to the conclusion that he was wrong in his opinion well and good, but at present he did not think so.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

The question of my hon. Friend was, what does the Government mean to do by the clause?

MR. R. T. REID

said, the meaning of the Government was that where a property was settled a further Estate Duty of 1 per cent, ought to be paid. He might remind the right hon. Gentleman that what they were asked to do by this Amendment was to make a repayment of this particular 1 per cent. where the advantage had turned in favour of the Exchequer by the act of the parties themselves.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, the statement of the Solicitor General was a travesty of their position, and all they asked was that the Government should not levy in a manner that would make the Estate Duty payable twice.

MR. W. AMBROSE (Middlesex, Harrow)

could not see how in any case the Government could possibly lose. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that in some cases it might operate to the advantage of the Government and in others to the advantage of the State, but he (Mr. Ambrose) failed to see how in any ease the Government could lose.

MR. R. T. REID

said, that if a father settled an estate for his own life and then to go to his son, and then to the issue, that was a case where ordinarily there would be an Estate Duty payable on the death of the father and another on the death of the son, but under the settlement only one duty would be payable.

MR. W. AMBROSE

said, that under the settlement the Government would get three Estate Duties, but if the property had been given direct to the children of the eldest son there would only have been one Estate Duty.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

said, he could understand the argument of the Solicitor General if an option were given, but no option was given; the Treasury demanded the 1 per cent. and it had to be paid. If it should turn out that the demand of the Treasury was wrong, and that a second Estate Duty was payable, surely it was only common honesty that the extra duty should be remitted. Even then the Treasury would gain an advantage, because they would have had the interest on the 1 per cent, during the time they had it in their possession.

MR. BARTLEY

said, that the Amendment he had moved earlier gave an option, and he believed that if that had been allowed a great deal of difficulty would have been removed.

MR. GRANT LAWSON

said, he did not propose to press this Amendment, not because he did not think it was important, but because he did not think that those who had not been present to hear the discussion ought to take part in the Division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BYRNE

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper which he proposed to move in two parts, unless the Solicitor General could assure him that it was dealt with under the Interpretation Clause, Section 18, Sub-section 3.

MR. R. T. REID

said, he thought it was.

MR. BYRNE

said, in that case he would not move his Amendment.

*MK. BUTCHER

said, he proposed to move, in page 3, line 11, at end, insert— If, upon the death of the deceased, a life or any less interest in such property arises to the wife or husband of the deceased, the payment of the Estate Duty and the further Estate Duty shall (if otherwise payable) be postponed till after the determination of such interest. He did not propose by this Amendment to exempt from any duty whatever, and he hoped the Solicitor General would appreciate that fact. What he did propose was simply to postpone the payment of the Estate Duty and the further Estate Duty until after the death of the wife. They had had a small concession made to-night in the direction of recognising the unity of husband and wife, but by this Amendment he wished to go one step further in the recognition of that unity, and to say that when they had a settlement which contained an interest for the husband for his life and then for the wife for life, the Estate Duty should not be payable until after the death of the wife. The reason for that was obvious, that the income of the wife should not be diminished by the payment of duty on the death of her husband, but that the duty should be payable by those who came after her. This, he thought, was a small and reasonable concession, and was really consequent upon the concession made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 11, after the last Amendment, to insert the words— If, upon the death of the deceased, a life or any less interest in such property arises to the wife or husband of the deceased, the payment of the Estate Duty and the further Estate Duty shall (if otherwise payable) be postponed till after the determination of such interest."—(Mr. Butcher.)

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

MR. R. T. REID

said, they could not accept the Amendment. It was true that earlier in the evening a concession was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and no doubt stimulated by that the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed this Amendment; but he would point out that whatever form of indul- gence should be granted, this was the most undesirable form, because it was not that the money should not be paid, but that the payment should be postponed! until the death of the wife. He could not state it upon his own authority, but he was assured by competent authorities that it would introduce very considerable confusion into the administration. Besides, the Amendment would not give relief to the poor only; the widow of the millionaire would be able to claim the indulgence with an income of £40,000 or £50,000 a year. He was sorry he could not hold out any expectation of accepting the Amendment.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he could not regard his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General as stony or flinty-hearted, and he would really appeal to him to appreciate the position, as he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman could not have remembered what had happened to-night. It was quite plain that the Solicitor General had come down that evening having forgotten all about the Treasury Paper which had been issued, whereby they pledged themselves there should not be a charge during the joint lives of husband and wife. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked about indulgence; but it was no question of indulgence—it was a question of simple abstract justice. The only argument of the Solicitor General was an administrative one. Had the hon. and learned Gentleman forgotten what the Secretary of State for India said only a few nights ago, that when there was once a Death Duty payable Somerset House had full knowledge of it? He (Sir R. Webster) said it was common knowledge to those who had to do with the administration, that when once Somerset House got knowledge, as they would in this case as in others, they watched until the death occurred and then wrote to say that the duty, whatever it might be, had become payable. He hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would make some further inquiries upon the point.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, that undoubtedly this Amendment, if adopted, would somewhat add to the administrative difficulties in the collection of the tax, but it would only add the same general difficulties that already existed in the collection of the Succession Duty, and the same kind of machinery that was kept up for the collection of the Succession Duty would be applicable to this new tax. The machinery would mainly consist of warning those concerned that the duties would become payable. He thought it hardly lay in the mouth of the Government to raise the objection of administrative difficulties. This scheme bristled with administrative difficulties, difficulties which would prove to be absolutely insuperable, and which would make the measure so unworkable that after the experience of one year, or at the most two years, any Government that was in power would find it necessary so seriously to alter it as practically to repeal it. Therefore, he said the argument of administrative difficulties was one that should not appal them—first, because they were no greater than the administrative difficulties that existed with regard to the Succession Duties; and, secondly, because they were far inferior to the difficulties of the same kind that had been created by the Government with a light heart. Look at the case of the widow. The Government had scarcely realised what they would do by this finance scheme with regard to the widows. He had appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for figures, but having failed to obtain them he had himself drawn up some tables which had taken him so much time, and which he was so proud of, that he was almost inclined to move for them as a return. These tables showed that, so far from the Bill making a diminution in the charge on small estates and in the charge upon widows and orphans, it would make an enormous addition to that charge. He would not refer to the wicked millionaire or his still more wicked wife, but would take an estate of £300. At present a widow or an orphan inheriting such an estate would pay 30s., whilst under the Bill they would have to pay £3. If a widow came into an estate of £300 under a settlement she would, instead of paying 30s. or £3, have to pay £6, or four times the present amount. Whilst the charge upon the widow would be very considerably increased by the Bill in many cases, the charge upon a stranger would be very considerably diminished. A stranger obtaining a property of £500 would have to pay £60 at present, whilst under the Bill he would only have to pay £5. Thus, whilst the amount payable by a widow inheriting a small estate would be doubled or quadrupled, the amount payable by a stranger would be positively reduced. Surely this was not the kind of tax that would reconcile itself to the sense of justice of the people of this country. There were other strange things which this table disclosed, one of them being the point raised by the Amendment of his hon. Friend. The Amendment was one that the Government might well adopt, as it only carried out the principle that was accepted earlier in the evening by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, his hon. Friend who had just sat down (Mr. Gibson Bowles) had raised an extremely important matter, and with the light the hon. Member had thrown upon it the case of the widow would have to be considered very carefully. The fact was, that every day the public outside were becoming aware how many more anomalies and injustices were concealed beneath the complicated and obscure clauses of this extraordinary Bill than they at first imagined. He trusted that his hon. Friend would pursue his studies in this matter, for the Committee had not yet got nearly enough information as to the fiscal results of the Bill. He denied that there were in this Amendment any administrative difficulties that could baffle the Inland Revenue, and particularly the department which dealt with the Death Duties, whose extraordinary omniscience and ingenuity deserved the highest compliment. The figures brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) showed that Amendments in this direction—if not this particular Amendment—ought to be presented to the Committee.

MR. BYRNE

said, he wished to add one word with reference to the attitude taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor General upon this matter. Their contention was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was now imposing a duty which combined not merely the old Probate Duty, but an increase of the old Succession and Legacy Duties, and that being so, they were entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to apply the same rules as in the case of Succession and Legacy Duties to the new Estate Duty.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 127.—(Division List, No. 87.)

MR. GRANT LAWSON

said, that at the request of his hon. Friend he desired to move the next Amendment standing in the name of his hon. Friend (Mr. Byrne)—namely, after the word "property," to insert "notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained." He did not know whether the Solicitor General had quite grasped the case presented by the Amendment, but it was undoubtedly a case of some importance. The Definition Clause, Section 18, Subsection 2, showed that such property, if property of which the deceased was competent to dispose, was liable to Estate Duty; but under Clause 2, Sub-section 2, exactly the same kind of property did not pay such duty. He therefore thought his Amendment was necessary in order to remove the confusion.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 15, after the word "property," to insert the words "notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)

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

MR. R. T. REID

said, that anyone could see that the insertion of the words would not add the slightest benefit of a financial character to the clause. The words would be mere surplusage; and the Government could not accept them. Hon. and learned Members opposite who 'moved those Amendments had their own views about the drafting of the Bill; but they should allow the Government, who was responsible for the drafting of the Bill, to hold their own views on the subject.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, that this was not a question of drafting at all. If the hon. and learned Member would look at the Bill he would find—as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Thirsk—that two clauses of it were inconsistent; that under one clause certain property was excluded, and that under another the same class of property was included. Some correcting words of the kind set forth in the Amendment were really necessary.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he would not say anything as to the point about the drafting; but he would remind the Solicitor General that it often happened that people would in the most perverse manner live beyond their time, and that others would in an equally perverse manner die out of their time. He knew, for instance, of an estate of £100,000 which was left to a person for life, and on his death to go in sums of £1,000 to 99 other persons. The life-tenant lived on for 60 years, and during his life all the 99 persons entitled to £1,000 each died. At whose death was the estate to pass? Was it on the death of the 99th person, or on the death of the life-tenant of the whole? That was a point he would like to have cleared up.

Question put, and negatived.

*MR. BUTCHER

moved, in page 3, line 16, at end, to add— Any person paying the duty payable under this section upon property comprised in a settlement, may deduct the amount of the ad valorem Stamp Duty (if any) charged on the settlement. That was not a drafting Amendment to which the Solicitor General seemed to have such an objection, for the reason, probably, that they reflected on the gentlemen—whoever they might be—who drafted the Bill. But this was a matter of substance. The object of the Amendment was substantially to put wills and settlements upon the same footing in regard to the payment of duty. Settlements paid an ad valorem Stamp Duty of 5s. per cent.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add the words— Any person paying the duty payable under this section upon property comprised in a settlement, may deduct the amount of the ad valorem Stamp Duty (if any) charged on the settlement."—(Mr. Butcher.)

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

SIR W. HARCOURT,

interposing, said, he would save the hon. and learned Gentle- man from proceeding further by accepting the Amendment. He thought it reasonable to allow the ad valorem Stamp Duty to be deducted, and therefore he was prepared to accept the Amendment if it were verbally altered so as to read "any person paying the further Estate Duty payable," &c.

MR. BUTCHER

said, that before he accepted the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman he should like to ascertain what would be the practical effect produced by the insertion of the words "further estate." He understood that in some cases of settlements only one duty was payable; and that in some cases of wills only one duty was payable. In such cases as those he would like to know what was the "further Estate Duty" on which the deduction would be allowed.

Silt W. HARCOURT

said, the deduction of the ad valorem Stamp Duty would be made in respect to the 1 per cent, that was paid on settlements.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, after the word "the," to insert the words "further estate."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

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

MR. GOSCHEN

thought that, as wills and settlements were to be placed in future upon the same footing of equality—according to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—property passing under a settlement should not be charged a higher duty than properly passing under a will. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for York with regard to further Estate Duty. But as, under the Bill, even if amended by this Amendment, property passing under a settlement would have to pay not only the Estate Duty which was paid by property which passed by will, but, in addition, the 1 per cent, that was paid on the instrument of settlement, and that being so the taxation of settlement would be actually higher than hitherto, he, therefore, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to extend the concession from the further Estate Duty to the Estate Duty itself.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was either unjust or unnecessary. If the ad valorem Stamp Duty was less than the further Estate Duty then the Amendment was unnecessary; and if the ad valorem Stamp Duty was more than the further Estate Duty, then there was not that equality between wills and settlements on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had insisted.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he had two objections to raise to the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman had not selected the right time for the deduction—the right time being when the first Estate Duty was paid; and, in the second place, some of the settlements, and those the most meritorious, would not get the allowance at all, while all of them would have to wait a longer time before getting it.

*SIR W. HARCOURT

said, that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not seem to understand the point of view from which the Government regarded the matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's said the Government did not place settlements on exactly the same footing as dispositions of property that were not settlements. Settlements were treated differently from wills in respect to the charge of 1 per cent.; but that distinctive charge was made because settlements had peculiar advantages. The Government proposed to make the allowance in respect to the ad valorem Stamp Duty on the 1 per cent, duty, but that was no reason why settlements should be relieved of the 1 per cent, duty altogether.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer had quite caught his point. He had always considered that the quarter per cent, ad valorem Stamp Duty on settlements was a kind of tax which was put on instead of a Death Duty. If that was so, if they put a definite Estate Duty on settlements equal to that imposed on wills, there was no reason why the instrument of settlement should be taxed while a will was not taxed. He believed there were many cases in which further Estate Duty would not be paid at all; but in those cases it was not in respect to the hardship of the 1 per cent, charge that he claimed the remission of the ad valorem Stamp Duty, but because as instruments of settlements would in future be taxed in the first instance, that therefore there should be an allowance for the ad valorem Stamp Duty.

MR. COURTNEY

said, that a man who was possessed of au estate might deal with it in two ways—he might make a settlement that would operate at the time of his death; or he might make a will that would operate at the time of his death; and the question was whether they would make a distinction between the fiscal treatment of those two dispositions. In the one case they had au Estate Duty plus an ad valorem Stamp Duty, and in the other case they had simply an Estate Duty. He did not see any reason for that distinction. He did not see why there should be an ad valorem Stamp Duty in the case of settlements when it did not exist in the case of wills.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 161; Noes 123.—(Division List, No. 88.)

Words, as amended, added.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

*MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, he desired to move the omission of the clause. It might fairly be asked why this extra duty should be placed on settled property. The subject raised a much larger question than the question of the amount of benefit the Revenue of the country would derive from the proposal; and that question was whether it was good for the community that the House should encourage settled estates. He ventured to say that settlements—such as settlements at marriage and settlements on children—promoted thrift; that they prevented money from being squandered and wasted, by tying it up for excellent purposes; and that, therefore, settlements were good for the community. But what would happen if they increased the expenses of settlements? No one could deny that they would thereby reduce the tendency towards careful settlements. He was not going to say that the Laws of Settlements were everything that could be desired. Indeed, there were many details of those laws which it was desirable to amend. But they had to take the Laws of Settlements as they found them, and the fact that they were not perfect was no reason why they should by the Bill discourage the creation of the best forms of settlements, in the shape of marriage settlements, by penalising them. If it were reasonable that they should tax all property with those heavy Death Duties, there was no reason whatever why those settlements should be taxed with this extra 1 per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said repeatedly that the tendency of the Bill was to reduce the duty on small estates. As a matter of fact, the clause increased the duty on small estates very heavily. They were taxing small estates under £500 one per cent.; but in the case of a settled estate of £500 the Estate Duty was actually doubled. The clause, in his opinion, ought to operate in the opposite direction, and to encourage people in every legitimate way to make provision for those whom they left behind.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he saw no reason why additional duty should be laid on property because it was settled. On the contrary, as settled property was as it were locked up in the strong box of the settlement, it could not escape the hand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it consequently deserved favourable treatment. For instance, £100,000 that was free personalty might be dissipated; the owner might spend it on rum and tobacco, and when it was gone there was no Death Duty to be paid on it. But £100,000 that was put into settlements could not run away, and could not escape the Death Duties. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he confessed, pursued settled property in this ruthless manner because he thought it was the resource of the wealthy and related to landed property in particular, and the right hon. Gentleman was determined to injure the landowner. They had heard that afternoon a tale of the sad case of the landowner that might move a heart of stone, and ought to move the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But no— The more the woes the men of Jebus bore, They still were thought God's enemies the more. But by far the largest proportion of the settlements that were made were made not of landed property, but of personalty, by comparatively poor people, such as young men at the time of their marriage. Such meritorious and thrifty provisions ought to be encouraged. An estate of £300 coming to a widow now, without settlement, would pay 30s. Under the Bill it would pay £3, and, if settled, £6. No doubt this had not been done purposely, but only foolishly and unreflectively, like so much else in the Bill. A stranger in blood inheriting £500 would, under the present law, pay £60; under the Bill he would pay £5, or, if the estate were settled, £10. A stranger in blood inheriting £1,000 would pay £120 under the present law; under the Bill he would pay only £20, or, if the estate were settled, £30. While the tax was doubled in some instances, or even quadrupled, on the widow, the stranger in blood was let off three-fourths of the tax he now paid. On an estate of £100,000 the extra tax on the widow was 37½ per cent., and on the stranger in blood only 10 per cent. This was an extraordinary state of things for a democratic Chancellor of the Exchequer to produce.

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. ROBY)

Order, order! The hon. Member is going too far into details. The question is about further Estate Duty, and not in reference to Estate Duty.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

Then I will give only one further instance of the further Estate Duty. Take the case of a million—

THE CHAIRMAN

The question is about the further Estate Duty.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

I submit, Mr. Roby, that the further Estate Duty—[Cries of "Order, order!"] I really must appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite not to interrupt—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I must request the hon. Member not to proceed further with that argument.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he very much regretted that the Chairman would not permit him to go on with the discussion of the further Estate Duty. This further Estate Duty, like the rest of the duty, seemed to him to regard the stranger with very great favour, and to deal with the widow and orphan with extreme disfavour. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite were they which destroyed widows' houses and for a pretence made long perorations.

MR. AMBROSE (Louth, S.)

said, he failed to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made out any justification for the further Estate Duty imposed by Clause 4. The right hon. Gentleman had indeed gone away from the statements which he had made in introducing the Bill. The clause was supposed to apply to settlements only, but he could find only one set of cases which would be exempt from its operation, so that instead of this being a further duty, payable in particular instances, it would practically amount to an additional 1' per cent, in almost every conceivable case. Apart from the mere question that this was an imposition, and an unfair imposition, there were social questions involved. They knew how much pain and anxiety was caused to families by the unsatisfactory and illegible character of wills, and it was certain that the encouragement of settlements would avoid much of this. If they were to have the duty regulated by the form of the bequest, efforts would be constantly made to evade the duty, and poor people would become involved in constant litigation and expense. It was, in his view, the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise the revenue he required without putting poor people to these temptations and risks. For these reasons he opposed the clause.

MR. BRODRICK (Surrey, Guildford)

said, that for the purposes of justice a widow of small means ought to pay less than at present, but under the clause she would have to pay more than a widow of large property. No doubt the object of the clause was to create an absolute equality between personalty and realty. But what about the result? In the case of a settlement created before this Bill became law, and passing to lineals, and in which one life had already expired, the amount of the settled property being £100,000 realty and £100,000 personalty, the personalty would have paid first £4,000 and then £2,000, and been cleared for the remainder of the settlement, while the realty would have paid £7,250 in all. And yet this was put forward as equality. If the property passed to a nephew, the personalty would have paid £9,000, while the realty would have paid £12,350—namely, Succession Duty before the Bill, £3,850; and, after the Bill, Estate Duty, £5,500, and Succession Duty, £3,000. He thought it was absolutely impossible that the Government could have contemplated these figures when they framed the Bill, and he wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer were now present, so that he might hear his observations upon them. While acknowledging the courteous way in which the Solicitor General had met all the points raised, he would point out that it was not by legal points, but by individual cases of hardship, that the Bill would be judged by the country at large. The taxation laid on realty under settlement by this clause would amount to half as much again as the taxation on personalty. In this there was grave inequality, which might be unintentional, but which was indefensible, unless you were to set to work to put a retrospective penalty on land. His request was that before this clause was passed the Government would hold out some hope that under Clause 17 the exemption given to personalty which had paid probate would be extended to realty, and that thus the Bill would be made to harmonise with the professions of the Government, submitted to the House when it was brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he should have thought that the Committee was entitled to an answer from the Government at all events upon some of the points that had been raised. He would do justice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the extent of saying that his temporary absence from the House was not due to any disrespect to the Committee, because he knew that during the progress of a Bill of this kind it was necessary that conferences should be held, and more information obtained upon the various points coming before the Committee. At the same time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to take care that he was represented by some one capable of dealing with those points in the Committee, and answering them. The clause had been positively riddled in its financial aspect. What an extraordinary arrangement was this "further Estate Duty," and what an extraordinary name was "further Estate Duty"! They had never heard of "further Income Tax" or "further House Duty." The Government claimed to have attained to simplicity by diminishing the number of Death Duties; but with Estate Duty, Succession Duty, Legacy Duty, and further Estate Duty, there were really four duties left. He hoped the Government would invent another and a better name for the further Estate Duty. It had been shown to be very unequal in its operation, varying from 1 to 50 per cent, of the original. He should like now to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the point urged by the hon. Member for Surrey that in Clause 17 there was an exemption which favoured personalty at the expense of realty. Clause 17 said— Estate Duty shall not be payable on the death of a deceased person in respect of personal property settled, or by a will or disposition made by a person dying before the commencement of this Act, in respect of which Property, Probate, or Account Duty has been paid. In the case of realty simply that privilege was not given. Realty had to pay more than personalty under the Bill. This unfair treatment as between the two classes of property was, as had been shown, a flaw in the Bill; and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consult with his advisers as to how it might be remedied at a subsequent stage. With regard to the clause before them, he hoped it would be amended at a further stage, but as its omission would put them in the position that the Estate Duty would have to be paid in full instead of the further Estate Duty, he hoped his hon. Friends would not persist in their opposition.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 5.

MR. BYRNE moved, in page 3, line 20, after "duty," to insert— calculated at the rate and in the manner provided by Section 7, Sub-section (6) hereof. The object of the Amendment was to show what the executor had to pay in Estate Duty as calculated on the full estate.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 20, after the word "duty," to insert the words— calculated at the rate and in the manner provided by Section 7, Sub-section (6) hereof."—(Mr. Byrne.)

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

MR. R. T. REID

said, that the wish of the Government was to leave the executor free to pay in the first instance duty approximately to what he believed to be the value of the estate, and as the Amendment would make it compulsory for the executor to pay duty as calculated the Government could not accept it.

Question put, and negatived.

*MR. BUTCHER moved, in page 3, line 21, after "property," leave out to on" in line 22, and insert— which but for the passing of this Act would be liable to the duties mentioned in Clause 1 of the First Schedule to this Act, The object of the Amendment was to secure that an executor would only be bound to pay the Estate Duty upon such kinds of property as were now subject to Probate Duty. He said that under the Bill as it stood the executor would be expected to pay Estate Duty on all personal property wherever situated, not only at home but abroad. He would also have to find out whether any property passed under settlements in connection with which the deceased had a general power of appointment, and if such property did pass he would have to pay duty upon it. The duties of an executor would thus be most extensive, and he ventured to say impracticable, and the difficulties in the way of winding-up estates would be enormously increased. At present throughout the country the estates of deceased persons were wound up at a small expense by local solicitors; but if they threw those new duties on executors he did not think it would be possible for local practitioners to deal with such cases in the future. The proposal in Sub-section 2 of Clause 5 appeared to be wholly inconsistent with the proposal in Clause 7. Under the former provision the executor had to account for all property, wherever situate, while under Sub-section 3 of Clause 7 he was accountable only for the property actually received by him. The Solicitor General had placed an Amendment on the Paper, presumably for the purpose of dealing with the differences between the two clauses. That Amendment, however, seemed to him (Mr. Butcher) to be a wholly improper one for dealing with the case, inasmuch as it referred only to cases of testamentary disposition and did not deal with cases of intestacy at all. His (Mr. Butcher's) Amendment was simple, and, he thought, carried out the intention of the Government.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 21, after the word "property," to leave out to the word "on" in line 22, in order to insert the words— which but for the passing of this Act would be liable to the duties mentioned in Clause 1 of the First Schedule to this Act."—(Mr. Butcher.)

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

SIR W. HARCOURT

The hon. and learned Member says that he entirely agrees with the view of the Government, and thinks his Amendment carries it out, but he thinks that the Amendment which the Solicitor General has drawn up with the assistance of the Inland Revenue Authorities is a very improper one. I do-not think that he should criticise every line, word, and comma of the Bill simply because he thinks that the Law Officers of the Crown and the Inland Revenue Officers know nothing about their business, and that he could draw the Bill a great deal better than they can. That really is the point of view from which we have had this Bill discussed from the beginning. He must excuse us for thinking that the gentlemen who have drawn and who have revised this Bill know quite as well as he does how it ought to be drawn. The hon. and learned Member's view of the administrative effect of the Bill is, I am informed, based upon an entire misconception of the clauses relating to administration. The provisions respecting administration are to be found in Clauses 5, 7, and 10 of the Bill. I need not say that the Inland Revenue Authorities know something about matters of administration, and they have devoted special attention to this part of the Bill. One of their main objects, of course, was to prevent the distribution of free personalty being delayed because of the existence of settled property, the amount of which might be unknown to the executor. There are three cases dealt with. The first is that in which the property of the deceased, whether land or personalty, is such that the executor is responsible for all the receipts. That case is dealt with in Clause 5. The executor, under such circumstances, declares all the property, and a certificate is given under Clause 10. The next case is one in which all the property is not of such a kind that the executor is liable to pay the duty on it, but in which, nevertheless, he is aware of the total amount of it. There is here no more difficulty than under the former case, and under Section 7 the executor is required to state all he knows. The rate of duty on the property for which he is responsible can at once be fixed. If the person accountable for the property, for the duty on which the executor is not responsible, agrees, he can pay under 5. The amount of the other property being known, there will be no difficulty in fixing the rate. I have not the advantage possessed by the hon. and learned Member of understanding these matters thoroughly, and I am guided therefore by those who do understand them, and who have drawn up these clauses. I believe that these gentlemen are aware of the circumstances with which they had to deal, and knew how they should be dealt with. I have confidence that the Government draftsmen and the Law Officers are able to express in proper terms that which the Government desire to carry out. This is really all I have to say on the matter. I do not profess to be an authority on the subject, and I am guided by those who do understand it.

MR A. J. BALFOUR

I do not rise to deal with the merits of this question, because I know almost as little about them as the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt). He has been good enough to inform us that he is quite ignorant of the merits of the question, but that he relies entirely on the officials of the Inland Revenue Department, and on the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown. Under these circumstances it would have been well if he had left the defence of the drafting of the Bill to the Law Officers, who, presumably, by his own confession, know something about it, a position in which, presumably, also by his own confession, he does not happen to stand with regard to its details. I must protest against the tone which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thought fit to assume towards my hon. and learned Friend. He has been good enough to inform the Committee that in his opinion the very eminent and able gentlemen on whom he relies for advice are infallible, that, being infallible, it is gross insolence in anyone on this side of the House to criticise them, and that even so competent a critic as my hon. and learned Friend is wasting his time and the time of the House in doing so.

SIR W. HARCOURT

He said that the Solicitor General's Amendment was not properly worded.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have no doubt that he did say the Solicitor General's Amendment did not meet the particular difficulty which my hon. and learned Friend felt with regard to this clause. Have we got to this, then, that a lawyer on this side of the House is not allowed to suggest that the Solicitor General may be mistaken in the effect of an Amendment which he has put down on the Paper? I want to know why the Solicitor General has put his Amendment down on the Paper? If the Attorney General and the Inland Revenue Officers are infallible, why have they to be put right by the Solicitor General? If the Solicitor General is qualified to improve the language of these infallible guides of the right hon. Gentleman, why may not my hon. and learned Friend improve the language of the monitor of the infallible gentleman? I am especially puzzled at the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when I recollect that the Solicitor General the other night took occasion in very graceful and appropriate language—and that he has since done the same thing again—to observe that he himself had owed something to the drafting skill of my hon. and learned Friend and had borrowed from him words which were specially calculated to carry out the intentions of the Government. My hon. and learned Friend, who has merited these compliments from one of the infallible guides of the right hon. Gentleman, is made the butt of the right hon. Gentleman's stricture and sarcasms, because on this clause he has endeavoured, as he has endeavoured on previous clauses, to suggest words which, in his opinion—and a more competent opinion there is not in this House—are better calculated to carry out the views of the Government themselves. I do not trespass long on the time of the Committee, because, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has professed himself totally incapable of dealing with the merits of the question, I do not wish to put myself on a higher level than ho, and I shall leave it to my learned Friend near me and to the Solicitor General to carry on a Debate which those who have never joined the Bar, or have left it for a considerable period, are unable, either through ignorance—[Ministerial cries of "Oh!"]—through ignorance in my case or through forgetfulness in the case of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, to conduct.

MR. BYRNE

said, that he had shared the doubts of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Butcher) with regard to this clause, and had put down a similar Amendment, which, however, was differently worded. He believed that the Solicitor General was indebted to his hon. and learned Friend, to another hon. Member, and to himself (Mr. Byrne) for the suggestion contained in the Amendment he (Mr. R. T. Reid) had placed lower down on the Paper. His hon. and learned Friend and himself might be mistaken about this clause, but they were not content to take it that they were mistaken merely because they did not happen to agree with those who advised the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

*MR. BUTCHER

said, he was surprised and a good deal amused at the personal attack which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had chosen to make upon him, all the more because the right hon. Gentleman had been good enough earlier in the evening to accept from him two Amendments of a not unimportant character. The right hon. Gentleman thought it was open to him to accept Amendments of substance and importance from Members of the Opposition, but that it was beyond his province to accept Amendments on matters of form, and that it was insolent and impertinent for Members to offer such Amendments. He confessed he did not see the reason for that distinction, and, in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might not see fit to impute motives which he did not accept, he (Mr. Butcher) wished on his own behalf to repudiate that infallibility which the right hon. Gentleman assumed for his draftsmen. These clauses were no doubt drawn by the best authorities, but no draftsman he (Mr. Butcher) had ever heard of would refuse to accept advice on points that might not have occurred to him. In putting down Amendments on points of drafting he had wished merely to suggest points for the consideration of the Government, without asserting for a moment that his Amendments were necessarily the best, and he was bound to say that some of them had been accepted by the Solicitor General with a courtesy which left nothing to be desired.

SIR R. WEBSTER

remarked, that the attack which had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the hon. and learned Member for York was perfectly unjustified, and he was convinced that when they came to the Amendment of the Solicitor General the hon. and learned Gentleman would admit himself that it had been framed so as only partially to meet one part of the case, and that it would be absolutely essential to amend it in order that cases of intestacy might be included. He mentioned that in order to show the gentleman who wrote out on paper the observations for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to read off in reply to the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend, that he had not applied his mind to the subject now before them. He was quite sure when this matter was discussed on its merits that the Solicitor General was too generous to endorse, at any rate outside this House, the observations respecting the conduct of the hon. and learned Member for Essex, who had assisted the Government to make many Amendments in past clauses of the Bill. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that by coming down to the House and making personal attacks he was going to assist the progress of this Bill he made a great mistake. The hon. and learned Member argued that this Amendment was absolutely necessary if this part of the clause was to be at all workable. It was not a case of drafting but of substance, and if his hon. Friend went to a Division he should support him.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 148; Noes 117.—(Division List, No. 89.)

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.