COMMITTEE. [Progress, 12th June.]

HC Deb 14 June 1894 vol 25 cc1102-62

[TWELFTH NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 5.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.)

said, he desired to move an Amendment providing that the Estate Duty may, at the option of the person paying the duty, be paid either on the delivery of the account or with interest "from the date of such delivery" at the rate of 3 per cent, by eight yearly instalments. He did not think any explanation was necessary, but he would like to take that opportunity of suggesting to the Government that it was desirable, in view of the alterations already made, to have the Bill reprinted and circulated with the Votes.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 35, after the word "interest," to insert the words "from the date of such delivery."—(Sir M. Hicks-Beach.)

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Mr. R. T. REID,&c.) Dumfries,

said, that the Government and the right hon. Gentleman were aiming to attain the same end. He suggested the insertion of words to the effect that the interest should be paid from the date of such delivery, or on the expiration of six months after the death, whichever first happens.

MR. GRANT LAWSON (York, N.E., Thirsk)

said, he had intended to move an Amendment on the same subject, but this would meet his view.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to insert, after the word "delivery," the words, Or on the expiration of six months after the death, whichever first happens."—(Mr. R. T. Reid.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the said proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

*MR. JOHNSON-FERGUSON (Leicester, Loughborough)

I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. The object of it is to enable the Income Tax to be deducted from the interest on the unpaid instalments of the extra duty on real property.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 36, after the words "per annum," to insert the words "less Income Tax."-—(Mr. Johnson-Ferguson.)

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

*MR. JOHNSON-FERGUSON

said, the next Amendment in his name was covered by the Amendment first proposed by the Solicitor General, and he need not, therefore, move it.

*MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)

said, he wished to move an Amendment to line 36, providing that the interest should be at the rate of 3 per cent, per annum "on any amount left unpaid after the expiration of four years." Possibly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not realised the difficulty in raising money to pay the Death Duty on real estate, and he could assure him that that difficulty would be greatly enhanced by the increase on the Duties. This difficulty had been recognised in former years by the Legislature, and he did think it was only reasonable to allow time in which to find the money. This was an opportunity for making a graceful concession which would cost the Treasury very little. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to give them at least four years' grace in which to raise the money, and if it was not so raised at the end of that time interest could be charged upon the amount.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 36, after the word "annum," to insert the words— on any amount left unpaid after the expiration of four years."—(Mr. Jeffreys.)

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

MR. R. T. REID

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing this Bill, pointed out that an allowance would be made under Clause 2, and that only a moderate rate of 3 per cent, was to be charged. Now the hon. Gentleman was proposing that there should be a further allowance, and that the interest should not be payable until after the expiration of four years. Real estate would not pay the interest, but he was afraid that in the case of personalty they could not postpone the taking of interest for four years.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, he thought that on principles of justice this concession ought to be made. The Solicitor General had told them that real estate was more easily collected upon than personalty, and that while the legatee or beneficiary of personalty was required to pay down, real estate had the benefit of the spreading of the payments over eight years. Was it not mocking the House to pretend that there was any distinction in favour of real estate when in the end it came to the same thing? If you called upon a man to pay a sum of money down or to pay it within eight years with interest it came to the same thing. He would point out that 3 per cent, interest was extremely high in respect of a duty for which they had perfect security. To charge any interest at all seemed to him to be altogether unnecessary. Where a man came into a number of golden sovereigns he could take a certain number of them out of the heap and pay the duty to the Exchequer. But that could not be done in the case of real estate. It was necessary first to wait for the income to come in. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer might very reasonably accept this proposal.

*SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)

said, time was given on account of the impossibility of realising such property in a short time; that being so, and as land did not pay more than 2 per cent., it did not seem fair to insist on 3 per cent.

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

said, he would join in the appeal of the hon. Gentleman behind him. He understood that the Solicitor General objected to this proposal because he thought it would interfere with the arrangement by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to secure equality between the two classes of property. It was impossible that there should be any such equality because of the nature of the property with which they had to deal. The burden of the duty must inevitably fall more heavily upon real than upon personal property. Why should they place real property under an additional burden at the present time? Its position, bad as it was, would be worse under the present Bill than before. This concession ought certainly to be made to real property.

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.)

said, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten that leasehold property was at the present moment subject to the payment of Probate Duty, and no time was allowed. The Government thought they were making a very just, proposal when they put in the provision that the payments should be extended over eight years. They treated both classes of property alike, hut in the case of real estate the instalments were spread over eight years, and for that prolongation of time they asked for interest on the instalments in arrear. The right hon. Gentleman objected to interest at the rate of 3 per cent., but he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) did not know of any case in which a less charge would be made. It was true that money was very cheap now, but on the whole he did not think there was any cause for complaint. There were many points about the Bill which must show hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Government wanted to treat the case of real estate in a fair manner. It was, however, a question of maintaining equality of treatment of the two classes of property, and upon that ground they took exception to the Amendment.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR (Leeds, Central)

said, there were anomalies under the existing system of Death Duties which it appeared to him this Bill increased. The Government had undertaken to remove these anomalies, but what they were really doing was to use them as an excuse for further anomalies and the imposition of serious injustices.

MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)

said, he thought the Secretary for India had failed to see the point of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London. They levied a duty upon au estate, and while the money was being raised they charged it with interest at 3 per cent.

MR. BRODRICK (Surrey, Guildford)

appealed to the Government to reconsider their position in this matter. The Secretary for India (Mr. Fowler), he said, had in effect admitted that the leaseholders had a grievance owing to the way in which the law was now administered. If that were the case he asked the Government to set to work and redress the grievance instead of applying it to real property as well as to leaseholds. He could not see why the Government should not put real property in the same position as personalty in this respect. The owner of personalty would be able to obtain cash to pay the duty, whilst it was absolutely certain that every landowner would have to borrow in order to pay the first instalment. He would have to pay 5 per cent, interest to his banker for the loan in order to pay the Government 3 per cent. He appealed to the Government to do a simple act of justice and to refrain from forcing the landowner who had not received the income of his property from his tenants to pay interest on money which he had not obtained.

MR. GRANT LAWSON

pointed out that in 1888 an opportunity was given to those liable for Death Duties to pay either in four years or in eight years, it being provided that 4 per cent, interest should be paid during the last four or eight years if the longer period were availed of. Inasmuch as the Committee had decided that the interest was to date from the death of the deceased the result would be an addition of 13½ per cent, to the tax.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

said, that if a landowner were anxious to pay up his duty he would only be able to do so in two ways if he had not ready money. He would have either to borrow the money from his banker, in which case he would pay 5 per cent., or borrow it on mortgage, in which case he would not pay less than 4 per cent. Therefore, the interest which the Solicitor General described as a moderate interest of 3 per cent, would practically amount in a case of this kind certainly to 4 per cent., and possibly to 5 per cent.

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

thought the Amendment ought to be carried in the interest of the Treasury, who would certainly desire to get the money in as soon as possible. He would suggest, however, that the hon. Member opposite might withdraw the Amendment in favour of one which he (Mr. Heneage) had placed lower down on the Paper.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.)

A point was alluded to by the Secretary for India which I think is well worthy the attention of Her Majesty's Government, whatever decision they may come to on this particular proposal. The right hon. Gentleman stated, I think with great force, that a great injustice was at present perpetrated with regard to leaseholds which had to pay-duty at once, as compared with realty, which is allowed a certain time in which to pay the duty. I think the Government ought to have taken into consideration the position of these leaseholds. Why in the world if they propose, as they very properly do, that time should be given to realty for the payment of the Death Duties, should not time also be given to leaseholds, which will certainly have as great difficulty in finding money at once as realty can possibly have? It may be too late to deal with the question at this stage, but I would ask the Secretary for India whether he does not think that, in fairness, whatever boon is given to realty should also be extended tol,easehold property?

MR. JEFFREYS

said, the Solicitor General had stated that the Government were granting landowners easier terms. That was just the kind of thing that was said by money-lenders in their circulars. The proposal of the Government would force landowners to run into debt with the Government. Not only did the Government burden landowners with an extra Death Duty, but it charged interest on that duty, and this had never been done before.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 192; Noes 218.—(Division List, No. 115.)

*MR. JOHNSON-FERGUSON (Leicester, Loughborough) moved, in page 3, line 36, to leave out "eight equal," and insert "not more than sixteen equal half." The object of the Amendment, he explained, was to enable the instalments in the ease of land to be paid half-yearly in place of yearly. The reason was obvious. The rents were usually paid half-yearly, and therefore it was more easy to pay the money each half year into Somerset House rather than to pay it into the bank—where they would get a very small interest—and then pay it over to the Treasury at the end of the year. It did not in any way affect the amount paid, or the time when the entire Estate Duty would have been paid, and he therefore hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 36, to leave the words "eight equal," and insert the words "not more than sixteen equal half."—(Mr. Johnson-Ferguson.)

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

MR. R. T. REID

said, the proposal of his hon. Friend was that, instead of paying by eight annual, the duty should be paid by 16 half-yearly instalments. He was told that, from the administrative point of view, there would be considerable difficulty if the Amendment were adopted, for the very obvious reason that a new computation would then have to be made each half-year instead of each year, which would lead to considerable additional labour in the office. Of course, in the substance, there was no difference between 16 half-years and 8 years; but having regard to the administrative difficulty, he hoped his hon. Friend would leave the Bill as it was.

MR. HENEAGE

asked, how would there be any difficulty in the future which there was not at the present time? At the present time the standard way of paying all instalments in respect of realty was by half-yearly payments. What, therefore, was the difficulty under this Amendment which did not exist now?

MR. E. T. REID

said, he did not doubt that it could be done, hut the point was the administrative difficulty. Of course, it was more easy to make a computation once a year than to have to make two computations in the course of the year.

*SIR J. LUBBOCK

said, the administrative difficulty was very slight and might be easily overcome. He hoped, therefore, the Government would accept the Amendment.

MR. R. T. REID

said, if there was any feeling upon the subject in the Committee, the Government would inquire again from the administrative officers and see if the Amendment could be carried out without serious difficulty.

*MR. JOHNSON-FERGUSON

could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that he had consulted a large number of Members in the House connected with laud, and they all thought it desirable the instalments should be paid half-yearly rather than yearly.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

observed that up to a very recent period the Succession Duty was always paid half-yearly, therefore he thought they might assume at once there would be no difficulty at all as regarded Somerset House.

*SIR MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbright)

considered that the Amendment was one which the Government might well concede, as it was a great hardship to have to pay 3 per cent, to the Government on unpaid intalments. Their agricultural rents were often paid long after they were due, and when paid, carried no interest at their bankers.

*MR. JOHNSON-FERGUSON

said, that as the Solicitor General had undertaken to consider the matter he was quite willing to withdraw the Amendment on the clear understanding that on the Report stage the matter should be considered again.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. R. T. REID moved, in page 3, line 37, after "instalments," to insert— The first of which shall be paid at the expiration of 12 months from the death with interest at the said rate, from the date of the death. This Amendment, he said, was to provide for what had not been stated in the Bill—namely, when the first instalment should be payable. What was proposed was to say that the first instalment should be paid at the expiration of 12 months from the death. The rest of the Amendment dealt with the question of interest and specified the date from which the interest was to spring. The right hon. Member for Bristol had proposed an Amendment earlier in this Debate which the Government had accepted, and therefore he proposed to move the Amendment in the following form:— The first of which shall at the expiration of 12 months from the death with interest at the said rate, referring back to what was already arranged on the previous Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 37, after the word "instalments," to insert the words— The first of which shall be paid at the expiration of 12 months from the death with interest at the said rate."—(Mr. R. T. Reid.")

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

*MR. BRODRICK

said, he did not think they quite clearly appreciated whether the interest would be payable from the death or from the delivery of the account.

MR. R. T. REID

said, the interest was to be payable after the expiration of six months from death or the delivery of the account, whichever first happened. This had been decided by the Amendment moved by the Member for Bristol, which the Government had accepted, and! this Amendment merely referred to the previous decision, saying "the said1 interest"; therefore it was to commence six months after the death or delivery of the account.

*MR. BRODRICK

said, this did not meet their views. The Government, in claiming interest practically from the date of the death, were asking them to pay interest on what they had not got, and were asking people to borrow in order to pay such interest. He should, therefore, propose to amend the proposed Amendment by omitting the words "with interest at the said rate."

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "with interest at the said rate."—(Mr. Brodrick.)

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

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

wished the Government would make up their own mind about their own Bill. In Clause 15 they had it set forth as the intention of the Government that the duty on real estate should be payable from the expiration of 12 months after the date of the death. The intention of the Government originally was that the instalments should become payable, and interest begin to accrue, if at all, at 12 months after the date of the death. But now what did the Solicitor General want them to do? To agree that the interest should begin to accrue six months after death or delivery of the account whichever should first happen. What did the Government mean by framing Clause 15? and, again, what did they mean by Clause 7, which set forth that— The existing law and practice relating to any duties mentioned in the First Schedule of this Act shall, subject to this Act, apply for the purpose of the collection and recovery of the Estate Duty. But the law and practice relating to duties mentioned in the First Schedule were the law and practice relating to the Succession Duty on real estate among others; therefore, twice had the Government expressed their intention when the Bill was originally drawn that the Succession Duty account should be delivered 12 months after the date of the death, as was now the practice, and that the first instalment should be due, as now, 12 months after the death, and now the Solicitor General wanted them to agree that the first instalment should be paid 12 months after, but treated as if it was due at six months. If that was so, it was monstrous. He should like to know whether the lion, and learned Gentleman intended to stand by Clauses 15 and 7 as they originally stood, or to the Amendment? There was a serious discrepancy between the two systems. He hoped the Solicitor General would bring this clause into accord with the true practice—that was to say, that in the case of real estate the first duty should be paid 12 months after the date of the death, and not six months.

MK. CHAPLIN

said, surely this was a most extraordinary proposal. The Committee would observe that the instalment was not to be due until the expiration of 12 months; that was, the debt had not been incurred until the expiration of 12 months. What the Government were, therefore, asking was that the unfortunate successor should be called upon to pay interest on a debt which was not a debt, which had not accrued, and upon an instalment which was not to be due until many months afterwards. It seemed to him that that was the most extraordinary proposal ever made by a Government, and he hoped, therefore, the Amendment to the Amendment now proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Guildford would be accepted.

*SIR J. LUBBOCK

observed that by their proposal the Government were making a special claim for themselves which nobody else preferred.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

asked the Solicitor General whether the inclusion or the omission of these words would have any effect whatever? They had already decided to leave out the words "said interest," so that it was no use fighting over words which would have no effect. Either the words "said interest" meant nothing or their omission meant nothing.

MR. R. T. REID

did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who, if he had the whole wording of the clause before him, would see that it was desirable to appoint the time when the first instalment was to be paid, and then also the time when the first portion of the interest should be paid. His right hon. Friend would look in vain to any part of this clause which would tell him when the first instalment and the interest was to be paid.

MR. COURTNEY

If so, the words "said interest" mean nothing, because you have not explained what it is, or when it begins.

MR. R. T. REID

was not sure that his mind travelled with the agility of his right hon. Friend's. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was inaccurate in saying these words meant nothing. The first described the period at which the first instalment was to be paid, and then, in order to provide for what was not otherwise expressed, they said that the interest was to be payable at the same time. He preferred the words as they originally stood, but the matter was not of much importance. With reference to the words "interest at the said rate," the interest would be 3 per cent., and the Amendment specified when it became payable. He must make this observation. In consequence of the decision of Mr. Arthur O'Connor in the Chair on the previous occasion, an unanticipated difficulty arose, which, as he said at the time, made it desirable to accept an earlier Amendment, with the view to put the words right on the Report. Any gentlemen who followed the matter closely would see that more corrections would be needed unless these words were inserted, which merely specified when the instalments and interest appertaining thereto were payable.

MR. GRANT LAWSON

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations were a reflection on the draftsman of the Bill. The Solicitor General said there was no statement in the Bill as to when the interest was to be paid. He desired to defend the draftsman. A little lower down in the Bill occurred the words— The interest on the unpaid portion of the debt will be added to the annual instalments and paid accordingly.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

observed, that unless the interest was put in it would be left out, and if left out the person who paid the instalment would not have to pay interest, which was what they wanted.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, there was no reflection on either the draftsman of the Bill or anyone else. On the last night there was considerable discussion on this clause, and when the Government accepted the Amendment then proposed it was understood that the whole question of the wording of this clause would be considered. He thought that if they made any attempt now to "botch" it more they would land themselves into worse difficulties. [Opposition cheers.] He could quite understand that cheer. He was not going to say who was to blame, but the Amendment which had been introduced into the clause in consequence of a ruling from the Chair had created the difficulty. He frankly admitted that there was a case to be met with reference to the payment of interest. What he was authorised to state on behalf of his right hon. Friend was that he would be prepared, when he had to consider the Resolution which would have to make the change in the wording of the clause, to consider favourably the question of the interest on the first instalments; therefore, he asked the Committee to accept the Amendment of the Solicitor General.

MR. BRODRICK

said, that on this understanding, he would not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (Mr. R. T. Reid) agreed to.

MR. HENEAGE moved, in page 3, line 37, after "instalments," to insert— or in such other manner as the person or persons paying the duty may arrange with the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue on delivery of the account. The object of the Amendment, he explained, was to give more elasticity to the clause. At the present moment there were only two ways in which the duty could be paid—namely, either at the moment of the delivery of the account or by instalments, with interest, extending over a series of years. The administrator was bound by this clause to pay the Estate Duty on the whole sum total of the estate, whatever it comprised. Suppose that under a will all the beneficiaries were to receive what was left them free of duty, the residuary legatee might find himself compelled to pay the whole of the duty, and surely it should be left to him to go to Somerset House and say, "I can pay three, four, five, or six instalments down on the nail, but cannot pay the whole. If you will accept them and relieve me of the payment of interest on them I am perfectly ready to pay them over, provided you do not call upon me to pay the remainder of the Estate Duty until the other instalments become due." Again, take another case. Each beneficiary had to pay his own Estate Duty, and the executor had to recover it under Clause 12. Some of these beneficiaries might desire to pay the Estate Duty at once, thereby relieving their portion of the property from the Act. The executor might be able to go to Somerset House and say he could pay the duty on behalf of all the smaller beneficiaries under the will, but would not pay for the residuary legatee who had received the landed property. Why should the executor be debarred from relieving himself of that burden? The object of the Amendment was to give, in addition to the two modes of payment already provided, a free hand to deal with the executor and administrator when it was in the interest alike of the Treasury itself and of those who had to pay the duty to come quickly to terms and be relieved from the Act. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 37, after the word "instalments," to insert the words— or in such other manner as the person or persons paying the duty may arrange with the Commissioners of the Inland revenue on delivery of the account."—(Mr. Heneage.)

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

MR. R. T. REID

said, his right hon. Friend was desirous that there should be power in substance to the Commissioners to make arrangements suitable to each particular case when particular cases arose. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to the desirability of this; but he wished to inform him that the Commissioners already had the power to do this; that they were constantly in the habit of doing it, and that these words were quite superfluous, because the power was possessed already and was given by Clause 7, Sub-section 1, which incorporated the existing law and practice.

MR. HENEAGE

said, if this power was in the Bill already in accordance with some older Statutes, then it would meet his point, but he was under the impression that the Bill over-rode altogether the old practice, because such old practice was entirely opposed to the present Bill.

MR. CARSON

considered there was a serious question here as to whether the practice referred to would prevail in the event of the Bill passing in its present form. The first section of Clause 7 only established the "existing law and practice subject to the provisions of this Act," and if by this 4th sub-section they specifically laid down that the only method by which they could pay instalments with the interest was upon the date there indicated they took away from the Commissioners all the existing power to enable payment to be made at other times. He submitted that as there was a question, if they passed the Bill in its present shape, whether the previously existing practice would prevail, no reason existed why they should not have these very plain and simple words moved by the Member for Grimsby put into the Bill.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

observed that the Commissioners had ample power to make any terms they pleased as to composition or otherwise with regard to the duties, and they would, he considered, continue to have that power under this clause. The only way, indeed, in which the Bill could be made workable at all would be by a very large exercise of the compounding powers under Clause 11 and by an equally large exercise of the powers already possessed by the Commissioners. The assurance given by the Solicitor General would, however, meet the case; and he would not object to the Amendment being withdrawn, as they were all so anxious to get on with the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. POWELL WILLIAMS (Birmingham, S.) moved, on behalf of the hon. Member for North St. Pancras, an Amendment for the remission of unpaid instalments in the event of fresh Estate Duty becoming payable. He pointed out that obviously if the holder died at any time before instalments already due over a series of years were paid a double duty would be put upon the estate", and the pressure might be so great as to ruin the successor. In the event of the estate again falling in, it was, therefore, only reasonable that the amount of the unpaid duty in the first instance should be remitted.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add the words— In the event of any fresh Estate Duty accruing before any unpaid instalments have become payable, the unpaid instalments shall be remitted and such fresh Estate Duty only shall be payable."—(Mr. Powell Williams.)

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

MR. R. T. REID

said, that the Amendment would create a great inequality between realty and personalty in favour of realty, and for that reason therefore it could not be accepted. It sinned against the cardinal principle of the Bill, which was that when death took place a portion of the property belonged to the State, and was payable as duty, which was due to the State before anybody could share in the property. He hoped, therefore, that the how. Member would not insist on the Amendment.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said, the Bill took away a slight concession in favour of realty that had hitherto existed as compared with personalty. The burdens upon realty were being greatly increased, while personalty was not to suffer in the same way. Under the Bill as it at present stood there might be on three successions within a short period three annual charges of £330 each on a property producing£1,000 a year, leaving 10 sovereigns to the owner with which to conduct the estate. The result would be that such small estates would be obliterated; and he therefore claimed that the Amendment was necessary on the grounds both of justice and expediency. Its character ought to recommend it to the legal and practical advisers of the Government, who had stated their desire to see the Bill divested of either undue harshness or inequality. He heartily supported the Amendment.

MR. BYRNE (Essex, Walthamstow)

also strongly supported the Amendment. The Government had already admitted the principle that realty should be treated in a different way from personalty, and had created a charge upon the capital of the laud which would endure until the last of the instalments was paid. What might be called a concession in favour of realty undoubtedly existed at present, and that concession arose from the difference between the two subject-matters. To the charge which the Government was now creating might be added a second and a third charge upon the estate falling in, in succession, and it was quite possible that the amount of the duty during a certain number of years would be actually more than the income which the property was producing. Supposing a man paid the instalments during the whole period that he had been in enjoyment, this Amendment was quite fair, and was only following the precedent already adopted in the Succession Duty Act. The Government would not spread the payment over eight years if they did not anticipate that the man in enjoyment would live during that period. If he died there would be an unexpected accretion to the funds of the State, and it was therefore only fair and reasonable that the outstanding instalments of the former charge should be remitted.

MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

said, that if the Government insisted on the Bill as it stood it would add a considerable terror to the inheritance of real estate at all. A man would then probably be able to say, "I should be very well off indeed if some fool had not left me au estate." The Amendment was perfectly fair and reasonable, and he must press it to a Division.

SIR J. DORINGTON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)

said, there was hardly au acre of country in England which did not contain a population dependent upon the estate upon which they were living. The Government appeared not to realise that they were about to inflict a great disaster upon the country. There was A speech reported in the newspapers today which bore strongly upon this matter. Spoken as it was in the midst of a district which was largely indebted to the munificence of the noble owners, he could not help thinking it would create a sensation in the country, especially when it came to be understood what these duties really meant. They would sweep away estate owners out of our country districts and bring in their property for the purposes of the Exchequer.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)

said, he really must press the Government to say whether they meant to inflict the obvious and gross injustice of taking from the same corpus of property in a short number of years the whole extent of frequent Succession Duties where instalments remained unpaid of the previous ones. The Government might urge that on the average the inequality righted itself. That was all very well from the Treasury point of view, but what consolation was it to the unfortunate owner? An instance happened last year where property fell successively to three maiden ladies—all with in the year. Under the Bill that property would actually be mulcted to the full extent three times in one year. Could any human being say that was an equitable mode of taxation? As to the argument of the Solicitor General, all that was pleaded for was that realty, when not settled, should be treated as personalty when it was settled. But to say that a particular family was to be wiped out of existence because it had the misfortune to lose three of its members in a short space of time was so gross an injustice that the Government ought to exercise their ingenuity to discover some method whereby the injustice would be obviated. He could only press the matter upon hon. Members', opposite, sense of justice and equity, for the Amendment would certainly remedy one great blot in the Bill.

MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

desired to say one word for the purpose of pointing out what the Amendment really was, and what the effect of the Bill would be if it was not carried. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had pointed out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if the estate in the case he cited was of such value as to be chargeable with the 8 per cent, duty, it would in that year have been denuded of one-fourth of its value. He would only ask the Committee, was that a fair thing?

SIR W. HARCOURT

(who was indistinctly heard) was understood to say that the hardship arising where the lapse of successive lives came close together occurred under the present Probate Duty. In point of fact, the same thing applied even in the Succession Duty, because supposing a man succeeded to an estate in fee simple and died a week after, and his brother succeeded, there might very well be two demands upon the estate at the same time. Therefore, the Opposition were raising against the Bill an objection which applied to the existing law. There always bad been inequalities in relation to the Death Duties. He regarded the Estate Duty as a commuted tax upon property, instead of a tax levied during the owner's lifetime. Supposing three or four people succeeded to one another in fee simple at short intervals; under the Succession Duty the full charge would remain upon all three or four lives. He quite admitted that such an inequality as was suggested might exist, but it was an inequality that could not be remedied as-regarded land or real property alone; it was an inequality that existed equally in respect to personalty.

MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

said, he could agree with the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer but for one thing, and that was that it made all the difference whether they charged 1 per cent, all over the property three times in the year, or whether they charged 6 or 8 per cent, on the year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted money, and did not seem to care very much how lie got it, and he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should add to the beatitudes—"Blessed are the merciless, for they shall obtain money."

MR. W. AMBROSE (Middlesex, Harrow)

said, the Acts now in force did contain the principle which was involved in this Amendment, and if they were to-decide between the two, lie would suggest the rule should apply to life estates, that the instalment should cease-with the life estate, as that was the more reasonable. It was a mistake to suppose they were treating matters equally when the circumstances were different. If two things were wholly different it was a mistake to suppose there was any inequality in treating them differently. It was untrue to suggest that the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Legislature dealt equally in respect of all cases; they did not do so even with regard to personal property. If so, why did they admit certain manufactured goods duty free, whilst other goods, like tobacco, were subject to duty? The fact was that they could not treat them equally on account of the economic reasons that entered into the question. In regard to the Stamp Duty, matters were not equally dealt with. Stamped deeds with regard to land paid duty, whilst transfers of Consols escaped duty. A million of money was raised by the Land Tax, £2,000,000 sterling by the House Duty, which together with the Stamp Duty made £5,000,000 sterling of duty raised on land, to which personal property was not subjected. While they had these differences recognised by the Legislature and the Treasury, it was idle to talk about its being unequal to make these differences. He said it was absolutely necessary if they were to do justice to accept the Amendment. It was gross oppression to say that an owner should be called upon to pay the Estate Duty when it meant the destruction of the property. The Treasury ought to he satisfied with the new instead of the old duty, and therefore he supported the Amendment.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

said, he had not intended to take part in the discussion, but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did him the honour to refer to an argument he used on a former occasion. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not accept the defence of the Budget that he (Mr. Courtney) volunteered, perhaps because he did not understand it, but the truth was that the right hon. Gentleman reiterated himself precisely the same thing. What he (Mr. Courtney) ventured to say was, that if they could carry out an ideal system of taxation they would tax every person every year in proportion to his ability to pay in that year. That was the proper system, but they were incapable of carrying it out. The principle of the Death Duties was the payment of arrears of valuation made good on death. That being the principle, he was glad to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself agreed, and that the right hon. Gentleman now accepted it.

SIR W. HARCOURT

was understood to say he must have misapprehended the right hon. Gentleman on the former occasion.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he must admit there was considerable force in the argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman that to repay the Estate Duty after the lapse of a few years was rather to over-estimate the amount of unpaid taxation on realty. But the right hon. Gentleman said the tax in any case was not sufficient to make up the arrears, and in future he had no doubt that provision would be made by annual savings or by insurance policies to pay the charges, but that would not meet the hardship that would fall upon some families where, owing to the condition of health, mortality was frequent.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, he would like to point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lose very little by adopting this Amendment, because the Amendment only removed the estate from his hands if it fell in twice in eight years; therefore, unless the estate passed twice in eight years the right hon. Gentleman would lose nothing. Most estates would only fall in once in a generation, which was a period of 30 years, and when an estate fell in more frequently it was only fair that some consideration should be bad to that fact. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them this was a Property Tax, and that because a Property Tax was fair it should be levied on all property alike. But the right hon. Gentleman knew there was a deal of property that would for ever escape Estate Duty, inasmuch as it would be made to pass inter vivos, between living people, as was the case now. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to make this a real Property Tax he should jump at the Amendment that had been proposed, as it would make the tax more fair and equal between different parties, and, at the same time, the right hon. Gentleman would lose very little, as it was very rare that an estate passed twice in eight years, and that was the only case in which he could lose anything by the Amendment. For these reasons he submitted it was quite a case for the amiable consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, he was glad to see, was in an amiable mood this evening—[Cries of "Oh !"]—as was very often the case—and he therefore trusted he would look amiably upon the Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 158; Noes 200.—(Division List, No. 116.)

*MR. SHAW STEWART (Renfrew, E.)

said, that as the Government did not see their way to accept the Amendment just disposed of he hoped they would allow that this Amendment of his was a reasonable Amendment that they could accept, as it did not controvert what the learned Solicitor General called the cardinal principle in the Bill. He thought it would be an advantage to the State to receive the instalments yearly, even if spread over many years, rather than have the administration of the property. The Amendment was really so reasonable that it did not require any further recommendation from him, and he therefore begged to move it.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add the words— Provided that, if the person so paying the duty shall die before all such instalments shall have become due, the duty payable on the death of such person in respect of such property shall not commence to become payable until 12 months after the date upon which the last of such instalments shall have become payable, and interest upon such duty shall commence from that date."—(Mr. Shaw Stewart.)

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

*MR. BRODRICK (Surrey, Guildford)

said, before the Solicitor General replied he would like to put a concrete case to show what effect the Amendment would have. Take the case of an estate which devolved three years ago upon four ladies of great age, an estate in Essex, of the value of £10,000. That estate in three years would have paid three-eighths of the instalments, leaving five-eighths to pay. One of these ladies died early in 1893, another somewhat later, and a third in March of this year, leaving the property now in the hands of an old life. How was it possible, the estate being unsaleable, that it could pay the Estate Duty under the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman at the rate of one-fifth of £1,400 every year, and probably having to pay the Estate Duty again before any of the instalments had been got rid of? Under those circumstances, he thought it was only reasonable to include in this Bill the Amendment of his hon. Friend.

*SIR W. HARCOURT

said, the Government could not accept the Amendment. He had seen extraordinary statements made by very great people as to the number of years' rental that would be involved in the payments under the Bill. After careful calculation he had arrived at the conclusion that the average would not exceed two years' income spread over eight instalments. He believed a noble Duke had estimated the payments at 12 years' income. He could not understand on what premises the noble Duke pro- ceeded when he arrived at such a conclusion. Some persons seemed to treat as income only what might be termed male pin-money, but that was not the view to be taken of what constituted income, which was really the spendable amount which a man had. This difference in the mode of estimating income formed the real solution of the extraordinary calculations put forward, which, so far as he was aware, bore no relation to the proposals contained in the Bill. There might be cases in which the Death Duties would not be payable more than once in 50 or 60 years, while in others they might be payable several times in quick succession; but, on the whole, he thought justice was done by the proposal in the Bill.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that from some of the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer one would really fancy that the right hon. Gentleman did not even yet understand his own proposals, as contained in the Bill before the House. In drawing a contrast between the present and future of estates the right hon. Gentleman went into elaborate calculations to show that the duty might be only two years' income spread over eight instalments; but he omitted the vital consideration that in the future the valuation was to be totally different to that which it had been in the past, as it was in future to be based, not on income, but on the property itself. Therefore, anyone could see the landowners who had large properties, valuable in one sense, but producing little income, would have to pay in the future a very large sum as compared with what was paid under the present arrangement. Whether the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were just or unjust, they would undoubtedly have the effect in many cases of doubling or trebling, and in some cases of quintupling and even of increasing tenfold the amount paid at present. In the case of the owner of a large estate which, if sold, might perhaps realise £250,000, but which produced only some £4,000 a year, he would he taxed in future not upon his income, but upon the £250,000. [Ministerial cheers.] Those cheers showed that a great change would be made by the Bill, and that the change was welcomed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer must not drive two horses at once; he must not try to minimise the results of his proposals, and, at the same time, have those cheers of his supporters for the great difference which would be effected by his proposals. The Chancellor of the Exchequer declared that the landowners were exaggerating, enormously, the increased taxation under the Bill. They were not exaggerating. He had seen the figures in many cases prepared by solicitors showing the most startling results. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was careful never to give figures, and, though the right hon. Gentleman was very amusing, he was quite wrong in his remarks about male pin-money, which were scarcely worthy of the right hon. Gentleman. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew, let him indicate the figures. He would make the right hon. Gentleman an offer. Let the right hon. Gentleman give to the Committee, in disguise, some specimen calculations of his own, and the Opposition would give the right hon. Gentleman some specimen cases, also disguised. Let it be understood it was not only that the duties were increased on larger properties, but that they were to be valued on the fee simple and not on the life interest, which would double and treble the amount of duty to be paid. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was always speaking of the expediency of putting realty and personalty on the same footing; but it was an extremely difficult thing to carry out. Heavy charges bad to be paid on the transfer of realty, but a large amount of personalty could be transferred with the agency of a cheque and a penny stamp. The new duties would be heavy in themselves, and if, in the cases of second and third deaths, the further charges were levied concurrently, the burden would become intolerable, and it was to remove the hardship in such cases that the Amendment was moved. He should like to know whether on the occurrence of a second or third death the instalments still due would be considered as an encumbrance diminishing the capital value of the estate to be charged with Estate Duty?

*SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

said, it seemed to him that the Amendment was not inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. No inequality was asked for; no remission of taxation was asked for; all that was claimed was that there should be some consideration exercised so far as the mere payment of duties on real property was concerned. Everyone having experience of real property was aware that a difficulty in realising those new duties which would have to be paid would not be an exceptional case; and he, therefore, appealed to hon. Members opposite to endeavour to meet the claims of the landed interest in reference, at least, to the simple question of the payments of the duty, or otherwise the objections of a reasonable character that could be raised to the Budget would be intensified in their character, and would have a considerable foundation of justice. The principle of the Amendment was admitted by Clause 6 of the Bill itself, which permitted the payment of the duty by instalments; and, therefore, what possible objection could there be to granting exceptional treatment in exceptional cases; in cases that would only rarely occur, but which, when they did occur, would cause great hardship to successors to estates. The Amendment simply extended the time for the payment of the duty, and as interest would be payable on those extended payments, there was really a very strong case for the favourable consideration of the Government.

MR. R. T. REID

said, the hon. Member for South Islington spoke of the Amendment as simply a question of the period in which the payment of the duty would be made, but the hon. Member did not seem to be aware how the time for the payments would be extended by the Amendment. Suppose the case of three persons, all owners in fee, dying in three successive years—1895, 1896, and 1897. That was an extreme case, he admitted, but it was not so extreme as the case of four persons dying which the Mover of the Amendment had put. But what would be the operation of the Amendment in the case he had supposed? The first death having occurred in 1895, the second Estate Duty would not be payable till 1905; the third would not commence until 1913, and would not be completed until 1921. That was the measure of the delay proposed by the Amendment; and he could not suppose that the how. Member for South Islington would approve of so long a delay that it would take a quarter of a century before the three instalments were paid off. As to the broader question of the policy of the Amendment, that had been sufficiently dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and he would only say in answer to the right how. Gentleman the Member for St. George's it was quite clear that in the case of successive deaths, and different sets of instalments, the previous instalment or instalments would be added to the incumbrances, and would, of course, diminish the value of the estate in estimating the Succession Duties.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he was not at all appalled by the speech of the Solicitor General, as to its being a monstrous thing that there should be only three Succession Duties in 21 years. He supposed the hon. and learned Gentleman would not deny that the Inland Revenue Authorities would take 30 years as the average generation in which this Estate Duty would be paid. Therefore, under ordinary circumstances, the Exchequer would get one Estate Duty on the average every 30 years. The fact that in certain circumstances three payments of the Estate Duties were contemplated by the Government in the period from 1895 to 1915, and that, therefore, they would not accept the Amendment, showed that no matter how loud they might protest their willingness to deal with every case of hardship, they really had no intention of giving practical effect to their protests. What the Amendment asked was that the three instalments in the case assumed by the Solicitor General should not run concurrently, but should run consecutively. Everyone would admit that the case would be of rare occurrence, and that was all the more reason why its excessive harshness ought to be mitigated.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he had before him figures which he had received from an Insurance Office bearing upon the point under discussion. Take the hon. and learned Gentleman's own case of £100,000 at 6 per cent. The amount would be £6,000, or if there were three Estate Duties £18,000. The interest on that would be from £1,500 to £2,000, so that, roughly speaking, the charge would amount to £20,000, which would have to be paid within 21 years. It would swallow up at least nine years income out of the 21 years.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite objected to the proposal on the ground of the immense length of time over which the payment would extend. True the time would be long, but the hon. and learned Gentleman did not recollect that in several cases now existing this length of time was exceeded. Take the length of time allowed to the Irish tenants to pay for their land under the Irish Acts, or to repay the money borrowed for improvements. It was much longer even than the extreme case mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman. If it was inexpedient to allow a long period in the one case, it must be inexpedient in the other. The Opposition were asking for treatment less lenient than that which was extended by the Government to our Irish brethren on the other side of the Channel. He hoped, therefore, that so far as the argument of the length of time went, the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow that he had controverted it with some reason. It was also worth recollecting that if the deaths happened in such rapid succession, there would, in all human probability, come a time when a life would run an ordinary period, and then, if the Amendment were accepted, the estate would be clear again and the property would be saved.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 64: Noes 116.—(Division List, No. 117.)

*SIR G. BADEN-POWELL

said, he desired to move, in page 4, line 2, at the end, to add— Provided that there shall be deducted from such duty any sum or sums which are shown to have been paid as Death Duties on property in the country in which the property is situate, and on which an equivalent exemption is granted in respect to property situated in the United Kingdom. Although the Amendment was one of considerable importance, the Government were conspicuous by their absence. This was a great dereliction of duty on their part, to which he would have to call attention when the proper time came— that was to say, when the Estimates for granting them their salaries were under consideration. The question he wished to bring before the Committee was one of greater importance, not only to the Government, but to the country and Empire, than any question which had come before the Committee in the course of the Debates on the Death Duties. The observations he was about to make would, he knew, be replied to by gentlemen who had not heard him. Those observations would deal not so much with the legal aspect of the question as with its political aspect, and necessarily so. No doubt the Leader of the House would come in later on and reply to what he had not said. To that he should take exception. The Leader of the House had made many statements in introducing the Bill which subsequently he had had to contradict or withdraw, so that it was impossible for them to know precisely where they were. The right how. Gentleman had, apparently, entered on the Bill with the idea that he had the power to tax the whole world—a power he (Sir G. Baden-Powell) would deny to anybody in the House. The question of raising Revenue by Death Duties had within the last few years obtained a prominence in the colonies which had never been arrived at before. Further on there was an Amendment drawn by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight which would restrict the proposal he (Sir G. Baden-Powell) was making to the colonies and dependencies of the British Crown. It would serve the cause of the progress of the Debate if the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment were dealt with in company with his. He did not wish himself to bring into the discussion any question of a differential character. He desired, if he could do so, to make a rule which applied to all; therefore, his Amendment was larger than that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. But as the two Amendments dealt with the same subject, it would be well that they should be considered together. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had at one time declared that his proposals would for the first time tax property in the colonies and foreign countries. Yesterday and the day before the right hon. Gentleman so far ate his words as to state that his remarks bore a different interpretation to that which they had been taken to bear, and that he did not approve of taxing in the colonies any property which was not taxed by the existing law. How the right hon. Gentleman could reconcile that with the declaration that he intended to make Legacy and Succession Duty a matter of probate he (Sir G. Baden-Powell) did not know. By the policy on which he obtained the Second Reading of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman proposed for the first time to tax property in the colonies, a course which would be an infringement of the power of self taxation which was bestowed upon the colonies with responsible government. It was clear that it was impossible at one and the same time both to delegate and exercise power. They had delegated to the colonies full, free, and perfect control over their revenue and taxation.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,

SIR G. BADEN-POWELL

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said it was absurd to say that these proposals were in way derogatory to the rights of the colonies. But they certainly would interfere with the taxing powers of the colonies, and that in many obvious ways. They would impose a duty of 18 per cent, on some property in the colonies, and upon that property plainly the colonies would have no further power of taxation. He should welcome as much as anyone the broadening of the basis of taxation, but in securing that they ought not to deprive the colonies of the sources of revenue which they had granted them. It should be borne in mind that, by taxing property in the colonies and in foreign countries, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was instigating the colonies and Foreign Powers to tax property in the United Kingdom—and he happened to know that there were large amounts of Government funds held in this country by foreigners. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to tax the corpus of estates for Death Duty before alienation. There the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of his own statements, was completely changing the manner and method and incidence of taxation so far as it affected property in the colonies and in foreign countries. Hitherto such property had been subject only to Legacy Duty, but now the right hon. Gentleman would (if he could) pile up on the top of that Succession Duty, Probate Duty and Administration Duty. Could that really be the right hon. Gentleman's desire? And there were other points to consider—one of which the lawyers in the House had not yet taken hold of—namely, under the Bill as it stood the subjects of Her Majesty the Queen were to pay double taxes on the same property. Perhaps it was not sufficiently understood in the House that taxes levied in the colonies were levied in the name of Her Majesty the Queen. It was, therefore, proposed to levy heavy taxes in the name of the Queen on property which already paid heavy taxes in the name of the Queen. He happened to know of a case in which an appeal from the payment of a double duty was decided to be strictly contrary to English law. He doubted that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to try to put his taxation into operation in the colonies, the Law Courts would enable him to levy duty on property which had already paid duty to Her Majesty. One of the essential principles of the Bill was that there should be aggregation and graduation, with the result that property in the colonies—which, as he had said, had the right of self-taxation—would be taxed under the Bill at a higher rate simply and solely because it belonged to an individual who held property somewhere else in the Empire, and to levy that tax no consent was asked from the Colonial Government to whom the Imperial Parliament had delegated powers of self-taxation. Then there was the important point in the eyes of all those who really understood the economy of taxation, and that was, what consideration was given in exchange for the taxes? The Chancellor of the Exchequer got the Second Reading of the Bill on the plea, which he advanced several times, though he had now dropped it, that the colonies contributed nothing to our naval strength. He should like to point out that the colonies were in a peculiar position with regard to contributing to the Imperial expenses for Imperial defence. The colonies did, in fact, contribute already to the purpose, for they supported 80,000 armed men for the defence of the Empire; they provided harbours for our Fleet in various parts of the world; in Canada they provided ships for the purpose of protecting large areas of territorial waters, and, finally, in Australia they contributed generously towards the support of the Fleet for the protection of local trade. But an unanswerable argument against the contention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that if he wished to compel the colonies to contribute to the Imperial defence, the fulfilling of such a duty ought to carry with it a share, on the part of the Colonies, in controlling our Foreign policy. Again, if there was anything in the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it applied to foreign nations as well as to the colonies; for if the right hon. Gentleman thought the colonies ought to be made to contribute to the Navy by imposing Death Duties on property in the colonies, he must also consider that foreign nations, who paid those Death Duties, were also bound to contribute to our Navy. He thought that all of them—not as taxpayers, but as citizens of the Empire—sympathised with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his desire to raise revenue; but he maintained that if the Bill passed without some such Amendment as he proposed, the right hon. Gentleman would find that he would gain no revenue whatever from his proposal to tax property in the colonies and in foreign countries. There were many ways in which, without the Amendment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be defeated in his efforts to obtain the revenue he sought under the Bill. He happened to know something about property in other countries, and he was aware that both with regard to personalty and realty avoidance of the payment of duty could very easily be accomplished. His hon. Friend the Solicitor General, who so worthily filled a place on the Treasury Bench, knew as well as he did, perhaps better, that with regard to realty such was the simplicity and cheapness of transfer in the Australian Colonies that it was a matter of no difficulty for anyone holding realty there to transfer it during his life to others; and, of course, with regard to personalty, it was easy to do that all over the world. He maintained that those who owned property in the colonies would be chary to leave it to be heavily taxed under the Bill—if it were not amended in the direction in which he sought to amend it—when by the means he had pointed out the avoidance of the duty would be easy both in regard to personalty and realty. The Bill depended on the domicile of the person whose property passed at death. He did not speak as a lawyer, but he knew that domicile in diplomacy and in International affairs had been the cause of great dispute and had perhaps not yet been satisfactorily settled. The question of the domicile of persons who held property in other countries was perhaps the most difficult question raised by the Bill. He could imagine the difficulty of ascertaining the domicile of those colonists who came to England to reside, and who had been in some ways the saving of certain districts in which they lived by spending money generously and freely in those districts. Where was their domicile? Was it in England or in the colonies? One thing was certain, and that was that by retaining their domicile in Canada or Australia they would escape entirely from the taxation imposed by the Bill. The difficulty with regard to domicile was therefore very serious, especially as it also included foreign subjects resident in this country. There was also the very difficult question of valuation. He would like to ascertain from the Chancellor of the Exchequer how long it would take and how much it would cost to value such properties as a cattle station on the MacDonnell ranges in the middle of Australia, or mines in the mountains of Colorado, or shares in the seal fisheries in the Behring Sea? Then there was the case of the executor. The executor must either be a resident in England or outside England. If he were a resident in England, what power was there in any Court of Law in England to compel him to contribute in respect to property within the jurisdiction of the colonies or of any foreign country? If the executor were not a resident in England, and, it might be, not a subject of the Queen, what power could the Exchequer, through the Courts or otherwise, exercise over such an executor? These were practical difficulties; and he confidently asserted that the only way to remove them was by adopting his Amendment. He was sure he would have the sympathy of every right-thinking Member of the House in saying that any measure, such as that proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which caused friction and bad blood between ourselves and our fellow-subjects in the colonies, or caused friction and bad blood between ourselves and our friends and neighbours in foreign countries, was a measure which ought to be denounced and opposed in the House. Everyone knew, from what was going on in the world outside, that this matter was affecting our relations with the colonies and foreign countries. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had been driven by the action of the Opposition into a conference with the Representatives of the colonies on this question; and he was convinced that however the Solicitor General might reply to his arguments, the Government would never be able to work this Finance Bill without the Amendment which he had now the honour to propose.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 2, at end, add— Provided that there shall be deducted from such duty any sum or sums which are shown to have been paid as Death Duties on property in the country in which the property is situate, and on which an equivalent exemption is granted in respect to property situated in the United Kingdom."—(Sir G. Baden-Powell.)

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

MR. R. T. REID

said, he did not think that anybody had ever disputed that the question of property situated in the colonies was a matter deserving of attention. But it had already been discussed on Clauses 1 and 2 and, he thought, also upon Clause 3. The hon. Gentleman had himself stated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been driven into a conference with Representatives of the Colonies, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been driven into it at all. His right hon. Friend was, at any rate, now engaged in that conference, and he thought, therefore, that the matter could be more usefully discussed at a later stage than now. They were all agreed that if there were to be a diminution in revenue, the diminution should be made as small as possible. That was a matter that could be best discussed after the conference. The question was one of mixed law and policy. He appealed to the Committee not to raise again at this stage a question which had been already twice discussed, and, as he understood, had been by consent postponed.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he had a subsequent Amendment upon the Paper on the subject, and he wished to know at what future stage it would be possible to discuss it if the matter were postponed? There must be some statement from the Government as to the time and stage for the discussion.

SIR G. BADEN-POWELL

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in announcing the conference a few hours ago, never even hinted that he wished this question to be postponed, though the right hon. Gentleman knew that the Amendment now before the Committee would come on that evening.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he desired to point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the matter was one of grave delicacy, and had asked the House to postpone the discussion of the question in order, as he had said, that a satisfactory arrangement might be come to with the Representatives of the Colonies. In the face of that, and in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would be a violation of Parliamentary precedent and of all Parliamentary propriety to discuss the matter now. The Report stage would be the proper time to bring it on. He should certainly, on behalf of the Government, decline to take part in any such discussion at the present stage, and everyone who had the interest of the colonies at heart would agree with him.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, he did not think that anyone would dissent from the concluding words of the Secretary for India. The right hon. Gentleman had indicated the best and only proper way in which this question should be approached. But he thought the Opposition had some reason to complain that that course had not been adopted some weeks ago. The question involved was a most important one, and he therefore thought the question of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight was a fair one, as to whether, if the discussion were now postponed, there was any clause, and, if so, what, upon which the discussion could properly be raised thereafter. It was not fair to ask that the whole matter should be put off till the Report stage was reached.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, his Amendment raised the question of the payment of the Death Duties in the colonies, and if the right hon. Gentleman, in his official capacity, told him that it would not be right for him to go on with the discussion now he would, of course, at once accede to the right hon. Gentleman's request. But he did not think it was unreasonable to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there was any stage of the Bill, besides the Report stage, on which the discussion might be raised, for he was satisfied that this was a question that ought not to be relegated to the Report stage.

*MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that it was the wish of the Government that there should be the fullest opportunity of discussing this question hereafter, and their only wish was to make an arrangement that would be satisfactory to all parties. There would be no difficulty whatever in raising the question in the shape of a new clause.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, that of course the right hon. Gentleman knew fully the responsibility of his position, and he (Sir R. Webster) only desired to say that he trusted that ample opportunity would be given for discussion.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

observed that if a new clause were introduced and adopted at the Report stage it would go to the very root of the Bill, and would practically amount to a repeal of the measure. The whole principle of the Bill was based upon aggregation, and if aggregation were to be withdrawn the principle would fall to the ground. He felt strongly that whilst delicate negotiations were going on between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Representatives of the Colonies it would not be desirable to debate the question in Committee, but the Government ought to have entered into those negotiations before they introduced the Bill. Great confusion must arise, since any new clause of this kind would over-ride the previous portions of the Bill, and the Opposition must leave all the responsibility to the Government, and reserve all their rights on the subject. If the question were discussed on the Report stage it would be thoroughly threshed out, whatever might then be the results to the Bill.

*SIR. G. BADEN-POWELL

thought it very regrettable that the Secretary for India (Mr. Fowler) had not made his statement before instead of after the moving of the Amendment, because in that case the Committee would not have been troubled with the proposal. He (Sir Gr. Baden-Powell) did not for one moment wish to interfere with any negotiations that were going on with the Representatives of the Colonies, and he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

moved, in page 4, line 2, at end, to insert— Provided that where the death of the owner of any property, whether real or personal, has immediately resulted from his direct employment in the Imperial service of the Empire, no Estate Duty shall be charged on any property passing on his death. He said, he was fortunate in being the first person who for some nights would have carried the discussion in Committee outside the lines of property, and tried to enlist the sympathies of hon. Members on behalf of quite another class of people than the owners of landed estates. His Amendment was directed to the protection of the interest of those of Her Majesty's subjects who met their death in the course of the performance of their duty to Her Majesty. It might be that those who recognised his military rank might think that he was moving an Amendment directly in his own interest. That was not the case, inasmuch as, being on the retired list, he was no more likely to be benefited by its adoption than the representatives of the most civilian class in the Committee. If it were thought necessary he should be glad to limit the operation of the Amendment to those who were employed in the Military or Naval Service of the Empire. His intention was that soldiers; and sailors who might meet with their death in the fulfilment of their duty should be exempted from any of the penal provisions which were attached to succession under the Bill. He was not quite clear whether there was not already some considerable exemption in that direction; but if there was, he thought it ought to be stereotyped under this Bill. There were, of course, occasions on which civilians were called upon, as at the de- fence of Lucknow during the Indian Mutiny, to act as soldiers or sailors, and such civilians, if they were killed, ought to benefit in the fullest degree from any exemptions which were given to their more regularly-enlisted brethren. He fancied that the Amendment would meet with the general acceptance of the Committee; but he thought it desirable to allude to one or two facts in support of it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt) had said that it was possible for the classes affected by the new Estate Duty to safeguard their interests by a resort to the Insurance Companies. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that that kind of safeguarding was not within the reach of many of those whose cause he was pleading. No soldier or sailor on active service was able to insure his life on the terms open to any civilian. No one would desire that a soldier or sailor should go into action with the knowledge that a great portion of the property on which his widow or children would have to depend in the event of his death would be swept away if he were not lucky enough to escape the fate which, by going into action, he courted in no common degree. As a class, soldiers and sailors were not men of large property; they were not interested in the question of millionaireism, nor were they on all-fours with the hon Member for Cheshire (Mr. Brunner), who had lately taken an interrupting part in the Debate, and who was chiefly known on the Opposition side of the House as being the representative of millionaires par excellence. He (Colonel Kenyon-Slaney) pleaded for soldiers and sailors on three grounds: in the first place, because they deserved exemption by the fact of the duties they performed; in the second place, because they were debarred from making that insurance which civilians were able to make; and, in the third place, because it was exceedingly inconvenient that men should go into action with the feeling that their death would impose a burden upon those whom they had to provide for. He knew that no feeling of the sort would prevent men discharging their duty when they were in the field, but he thought it might prevent men volunteering for those extremely dangerous duties which, if other things were equal, they would be ready to volunteer for. Another argument in favour of the Amendment was that the Exchequer would only derive a small sum from the estates of soldiers and sailors. This was hardly an argument he liked to use to justify his action—the argument used in the case of the baby, "it is only a little one." He moved his Amendment in the interests of our soldiers and sailors on the grounds he had adduced, and with the hope that it would be acceptable to the Government, the Committee, and the general public outside.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 2, at end, to insert— Provided that where the death of the owner of any property, whether real or personal, has immediately resulted from his direct employment in the Imperial service of the Empire, no Estate Duty shall be charged on any property passing on his death."—(Colonel Kenyon-Slaney.)

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

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, that, much as he sympathised with the object of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment, and regretting as he did that the proposal could not apply to such public servants as Chancellors of the Exchequer, he could not set aside the principle of the Bill in this respect. Even when purchase prevailed in the Army soldiers were not exempt from Death Duty. In fact, when an officer had fallen in battle the whole amount he had paid for his commission was lost. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman desired to extend the exemption of small estates from the duty in respect of soldiers and sailors he could move an Amendment when Clause 17, which related to the exemption of small estates, came on for discussion. The property of the rank-and-file of the Services would in the main be saved from the payment of duty by the Exemption Clause.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, it could not be desirable to exempt from duty the property of men of large fortune who fell in battle. It was reported that at the charge at Balaclava Cardigan had said, "Here goes £30,000 a year." It would not be appropriate to exempt such a fortune as that from taxation merely because the owner was a soldier.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said, he appreciated the explanation he had received and would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*MR. BARTLEY

said, he desired to move to insert the following proviso:— (5) When the executor is unable from the estate to pay the amount claimed, he shall be at liberty to require the Commissioners to take over such part of the property as he shall select which, according to a valuation based on the value set on the whole property by the Commissioners, is equal to the total amount of Estate Duty payable, or he may require the Commissioners to take any part of the property at the value set upon it by the Commissioners. This Amendment raised a very practical question—namely, what was to happen to an estate when there was no cash in hand with which to pay these charges? The estates the Amendment would apply to would, from the nature of the case, be very poor ones, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government claimed to have great sympathy with such estates. There were many estates which would come within this category. It was true the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the Inland Revenue Commissioners had no difficulty in raising the Death Duties, but the anxiety and worry that the raising caused to those who had to pay them was not known to the Inland Revenue Department, whose only duty was to receive the money. Under the Bill the payments would be largely increased, even in regard to realty. A large annual sum would have to be provided, extending over eight years, whether there was cash in the estate or not. If there was no cash, how would the executor proceed? How would he act in the case of an unlet and unsaleable farm in the County of Essex, of the nominal value, say, of £100 a year? The Inland Revenue Commissioners might value it at £2,000, or 20 years' purchase, and would claim £60 Estate Duty on the death of the owner, who had jogged on partly as a labourer and partly as an owner, and had left the property to his son. What was the son, who had probably become an artizan, to do? He would have to go to a money-lender, if he could find one willing to lend as a speculation. This was a cruel position to put the owner into—a position that was never before contemplated. In a case where there were mortgages on the estate, the owner would probably be in a better position, only being obliged to pay a smaller duty, and, perhaps, at a lower rate. Still, he would in all likelihood find it impossible to induce any money lender to advance anything on the property. No human being would lend money on a second mortgage in such a case—not even a speculative money-lender. It would also apply to a great deal of property that existed now—namely, into mills and property which was going out of fashion, or was carried on only just at a profit, and to property that was highly mortgaged. Even in the prosperous parts of Lancashire there were mills that had almost gone out of fashion, and which were worth practically nothing, which could not be sold, and upon which money could not be raised. These, he thought, raised questions of enormous difficulty, and he asked, under these circumstances, what the executors were to do unless the Amendment he proposed was accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Although he had applied this to small property, it must be remembered there were many persons who were regarded as rich people, but whose properties were almost in the same position, even if they were not in a worse position. He had made inquiries, and had cases in which there were men who had large agricultural estates which produced almost nothing, and yet the Estate Duty upon these estates would be very large indeed. He would give one case which he knew something about. It was an estate nominally worth £30,000 a year, but the net amount was only something like £5,000 a year. Supposing it was not mortgaged—and he believed it was not—it was probable that such an estate as that would be valued at about £600,000, the Estate Duty upon which would be no less than £45,000, or nine years' actual net receipts. He would appeal to those who were acquainted with agricultural estates to say whether that was an exaggerated case? How could such an estate as that raise cash to the extent of £45,000, the actual rental being only £5,000, though the nominal rental was £30,000? When there was no mortgage it was conceivable that the amount might be raised, but in most of these cases the estates were mortgaged. Though it was true that the mortgage would come off the full value of the estate, still it rendered it impossible for small owners to raise the money by a second mortgage. It was quite certain before the Bill had been passed a week there would be a number of these cases appearing before the Chancellor of the Exchequer to know exactly what was to be done; and where it was distinctly proved there was no cash available and the owner could not sell the estate, what was ho to do? He ventured to think that the only way in which the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to be met was by accepting this Amendment, coupled with a clause he had put on the Paper to the effect that the Land Tax Commissioners should value each portion of the estate, and that the owner or executor should be able to say, "I will hand over to the Commissioners such and such part of the property at the price you put upon it." He knew it was going back to old times, when payment was in kind, and handing over to the Revenue a part or tithe of the property. He did not know whether the Government would accept his proposal; but whether they did or not, it seemed to him it must come to that one way or the other; that some way or other the Government would have to adopt this system, because if a man had nothing to pay with they must either take the land, let him off, or put him in gaol, and he supposed the Government hardly contemplated putting the executor in gaol. Therefore, it seemed to him there were cases in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to face this difficulty, and he might as well face it fairly in this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would not deny there were many cases in which there was property valued at a nominal amount, but which could neither be sold nor let, and therefore how was the right hon. Gentleman to collect the Estate Duty unless he adopted a system of taking over part of the real property? If the right hon. Gentleman did not, he must admit that it would place him in some difficulty, as it was not likely that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to hold small portions of property in all parts of the country. Still, if a man could not pay, it was the only system to adopt.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add the words— (5) When the executor is unable from the estate to pay the amount claimed, he shall be at liberty to require the Commissioners to take over such part of the property as he shall select which, according to a valuation based on the value set on the whole property by the Commissioners, is equal to the total amount of Estate Duty payable, or he may require the Commissioners to take any part of the property at the value set upon it by the Commissioners."—(Mr. Bartley.)

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

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, ho was really hardly able to treat this Amendment as serious. The State, it was assumed, was a creditor for a certain sum of money, and were they prepared to treat all creditors on the same footing, and say that when a man died, and the executor was in a difficulty in finding the money to pay the debts of the deceased, that he should be able to call on the creditors to take part of the estate in liquidation of the debts? The thing was absurd on the face of it. Supposing a man died who had ordinary debts of the amount of £10,000, would the executor turn round and say, "Oh, I have not the £10,000; I will give you so much land," and would the creditors take it? Why was the State to be treated on a different footing to an ordinary creditor? The State gave an indulgence that no ordinary creditor gave; they had given eight years, and that was an indulgence that an ordinary creditor was not bound to give. It was the case of an ordinary debt due to the State, and the whole object of every one of these Amendments was to prevent the State receiving its due, and no example of that was more flagrant than such an Amendment as this, that they should impose upon the State conditions that no sane man would impose on any other creditor. That was the general purpose of this Amendment. Let them take an illustration of this great hardship. The hon. Gentleman had put a case of a property which was valued at £100 a year. The capital value of that at 20 years' purchase would be £2,000, and the case put was that in the first instance it was without a mortgage upon it. What a man would have to pay upon that, under this Bill, would be £60; he would have to pay in eight instalments, so that out of the £100 a year, when called upon to pay, he would have to pay £7 10s., and that was said to be practically impossible.

MR. BARTLEY

I distinctly said he did not get the £100 a year; that that was the nominal, not the actual value.

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, in that case why should they value it at £100 a year? He supposed the £100 a year was the value, otherwise it would not be capitalised at £2,000; and if the value was £100 a year, the sum that would be payable would be £7 10s. a year for eight years, and that was said to be an impossibility. It was not an impossibility at all, and the whole principle of the Amendment was to endeavour to defraud the State of the rights that were due to it like the debts of any other creditor of the estate of the deceased. There was not a single exception taken to this case that would not apply to the ordinary debts due upon an estate. He confessed he did not understand the line of argument by which Amendments of this kind were supported.

MR. BARTLEY

I do not think you do.

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, it was really founded on the assumption that there was something about landed property that entitled it to be exempted from the liabilities incurred by any other property; they would not accept the position land stood in in reference to ordinary creditors with reference to its ordinary obligations to the State. Did they suppose debts were only incurred on land in consequence of the Death Duties? Did they not know that in consequence of extravagance estate after estate had been broken up in this country, and that when debts were due to the ordinary creditor the ordinary law was allowed to take ordinary course? Yet in the case of the State they objected to the ordinary course being taken by which the State should obtain its dues.

MR. BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)

said, he would like to point out that in the instance of personal extravagance cited by the Chancellor of the Exchequer it was very clear the only available asset for the ordinary creditor would be the estate, and that was precisely what the Amendment proposed.

*SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)

said, he was surprised the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not accept the Amendment, because it was based on an analogy with the customs of feudal times, on which the Budget itself was based. The proposal was quite in analogy with what was done in other cases. For instance, what happened now if there was a bankruptcy? Creditors were called on to value their securities and to take them over at their own valuation, as suggested in this Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that great indulgence was given to land because the executor was allowed to pay the amount by instalments, but that showed that the amount was not due until the instalments became due, and therefore instead of being due in eight years it was due in eight yearly instalments, which was a different thing. Another strong reason in favour of the Amendment was the great difficulty there was in valuing property. He knew a case in the City where one valuer valued certain property at £30,000, whilst another valuer valued it at £50,000, and everyone knew how different valuers differed in their valuations of estates. Of course, they knew there was an appeal to the High Court, but that was a very expensive matter, and would involve a considerable amount of delay and trouble. If they asked the State to value the property, and if the State put an extravagant value upon it, what was there unreasonable in asking the State to take it over at their own valuation? The arguments in favour of the Amendment, he thought, were very strong, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not answered them.

MR. NEWDIGATE (Warwickshire, Nuneaton)

said, he would not detain the Committee more than a minute, but he must say he felt very much surprised at the righteous tone of indignation meted out to the Committee on the subject of this Amendment. They heard a great deal about the nationalisation of land at the present time from the Radical Party, and he therefore should have thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would only have been too glad to accept the Amendment that the Death Duties should be paid in land instead of money, as that would mean that the land would be given to the nation, and thereby what the Liberal Party so anxiously desired—the nationalisation of the land—would be more and more brought to pass. For that reason he thought it was very extraordinary that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not accept the Amendment.

*SIR H. MEY SEY-THOMPSON (Stafford, Handsworth)

said, he must confess he was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer bring forward the argument that he did with respect to a creditor to the State and an ordinary creditor. There was this difference between them: a debt to an ordinary creditor was incurred voluntarily, whereas the debt to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was an involuntary debt. It seemed to him that a debt imposed compulsorily on a man was a very different thing to a debt incurred voluntarily. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them the ordinary creditor could get money and not laud. He was at this moment engaged in a business in which the trustees were very anxious to realise money advanced on a mortgage. The mortgagor happened to be a farmer; and he said, "I wish you would take my land; you may sell me up, but you won't get anything like the value of the mortgage." The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked of debts being incurred by extravagance of an owner or his predecessor. The extravagance of yourself or your predecessor was one thing; but debt incurred by the extravagance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a very different thing. He had under his observation cases in which the value of land had fallen so that, although it had been mortgaged for a reasonable amount, the value was now down to the amount of the mortgage. Insurance Companies and others usually left a margin of one-third; and in many cases that margin barely remained. They were told that taxation ought to be paid out of income and not out of capital. The capital of the country was that of individuals; the State had nothing but debts, and heavy debts, too. If an estate was heavily mortgaged, how was a man to pay this duty out of income? A man who succeeded to such an estate was not under the present system richer for two or three years. Under the new Death Duties it was impossible for him to pay the duty out of income. What was he to do? He could not sell any land without the consent of the mortgagee. There was an old proverb that it was better to let sleeping dogs lie. Land was not like Consols, part of which could be sold without injuring the rest. They might as well tell a man the value of a picture, and say that by cutting off a quarter they were giving a fourth of the value. Very likely the mortgagee would refuse to give a man permission to sell any portion whatever, but supposing he consented he would make a stipulation that sufficient should be sold to ensure that the one-third margin of value should cover not only the payment to the Government, but also reduce the mortgage to an amount not more than two-thirds of the value of the property. Upon that the man would have to go to a lawyer, who would have to go into the question of title, which was always a difficult matter. If it were a comparatively new estate he would be told the title was too short, and if the property was bought a long time ago he would be told the title was too old, and that the land could not be recognised, so that in either result ho would be put to very great expense. Then the mortgagee would insist upon a re-valuation of the whole estate, which would cause another expense. Then he would have to make up his mind as to what reserve should be put on the property, and what would, after all, happen? Exactly what he had himself been engaged in in another trust, he would go into the auction room and find there was no business doing in land at all; there were no buyers, they would get a bid, but so small that it would not pay the amount owing on mortgage, and would have to be refused. This unfortunate man would go home, and where was he the next morning? He would be on the high road to the Bankruptcy Court. He would find he had incurred enormous expense for valuation, for legal charges, for auctioneers' expenses, that he could not sell the estate, and was no nearer towards paying the Chancellor of the Exchequer than he was at the outset. What was he to do? Everything he did only landed him further in the mire. Therefore, under the circumstances, it was reasonable to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "You have put your own valuation on the land; take a portion of it for the duty at the price placed upon it by your own valuer."

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, they had heard a characteristic speech, and might well take note of it. First of all, they were told there was a distinction between the debts of an ordinary creditor and the claims of the State, and that the claims of the State were an involuntary debt on the part of the debtor. And, secondly, as regarded the class the hon. Member represented, according to his testimony they were most involuntary debts; debts devoted to the Public Service and the defence of the country were involuntary debts which were not in the nature of debts to an ordinary creditor, and which might be due to the extravagance of the landowner himself. And then the hon. Member said these were the debts which were to discharge the obligations of an extravagant Chancellor of the Exchequer. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes, but who was the author of that extravagance? The author of the extravagance complained of was the man who refused to pay the debts which he insisted on contracting. The Opposition complained of having to pay anything, whether in the nature of Income Tax, Death Duties, or anything else to minister to the demands of an extravagant Exchequer. That was the keynote of their resistance which had occupied day after day so much of the time of the House. With that object the Opposition proposed Amendment after Amendment. He would suggest concentrating them all into one short Amendment to this effect, that, "Having regard to the meritorious character and the difficult position of the landowners of this country, they should be discharged from all involuntary debts or duties to the State." Amendment after Amendment was being proposed in order that a particular class might escape from their obligations, and it was because the Government did not, and would not, recognise that there was any class in the community which was not bound to pay its fair share to the burdens of the State that he resisted this Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, that there was a great confusion growing up in his mind as to whether he or the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the guardian of the Government time. He found himself constantly in the position of having to try and allay the storms which the Chancellor of the Exchequer persisted in raising. Did the right hon. Gentleman want to get on with this Bill, or was it the Opposition who wanted to do so? Was the Chancellor of the Exchequer or were the Opposition most anxious to save the time of the House? He would have thought that, according to the ordinary distribution of duties in the House, it was the duty of the Opposition to criticise and the duty of the Leader of the House to attempt to soften controversies, and never to raise unnecessary issues, never to impart unnecessary poison to the discussions; if it were possible, to bring unity into inter-Party warfare, and to further the business of which he was at present nominally in charge. Even if the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it necessary to heighten and season the effect of his rhetoric by a little Party recrimination, they might have thought that the pièce de rèsistance would have been argument directed to the Amendment. But there was no argument in that speech. If the Committee had heard argument—if the right hon. Gentleman had argued—

SIR W. HARCOURT

I did that half an hour ago.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

asked, if, then, the right hon. Gentleman had exhausted all his arguments in one speech, why did he make a second speech for the purpose of prolonging debate? In less dignified persons that was called "obstruction." He was at a loss to know what to call it when it fell from the mouth of so great a master of Parliamentary procedure as the right hon. Gentleman. The speech which the right hon. Gentleman had just delivered consisted, from beginning to end, of an attack on the owners of real property for their supposed desire to get rid of the obligations thrown upon them by the cost of carrying on the Government of the country. Anybody who had happened to come into the Strangers' Gallery and listened to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer without having heard the previous part of the Debate would have supposed that the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with an Amendment which referred to real property alone, and not to personal property. He stated that he had made two speeches on the subject—the one argumentative, the other rhetorical. But had the right hon. Gentleman looked at the Amendment? Not one word in that Amendment referred to real property rather than to personalty. It was quite true that his hon. Friend did touch upon a particular bearing of the Amendment as regarded real property, and asked the Government to take payment in kind, in cases where it was found extremely difficult to provide payment in cash. There might be difficulties involved in that proposition. But to describe it as a plan by which owners of real property were to escape their share of the burden was really grotesque. After all, a man could only give what he had; and it was bad finance to require the taxpayer to provide, in order to meet his obligations, much more than he was ultimately to give to the State. That was an axiom of sound finance which had been recognised throughout the whole of the financial history of this country; and that, he supposed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not wish to repudiate or contradict. Whether the scheme of his hon. Friend was practical or not might be worth asking; but what was not worth while was to drag into a purely business discussion matters which were wholly irrelevant to that discussion, and which could only embitter and prolong debate, and accusations against a class which did not deserve them. Such charges were meant for consumption out of the House—they certainly would have little effect in it—and were a very unjust and ungenerous form of attack against a particular interest, which nobody could deny was now struggling against adversities such as had seldom been felt before in our history by any class of equal importance in the country. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made the speech the House had just listened to and had chosen to import such topics into the Debate. He must express his sympathy with his hon. Friend opposite in this matter, and that sympathy he believed was extended to him from below the Gangway opposite by some of the most distinguished Radical Leaders.

MR. DARLING (Deptford)

said, it was not so long since they heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer advocating the doctrine that when a man died his property was forfeited to the State. The right hon. Gentleman suggested, indeed, that it was only out of kindness that the State, having taken its portion, in reality gave back what was left to the relatives of the deceased person. Now, if that were the case the Amendment only asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to keep part of his own property. The Amendment made no distinction between real and personal property. Then let the Chancellor of the Exchequer keep that part of the property which came to him by the death and hand over the rest.

SIR H. MEYSEY-THOMPSON (Stafford, Handsworth)

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to think that he had urged that real property should be exempted from the tax. He had urged nothing of the kind. He expressed no opinion whether the tax was fair or excessive or should be imposed at all. All he asked was that where the owner found it impossible to borrow the money or sell the land at a reasonable price the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take the land himself at the value placed upon it by his own valuer.

MR. BARTLEY

pointed out that there were many small estates which were practically unsaleable, and what were the executors to do under those circumstances? The Chancellor of the Exchequer got angry at the very idea that anybody was worse off than himself, but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that that was the case. It was all very well for him to talk in an excited way about landowners paying like other creditors, but if they or their executors had no money how was it possible for them to pay? It would be necessary for some system to be adopted by which in such cases the Chancellor of the Exchequer might take the land.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 175.—(Division List, No. 118.)

*MR. BARTLEY moved, in page 4, line 2, at end, add— Provided that when an estate has been mortgaged for bonâ fide consideration previous to the passing of this Act, the charges for Estate Duty, in so far as they are in excess of all existing Death Duties, shall rank after such mortgage or mortgages. He hoped he should not fall under the censure of the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer in venturing to move this Amendment, which was one which should meet with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman. The object of his proposal was to protect existing mortgages on properties which had been bonâ fide lent previous to the passing of this Act. This raised a very important issue. In thoroughly solvent estates there was no doubt this proviso was not wanted; but in many estates which were mortgaged to their full, or nearly to their full, value it was certainly necessary in order to protect those who had bonâ fide lent money on these estates. Let him take the case of an estate which in the good old tinier of 20 years ago might be taken to be worth £60,000. That estate would have fallen in value at the present time to £30,000. He would put the income at £600 a year, which would be 2 per cent, on the reduced value. If it were mortgaged under the old system in the old times the full amount of the mortgage would have been possibly £40,000. If it was mortgaged at the present time for £40,000, he was aware that no Estate Duty would be payable, simply because the mortgage would more than cover the absolute value of the estate. But if the owners in the past had been more careful and instead of borrowing as much as they could had only borrowed £15,000 at 4 per cent., that estate would be valued for the Estate Duty at £15,000, and 4 per cent. Estate Duty on that amount would be £600. That meant to say that that estate would have to pay about £90 a year, with interest, for eight years. But the absolute interest on the mortgage money on the supposition he had advanced would be £600. He would ask this simple question: In this ease was the Estate Duty to be paid before the mortgage which was bonâ fide lent on that estate previous to the passing of this Act or not? If it was to come before it was quite clear that those who lent money were in a much worse position than they were before, because the whole income of the estate was swallowed by the interest on the mortgage, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would come down and require £90 a year out of that, small estate for eight years, and the mortgage interest would not practically be able to be paid in full. He said that the income of many small estates had been so greatly reduced by the unfortunate condition of agriculture that it was all swallowed up by the interest on mortgages made when times were better. Many of the Insurance Companies and Mortgage Companies had advanced money on landed estates; these institutions were not to blame for having made the advances, or for the great fall in the value of their securities. They would often be glad to call in their money but for the fear of forcing the estate into bankruptcy. If this Estate Duty became chargeable before the mortgages, it would undoubtedly lead to the mortgages being called in; for when the Insurance Companies understood that this heavy duty was to come before their claim, and practically made their claim the second mortgage, they would naturally take time by the forelock and give notice to call in the mortgages. Surely it was not desirable to put this enormous strain on the resources of already impoverished estates. It might be unusual for taxes to rank second; but never before had there been a tax which struck at securities as this Estate Duty did. Fortunately, the Committee would not be disturbed by the rhetoric of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this Amendment, and in the right hon. Gentleman's absence his proposal could be discussed on its merits. He saw the hon. Member for Cheshire opposite (Mr. Brunner), who was very active in these matters. He wished the hon. Member had a few landed estates to look after instead of salt mines. He thought he had a right to ask the Solicitor General to really fairly consider this matter. It was a question which would influence serious action upon a large number of persons if there should be a panic as to the safety of the security which trustees had upon mortgage, and if it was thought that this Estate Duty would have to be satisfied before the claims in respect to the mortgages could be considered. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 2, at end, to add— Provided that when an estate has been mortgaged for bonâ fide consideration previous to the passing; of this Act, the charges for Estate Duty, in so far as they are in excess of all existing Death Duties, shall rank after such mortgage or mortgages."—(Mr. Bartley.)

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

MR. R. T. REID

said, as he understood the question raised by the hon. Gentleman referring to mortgage transactions which had occurred prior to the passing of this Act, he desired to know whether the increase in the existing Estate Duty would rank after such mortgage? He certainly considered that in the case of an estate with an existing mortgage upon it now, in the event of a death after the passing of this Act, the mortgage would take priority of claim. The person of the mortgagee would not be affected by the change; all that would pass on death would be his equity of redemption; therefore, the duty could only be charged upon the equity of redemption. But there was another case to which the hon. Gentleman had not referred, and that was the case of mortgages in reversion. In the case of mortgages in reversion under the Succession Duty Act, if a reversioner mortgaged his reversion, then upon a succession taking place the Succession Duty would stand before the mortgage on the ground that the liability to duty attached as soon as the reversionary interest was created, and therefore that a transaction after the reversionary interest had been created would not enable him to postpone the prior charge, although it had not become due to the State for duty. That was the case with regard to succession. When they came to the reversionary interest under this Bill his own opinion was that the mortgagee would again take priority of the duty. It was only right to state to the hon. Gentleman that persons for whose authority he had the highest respect took a different view, and thought that in the case of reversion the duty would come even before the claims of the mortgagee. At all events, that being so, the hon. Gentleman would remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a promise some time ago to deal with the case of reversions—he thought on the initiative of the hon. Gentleman himself. They desired to protect the sales of reversions by reversioners who were not in possession from the incidence of the tax. He could say it was the intention to prevent that from happening in the case of reversions which the hon. Gentleman apprehended. He spoke, of course, of bonâ fide mortgages, and those made prior to the passing of this Act. That being so, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with the statement that the Government would deal with the question. He thought the proper place for dealing with it was under "Savings and Limitations" in Clause 17, which were intended to deal with temporary matters of this kind.

MR. BARTLEY

asked, did he gather that, supposing the revenue from an estate was only just sufficient to pay for the interest on the mortgage, would that revenue go first of all to pay the mortgage, and would the Estate Duty wait until the mortgage was paid?

MR. R. T. REID

replied that the claim of the mortgagee for payment would, of course, have to be satisfied first, but the Estate Duty would not cease to be payable—that was to say, there would be no absolution from the payment of duty.

MR. BARTLEY

intimated that he was prepared to withdraw his Amendment on the assurances that had been given by the Solicitor General.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

MR. GRANT LAWSON

observed that there was only one sub-section in this clause which had passed this House without a good deal of criticism and amendment, and that was the first subsection, which was a pure matter of form. The other sub-sections were open to such grave objection that it was really a question whether it would not promote business if they did not add the clause to the Bill. The Government themselves had admitted that it was impossible to make anything of the 4th sub-section as drawn at present. The Secretary for India had said he hoped they should not further discuss Sub-section 4, because very considerable alterations would have to be made in it before they came to another stage. Was it, he asked, any use putting a clause in the Bill which the promoters themselves declared would require considerable amendment before it could be passed into law? He would read one of the most extraordinary absurdities which Sub-section 4 of that clause showed when carefully read. As the result of their labours on Tuesday night they got that sub-section into this condition— Except that the duty on real property may, at the option of the person paying the duty, be paid either on the delivery of the account or the expiration of six months from the death of the deceased, whichever first happens. That was to say, they might either pay the duty on delivering the account of the property or else before they delivered the account of the property. Suppose they did not deliver it in six months? They put the duty on the account before they knew what the account was. Legislation of that description was unsatisfactory, and it was undesirable to add a clause with such ridiculous words in it to the Bill. Look at Sub-section 2, under which the unfortunate executor had to pay duty upon all the property of which the deceased was competent to dispose. The executor might have no assets with which to do anything of the sort. He had to pay duty on all settled property, which he knew nothing of, of which he was not trustee, and over which he had no control, and he might have no assets. All the money which came to him might be £2,000 or £3,000 from personalty; the man for whom he was executor might have £200,000 or £300,000 under settlement passing on his death, or which it would be held he was competent to dispose of because he had a general appointment over it. Was it fair to put the executor in that position? He had to manage property, of which he knew nothing, in all parts of the world and discharge payments to the Exchequer for which he had not assets. Take Sub-section 3. It declared that all accounts must be put in in six months, or such further time as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue allowed. That was practically an impossibility, as everybody with the least acquaintance with the subject would admit. Again, the question of payment by instalments was left in a very unsatisfactory condition. He did not see why, when in the case of real property there was power to pay by instalments, the same privilege should not also be extended to the case of personal property. The matter was left in such a condition that the instalments might grow up and accumulate until the property finally passed to the State. There would be great hardship done to the successive owners of an estate if the successions followed rapidly. A case had actually been cited by the Member for Penrith of a property with an income of £300 a year, and which would have to pay to the State £385. How was that to be done? It was all very well for the Government to say that the money to meet the payment of the duties could be raised on mortgage to any amount. But if each succession occurred before the duty on the former one was paid off these mortgages would go on accumulating, and it would not require any great amount of skill to understand that the mortgagee would in the long run get the land and the State the price of the property, while the last successor would find himself with nil. In short, it only had to go on long enough and it would come down to this—that the State would inherit the whole of the soil.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

commented on the extraordinary and peculiar fact that almost without one single exception there had not been a speech made in support of this clause by anyone except the official Members on the Front Bench of the Government. ["Hear, hear!"] And that statement was cheered by the extinct volcanoes who sat immediately behind the Treasury Bench. This, of all Bills introduced into this Parliament, was one on which they wanted to hear not the views of gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, but desired also to hear what opinion of their own hon. Gentlemen opposite had upon the subject. He had the honour and pleasure of a personal acquaintance, and he hoped a personal friendship, with certain hon. Members on the other side of the House, and he heard from some of them the strongest expressions of opinion in the Lobby in opposition to the provisions of this clause, and yet when he came into the House, and he with others attempted to argue these questions, they were met with an absolute mum silence on the part of the hon. Members opposite. What was the value to their constituents of hon. Members on the other side of the House?

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is not now addressing himself to the clause.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said, he accepted the ruling of the Chair, which appeared to be particularly palatable to a demonstrative millionaire on the other side of the House, who was happy to be a millionaire and able to be demonstrative. During the Debate many opportunities to improve the Bill and to introduce into it principles of common justice had been lost owing to the reluctance of hon. Members opposite to take part in the discussions.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman must deal with the clause as it is, and not as it might have been.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said, he had never been so unlucky as to call down the intervention of the Chair before, and he would take care not to deserve it again. Allowing for the fact that hon. Members opposite were bound to support their Government on this clause, could anything have been more peculiarly significant of the worst side of Parliamentary life than the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He must say that, speaking with a proper appreciation of the right hon. Gentleman's position, he deeply regretted the speech delivered by him that night. He had heard the right hon. Gentleman speak in kindly and sympathetic terms of the landed interest, but that night all those generous sentiments and the ideas of fair-play slipped out of his mind, and they heard a speech which, he ventured to say, was more worthy of the platform than the House of Commons. He only wished they could persuade the right hon. Gentleman that the way to conduct this Bill to success was not to taunt the Opposition with sentiments they did not hold, but to give them credit for a full desire to help him in making the measure as just and good a one as they could. What small improvements and Amendments had been made in the clause they owed to the courtesy and willingness to meet them displayed by the learned Solicitor General. Although he did not propose to ask the House to divide on the clause, he did wish to say that in many ways it had not had all the consideration it deserved, nor the improvement that might have been introduced into it.

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, he regretted that the Government had not seen their way to reduce the rate of interest payable on the instalments. He had moved an Amendment in that direction last night, but the Committee had affirmed the proposal in the Bill. He was sorry that the Government had not seen fit to listen to the wise remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for London University, who was one of the first financial authorities in the House, and who stated that the 3 per cent, interest was too high a rate altogether. Everyone knew that the unfortunate landowner who would have to pay 3 per cent, interest on his instalments of the duty would not get anything like that interest from the land. If he got 1 or 1½ per cent, he would consider himself lucky. The Debate had also conclusively proved that if two or three lives should drop in quick succession, the duty would be so great as to absorb the greater part of the estate. He therefore hoped that the Government would consent to fix some period of years and to enact that during that period it should only be possible for this excessive duty to be charged once upon an estate. If the Government did not do that, he promised them that they would have more trouble, for it would be the duty of the Opposition to move Amendments on the Report stage to effect that purpose. He protested against the clause as one whose heirs would suffer keenly from this iniquitous measure.

MR. HENEAGE

said, that for his part he did not care whether the clause stood part of the Bill or not. It was quite clear, he thought, that it could not be allowed to remain in its present shape, and must be altered by the Government on Report. He regretted the attack made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon those connected with the land. The right hon. Gentleman had made many attacks on the landowners in the past; but generally his remarks had been animated by a spirit of good humour. To-night, however, there was no good humour in the attack. He repudiated the insinuations of the right hon. Gentleman that landed proprietors wished to evade contributing their due proportion to the taxation of the country. The speech reported in that day's newspapers, to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, was not made at random, but was based, he knew, upon calculations carefully made. The Bill was so badly arranged that prolonged discussion was inevitable. The Government had chosen to deal with the collection of the duty before they discussed the way in which the estate was to be valued; but if the Committee had known that the valuation would place realty on the same basis as personalty, he did not think there would have been such discussions on the Bill. As one who did not care very much about the principle of the Bill, one way or the other, provided it was fair, he regretted very much the action taken up by the Government to-night, because he believed it would not tend to the progress of the Bill on the further stages.

*MR. TOMLINSON

said, he desired to dwell upon the difficulties by which executors would be surrounded when this Bill had become law. The present position of an executor having to deal with a mixed estate was not an easy one; but it was very easy indeed, compared to what it would be if Clause 5 were passed. At present, the executor made a calculation of the duty to be paid on his own valuation of the estate; and so he presumed the executor would continue to do under the Bill in the case of personalty. But owing to the system of aggregation and graduation it would be impossible for the executor to know how much Estate Duty he would have to pay on the personal estate until the full value of the estate, both real and personal, was ascertained. The executor was not at liberty to put his own value on the real property. What the executor had to do was to make out an account within six mouths, or such time as might be allowed him by the Commissioners, of the particulars of the real estate; that account was to go to the Commissioners, the Commissioners had had to find out what the value of the real estate was; and until the total value of the two classes of property—realty and personalty—was ascertained, and the scale of the duty to be charged was fixed, it would be impossible for the executor to obtain possession of any part of the estate, so as to pay debts and legacies, and divest himself of his responsibility.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, the first five clauses were undoubtedly the most important in the Bill; as they had now been got rid of, he trusted the proceedings in Committee would proceed with greater speed. As those clauses had been very roughly knocked about in their passage through Committee, he would suggest that they should be reprinted.

*MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

said, that he regarded the clause under consideration from the point of view of an owner of personalty who possessed hardly an acre of freehold property, and also from the point of view of a man who had been brought up among people who had to work for their living every day of their lives. Hon. Members opposite who were so loud in their complaints represented the interests of people whose incomes were continuous, but he was concerned for the class having, incomes that ceased absolutely upon death. That class had not the benefit of payment by instalments; the duty in their case must be paid at once when death occurred. Let them take the case of a medical man earning £1,200 a year, who had saved £8,000. His income before his death would be £1,200 a year, plus the interest on the £8,000. After his death that income, of course, at once fell from £1,600 to £400, and the whole Estate Duty would have to be paid on the £8,000. They had heard over and over again of the hardship of the case where death succeeding death the instalments accumulated; but in the case of the medical man to whom he had referred, the whole of the Estate Duty had to be paid on the £8,000 immediately by the widow, and if she died in the next year it had to be paid again immediately by the children. He should vote for every tine of the Bill, because it was the first measure relating to the Death Duties which satisfied his sense of justice.

SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N. E.)

said, the case mentioned by the hon. Member illustrated exactly the injustice of which the Opposition complained. The case of landed estates in which it might often be impossible to pay out of ready money the enhanced charges which were to be enforced by the Bill was quite a special one, because in that case they could not realise money where they had only the laud. The injustice of which he and other hon. Members complained was that the heavy duty proposed would have to be paid not once only, but perhaps two or three times over within the course of a few years. It, was within his knowledge that the possessors of an ancient estate had followed each other in death very rapidly, three brothers who had succeeded to the estate having died within a very few years of each other. Few ancient estates would survive those enhanced duties being levied upon them three times within a few years. He believed that, when the real character of the Bill in this respect was fully explained to the country, it would be seen that the measure was rather one of spoliation than of taxation, and that it would produce changes in our rural life which would be far-reaching and injurious. He hoped that when the clause was again brought before the House some further effort would be made to deal with the injustice to which he had referred.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 155; Noes 115.—(Division List, No. 119.)

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.