FINANCE BILL.—(No. 190.)

HC Deb 18 June 1894 vol 25 cc1356-430

COMMITTEE. [Progress, 15th June.]

[FOURTEENTH NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 6.

*MR. BARTLEY

said, the first Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper was one of a series the object of which was to define in broad outline the mode on which the duty on various classes of property paying it was to be estimated. On the preceding Friday he dealt with the question of reversions, and he admitted that the Government did not in any way accept what he suggested to be the only fair way of valuing them. But he hoped to be more successful in the present Amendment, which raised the question of the value of life interests. Those who had to do with this particular class of property knew that life interests were common enough, and were of a less complicated character than properties in reversion. But, in addition to that, it was a class of property which concerned a very large number of interests, and there certainly ought to be some definite principle laid down for their valuation. These life interests necessarily differed from settled estates, for he did not include such estates in this Amendment. That was a very different class of property, which he proposed to deal with in another Amendment. Unsettled life interests might be on either real or personal property. Could not the Government tell them how they intended to deal with that class of property under the Bill? Undoubtedly if the Bill became an Act—as the Government no doubt anticipated it would— some of these life interests would have to come before the Commissioners for valuation, and it was only fair that the House should know on what principle they were to be valued. His Amendment raised a fundamental principle in connection with those life interests, and the principle which it laid down was that they should be valued according to the age of the receiver. That seemed to be an almost self-evident proposition; but studying the Bill as he had done very carefully he had failed to find in it—neither had he heard in the course of the Debates—anything to satisfy him that the life interests were necessarily to be valued on that principle. Let the Committee take an illustration. If a man succeeded to a life interest of £100 a year, whether arising from personal or from real property, the capital value of the sum depended necessarily on the age of the recipient. If they took the 3 per cent. table, such an interest going to a man aged 70 had a capital value of £710; in the case of a man aged 40 it would be £1,714, and in the case of a man 21 years of age it would be £2,169. Now, he appealed to the Government to tell them exactly how the Commissioners of Inland Revenue would value these life interests. He thought the request for that information was most reasonable, and he also held that the principle should be distinctly set forth in the Bill. So long as it was laid down that the valuation should be on the basis of the age of the recipient, he did not care very much in what way effect was given to the principle, and did not press the particular plan set forth in the Amendment, although he might point out that that plan was one very favourable to the Exchequer. Certainly no one could suggest that it proposed too low a rate of valuation; on the contrary, he would probably be told by some of his hon. Friends that it was altogether too high. All he wished to emphasise by his Amendment was that these life interests, pure and simple, were to be valued by the Commissioners on a fair scale, and he did not care whether they took the 3, the 3¼, or the 3½ per cent. table of the National Debt Commissioners. He hoped the Attorney General—whom they were all glad to see back in his place—or the Solicitor General would be able to satisfy the Committee on the point.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 6, at end, to insert— (5) In calculating the principal value of an estate, each life interest shall be calculated as follows:—

1. (a) If the life interest be derived from personal property at an amount which the National Debt Commissioners would grant an immediate annuity to the recipient of the life interest equal to the life interest;
2. (b) If the life interest be derived from real property 10 per centum shall be deducted from the amount of the assessment, as provided in Clause 31 of this Act, and the amount which the National Debt Commissioners would grant an immediate annuity to the recipient of the life interest thus reduced shall be taken as the principal value of such life interest."—(Mr. Bartley.)

Question proposed, "That the Proviso be there inserted."

*THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,) Forfar

said that, assuming that the life interest here referred to was not the first limitation under a settlement, he could not conceive that the Commissioners could take any other basis for the valuation in question than the expected duration of the life. No other plan could possibly be suggested. If they were so far forgetful of their duty as to attempt to assess the value on any other principle they would not only fail in their attempt, but be liable in costs. The effect of the Amendment was that duty was to be paid on a higher price than could be obtained in this country or in any other part of the world from any purchasers who could not offer the high security of the National Debt Commissioners; and the real danger of a provision in express terms would be that it would interfere with the exercise of desirable discrimination. If the hon. Member meant to say that the highest conceivable value should always be put on a life interest the Amendment would attain that object; but from the point of view of drafting it would be a mistake.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, it seemed to him that his hon. Friend the Member for North Islington, in suggesting a method of ascertaining the value of a life interest, had gone beyond the wildest dreams of the tax collector. He would ask the Attorney General if it was proposed to value these life interests according to the tables of the Succession Duty Act? According to those tables, the value of a life interest in £100, in the case of a man aged 70 years, was £677 9s., against the £710 suggested by his hon. Friend's Amendment; at the age of 40 the value was £1,487 10s., instead of £1,714; and at the age of 21, £1,719 17s., as against £2,169. He certainly did not endorse the generous offer of his hon. Friend, and therefore he pressed the Government to say upon what table the valuation was to be based?

*SIR J. RIGBY

said, he could not answer that question; but the question of value was really the simplest of all, and never yet in the history of the Inland Revenue Office had there been an appeal to a Court of Law on the question of value, because the Department was reasonable, and its reasonableness had always been recognised.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he believed the statement just made was true, and it was to be accounted for by the fact that there were valuing rules and tables which were very definite; but, instead of following that excellent precedent, the Bill embodied no tables at all. It would conduce to the smooth working of the Bill and to the avoidance of litigation if tables were provided.

MR. BARTLEY

said, he would not trouble the Committee to divide, but he would point out that people were always shy of appeals against the decision of the Inland Revenue Commissioners. It seemed to him it was unfortunate that the existing tables were not incorporated, as that would have prevented any possibility of abuse. He knew of cases in which life interests had been treated as freeholds.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BARTLEY

said, his next Amendment—as to Terminable Annuities—was much more important than the last, although the Attorney General might think the mode of calculating the duty to be a question of no moment. Terminable Annuities formed a large and important part of the interests which would pass under the Bill. Ground-rents were Terminable Annuities with reversion; and the Committee had already settled that reversions were to be taxed to the utmost under the Bill; but the Committee had not dealt with the Ter- minable Annuities represented by ground-rents, with respect to which, he maintained, some definite principle ought to be laid down. Undoubtedly, many of the ground-rents were held by very rich persons. Some had but a short time to run, and some had a long life before them; but whether they were held by large landlords or by small persons, the fact remained that the valuation of them was a matter of enormous importance. He was aware that ground-rents were to a certain extent held in odium by the Government because some of them were held by very rich persons; but surely it was not a moral principle of taxation to take into consideration whether the property taxed belonged to the rich or to the poor. By whomsoever it was held the incidence of taxation should be equal. He therefore asked the Government to lay down some principle upon which these ground-rents were to be taxed. The principle of Terminable Annuities was, of course, a very simple one. They were practically life interests, having from 10 years upwards to run, and he thought the valuation should proceed on the lines he had indicated in his Amendment, although he had, perhaps, put an excessive value on them in his anxiety to avoid complaints from the Government that he had proceeded too far in an opposite direction. The principle of which he suggested the adoption was that it should depend on the length of time the Terminable Annuity had to run, and also on the average duration of life as applicable to the age of the recipient. In London a large amount of property was held on small ground-rents; something enormous would have to be paid by the reversioners; and that made it the more important that the annuities should be valued with the strictest fairness. If a man of 70 succeeded to a ground-rent of £10 a year which had 20 or 30 years to run that ought to be treated as a life annuity. He might be told it was obvious that that was the principle which would be acted upon; but, so far as he could judge, the Bill gave the Commissioners absolute discretion as to the method of valuation which they might adopt. What he wanted to do was to lay down some rule by which these Terminable Annuities were to be valued upon some equitable principle. If the Attorney General told him there was some pro- vision in the Bill that would secure that object he would be satisfied.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 6, at end, to insert— (6) The principal value of Terminable Annuities passing at death shall be ascertained as follows:—

1. (a) When the expectation of life, according to the standard tables of life, of the receiver of the Terminable Annuity is equal to or less than the length of time the annuity has to run, the said annuity shall be regarded as a life interest, and valued according to sub-section (3);
2. (b) When the expectation of life, according to the standard tables of life, of the receiver of the Terminable Annuity is greater than the length of time the annuity has to run, the principal value of such annuity shall be such sum as the National Debt Commissioners will be willing, according to their published tables, to grant such annuity."—(Mr. Bartley.)

Question proposed, "That the Proviso be there inserted."

SIR J. RIGBY

said, he understood the Mover of the Amendment did not wish to go against the principle of the Bill, but desired that the Treasury should get the full value of the duty upon these annuities. He thought there had been a mixing up of the question of the age of the people who enjoyed these annuities and the extent of the enjoyment. Whether a Terminable Annuity passed to a young man or to an old man there was no real difference. They were not to consider the actual amount of personal enjoyment that a man received from his annuity. If a man had an annuity he could, if he choose, sell it at once and get the whole value of it; and, if so disposed, spend the whole of it during his life, whether long or short. To make any distinction would be against the principle they had insisted upon. What they had to do was to levy the duty upon everything that passed, and that was the only principle that they could apply.

Mr. BARTLEY

said, that they were discussing what the principal value was to be. What he was trying to drive at was that they should define a principal value that would be fair and equitable. It could not be fair that a man of 80 who received an annuity of £5 a year, which was to last his life, should pay as much as a man of 20. He saw that the Attorney General shook his head. Of course, everything was supposed to be fair that was done by Act of Parliament. The valuation of these annuities ought to be carried out in a fair and equitable manner, whereas if the interpretation of the Government was adopted, a very great injustice would be done to a large class of the community. He knew it was of no avail to say that rich persons would be affected, but he would point out that a number of small properties would be affected also. The taxation of an annuity should depend upon the age of the recipient. He knew they had accepted the principle that the principal value was to be taken in estimating the Estate Duty, but they were now discussing how the principal value was to be arrived at, and it seemed to him that the absence of such a section as this would inflict great injury upon a considerable number of persons, and cause them to pay more Estate Duty than they ought in justice to be called upon to pay.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think my hon. Friend is right that it would be an injustice in a case such as he quoted that both men should be taxed alike. But though it is a great injustice, it is an injustice inherent in the Government Bill. There may be a peculiar injustice in the case of holders of Terminable Annuities; but that is by no means the only hardship. My hon. Friend's objection to the scheme of the Government to tax a man not on what he himself is going to enjoy, but what his predecessor enjoyed is a very sound one; but it applies not only to annuities, but to other forms of property which gives an income to its possessor. I agree with the general principle which underlies my hon. Friend's Amendment, but I think it would be almost too much to suppose that the Government would accept the Amendment and remedy injustice in regard to one arbitrarily selected class of property as against all others. I rather hope that my hon. Friend, having made clear the character of the injustice of which he complains, will not ask the Committee to divide.

*MR. BARTLEY

said, it was true that his Amendment chiefly affected only one class of persons, but he proposed it in the interests of fair treatment to all classes. He regretted that the Government had not accepted an Amendment to define all the various classes of property, so that there might be some equitable system adopted, not in one particular case, but in all cases. As he knew it was useless to attempt to carry the Amendment, he would not divide the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BARTLEY

said, his next Amendment concerned the question of Irish laud, and he supposed it would meet the same fate. They ought to know how the Government proposed to value Irish land. He would ask, how was the Government going to value Irish estates at the present time? The Amendment of the Leader of the Opposition, which had been accepted by the Government, did not seem to meet this case. It stated, "price as sold in the open market." In Ireland estates were not saleable in the open market, and he supposed the Amendment was not intended to apply to Ireland. If it was intended to apply to Ireland he would like to hear the Attorney General say so. That would settle his Amendment, and show that in the opinion of the Government laud in Ireland had no saleable value, and consequently no value at all for the purposes of Estate Duty. He should be perfectly satisfied with having elicited that opinion. With that view he would move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 6, at end, insert— (7) In the case of real estate situated in Ireland the principal value shall be calculated on the amount of rent actually received during the preceding ten years, to which may be added all arrears which the Commissioners, or others acting for them, may obtain during the six months succeeding the death, and the average thus actually received shall be taken on the annual value.

1. (a) The fee simple shall be taken at twenty years' purchase of such annual value;
2. (b) The life interest principal value shall be taken as the cost of an annuity to the receiver equal to such annual value on the three and a-half per cent. tables)."—(Mr. Bartley.)

Question proposed, "That the Proviso be there inserted."

*SIR J. RIGBY

said perhaps it was hardly for him to say so, but speaking from what he conceived to be the construction of the Amendment he should say that it would undoubtedly apply to Ireland and to any estate which had actually no saleable value.

MR. BARTLEY

I am thoroughly satisfied and withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*MR. BARTLEY

said, his next Amendment concerned church patronage. Patronage was legally property, and was regarded in law as property. He personally regretted that this was so, and he had always regarded patronage as a trust. But that was the law, and although some persons objected to selling patronage, the fact remained that it was property. He ventured to think that the Government held the view that it was only property when sold, and if it was used as a trust and was not sold it would not come within the purview of this Act. Where the patronage was not sold the person possessing it could not be said to derive pecuniary benefit from it, and it seemed to him that no duty ought to be paid. If the Attorney General would tell him that that was the case, he should be satisfied with having raised the discussion. His Amendment would tend to promote the state of affairs which they wished to see brought about; whereas if patronage was calculated as value, whether sold or not, it would be an encouragement to the sale of livings. The Committee was fairly well acquainted with the circumstances under which he moved the Amendment. He thought the question of the valuation of church patronage must come up so soon as this Bill passed, and inasmuch as a heavy duty might fall on some large estates if patronage was regarded as property, although most large holders did not sell their patronage at all, he thought they ought to insert a clause providing that those patrons who did not sell should not be taxed for the value of livings out of which they received no pecuniary benefit. The Government had stated over and over again that it was only where benefit accrued that this Bill was to come into operation. A system of selling patronage had grown up in the course of ages, still where it was not exercised it could not be said to be tangible property which should be taxed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was a large and complicated subject, but he should like now to hear from the Attorney General whether he would accept the principle that where no valu- able consideration passed there should be no tax imposed.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 6, at end, to insert— (8) In calculating the value of an estate the principal value of any right of church patronage shall be the amount of consideration which was received by the patron for such right of patronage on the last transfer previous to the death of the deceased."—(Mr. Bartley.)

Question proposed, "That the Proviso be there inserted."

*SIR J. RIGBY

said, it was quite painful to have to refuse the hon. Member's acceptance of so many tempting Amendments. The Government were of opinion that the sale of church property ought not to be encouraged. They all knew that the existence of that feeling throughout the country had rendered it more and more difficult to sell church patronage, and that the values of the next presentations bad been steadily declining. Also, he was glad to say the number of eases in which value had been derived at all had been reduced. He thought the hon. Gentleman's Amendment did not carry out their aim. It would tax the owner of an advowson, although he might never have dealt with it at all. There were other Amendments on the Paper proposing to adopt a modified provision in favour of the owners of advowsons which had already been adopted in our legislation which at any rate ought to be carefully considered, and he thought that any discussion which might arise would apply more conveniently to these. Therefore he would suggest that the present Amendment should be withdrawn, and the discussion take place later.

SIR R. WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

said, he would suggest that the course proposed by the Attorney General be followed. He would not be able to support the present Amendment, because it would have a contrary effect to that which they desired. It would tax a value which might be excessive, or impose the tax where there was no value at all. There was an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Kensington which would raise the question whether they ought to continue the exemption of advowsons.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN (Kent, Tunbridge)

said, the Amendment which he had to move was on the same subject of church patronage, and it contained the proposal alluded to by the Attorney General. It amounted to this—that exemption should be made in the case of advowsons and church patronages as under the Succession Duty Act of 1853. The 24th section of that Act read— A successor shall not be chargeable with duty in respect of any advowson or church patronage comprised in his succession, unless the same, or some right of presentation, or some other interest in or out of such advowson or church patronage, shall be disposed of by or in concert with him for money or money's worth, in which case he shall be chargeable with duty upon the amount or value of the money or money's worth for which the same, or any such presentation or interest, shall be so disposed of at the time of such disposal. The object of this section was to treat patronage as a trust rather than as a property. It laid down the principle that if a man inherited an advowson or the right to appoint he should not be called upon to pay Succession Duty unless he sold it. They knew that since the year that Act was passed the feeling had largely grown that the right of patronage should be regarded more as a trust and less as property. If that proposal was assented to then there was far more reason why it should be assented to at the present moment. He would venture to say that he disapproved entirely of traffic in advowsons or rights of church patronage. Many of them thought it was not possible to prohibit the sale altogether, but they did say that if a man did not sell his rights or treat them as a matter of money's value he ought not to be called upon to pay duty. The same principle which applied to the Succession Duty ought therefore to apply in this case. Unless there was this exemption great hardship might be inflicted upon persons inheriting a considerable number of these advowsons. A case might arise in which a man's property included as many as 20 advowsons. If the supposed value of those advowsons was aggregated with the rest of the property a man might have to pay a large amount of Estate Duty although he received no benefit from them, and moreover that might so raise the real value of his property that he would have to pay on a higher scale, and so be a considerable loser. If a man having inherited advowsons afterwards chose to make money out of them he thought it was perfectly right that the value he received from them should be added to the estate upon which he had to pay duty, but he did think it would be very hard that the duty should be paid where the rights were not sold. He sincerely hoped the Government would see their way to accept this Amendment. He was sure that Members on the other side of the House who wanted to prevent the sale of advowsons altogether would not object to the exemption of what was unsaleable property. He thought this simple Amendment would meet the wishes of a large number of people who had considered this question.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 7, at end, to insert— Estate Duty shall not be payable upon any advowson or church patronage which would have been free from Succession Duty under the twenty-fourth section of 'The Succession Duty Act, 1853.'"—(Mr. Griffith-Boscawen.)

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

*SIR J. RIGBY

said, there was an Amendment still lower on the Paper to which this discussion would more properly apply.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

said, that his hon. Friend (Mr. Byrne) and himself had considered the terms of the two Amendments, and had agreed that his (Mr. Griffith-Boscawen's) should be moved.

MR. BYRNE (Essex, Walthamstow)

said, the objection to the Amendment which he had set down was that he proposed to fix the valuation of advowsons dealt in at not more than 5 per cent., which would have the effect of imposing a tax higher than that on ordinary property. Therefore, he was willing to withdraw in favour of the Amendment which was now moved.

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, that if a decision was arrived at, as he hoped it would be, that church patronage was no longer to be a question of barter and sale, this provision would be unnecessary.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, it occurred to him that the Amendment lower on the Paper would be more suitable, as being more in consonance with the existing law. Perhaps the Attorney General would point out why he considered he is own proposal the best. The Amendment seemed to him (Sir R. Webster) the simplest way to carry out the object in view.

*SIR J. RIGBY

said, the Government would accept the Amendment subject to the right of proposing any alterations which might be considered necessary at a later stage.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. BYRNE

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out Subsections (5) and (6) and insert new provisions; but the earlier part of his proposal had been anticipated by what had taken place the other evening, and the remainder would be more conveniently dealt with when they reached line 15.

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

said, he desired to move an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for York (Mr. Butcher) which was of some importance. It was an Amendment to provide that the valuations required under the Act should be carried out at the expense of the Commissioners. He had gathered from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other evening that if expensive valuations were required he was prepared that the Inland Revenue Department should pay the expenses. Under the circumstances the right hon. Gentleman might very well accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 9, after the word "Commissioners," to insert the words "at their own expense."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)

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

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, he had expressed the opinion that if the Commissioners required valuations they should defray the expense; but the words proposed would go further than he had intended in that statement. He would ask the hon. and learned Member to allow the Government to bring up words to carry out the object in view.

MR. BYRNE

said, that at present the Commissioners did not pay the expenses. They were defrayed by the beneficiaries; therefore, this would be an alteration in the law. He would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. AMBROSE (Middlesex, Harrow)

said, he begged to move an Amendment to provide that— If not agreed upon by the Commissioners and the person accountable for the duty, a sufficient number of valuers to form a rota shall be appointed in England and in Scotland by the County Council, and in Ireland by the Grand Jury for the county or district in which the property is situate, and the question of value shall be referred to the decision of one of the rota of valuers to be appointed as before mentioned, each valuer in his turn, if able and willing to act, being entitled to the reference, and the decision of such valuer shall, subject to appeal as hereinafter provided, be binding upon the Commissioners and upon the person accountable for the duty; and for the purposes of this Act, the person having the custody or possession of the property shall permit the valuer so to be appointed to inspect it at all reasonable times as such valuer may consider necessary. The object was to provide machinery for calling to the mind of the Commissioners the proper basis on which the whole value of the property should be decided. It seemed to him it would be a great mistake to allow the Commissioners to be judges in their own cause. There was an analogy bearing upon the Amendment in the Income Tax Commissioners. These Commissioners were independent gentlemen in the position of jurors—assessors, in fact. They were not at the beck and call of the Inland Revenue. The Commissioners under the Bill would have enormous power, as it would rest with them to say whether an estate was worth £50,000 or £100,000. He did not suppose that they would be actuated by improper motives, but unless they were thoroughly independent they would feel a natural bias, and the point was how could that bias be avoided. The plan he ventured to suggest would avoid many difficulties, and was free from any real objection. He did not propose that County Councillors should themselves become the Commissioners, but it did not seem to him unreasonable to propose that they should have the nomination of the persons who should make the valuation upon which the Commissioners should act. The County Council would, of course, employ men who were capable of valuing both personal property and real property. He himself had no hope whatever that any benefit would be derived from the laying down of rules respecting the number of years' purchase that was to be given, because it must happen that very frequently properties were under-rented, while others might be over-rented. The question of the number of years' purchase was one which only valuers could decide.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 9, after the word "Commissioners," to leave out to end of Sub-section (5), and insert— And, if not agreed upon by the Commissioners and the persons accountable for the duty, a sufficient number of valuers to form a rota shall be appointed in England and in Scotland by the County Council, and in Ireland by the Grand Jury for the county or district in which the property is situate, and the question of value shall be referred to the decision of one of the rota of valuers to be appointed as before mentioned, each valuer in his turn, if able and willing to act, being entitled to the reference, and the decision of such valuer shall, subject to appeal as hereinafter provided, be binding upon the Commissioners and upon the person accountable for the duty; and for the purposes of this Act, the person having the custody or possession of the property shall permit the valuer so to be appointed to inspect it at all reasonable times as such valuer may consider necessary."—(Mr. Ambrose.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'In such manner and by such means as they' stand part of the Clause."

*SIR W. HARCOURT

I do not think that any improvement would be effected in the present system of making valuations if the method proposed by the hon. and learned Member were adopted. One of the great advantages, I believe, of the present system is that in most cases the affairs of the person who is to be charged with duty are not published to the world, because if he makes a reasonable proposal to the Commissioners it is accepted, and there is an end of it, there being no inquisitorial inquiry into his affairs. If, however, a rota of valuers were appointed a perfectly different state of things would prevail. The hon. and learned Member refers us to the method pursued by the Income Tax Commissioners. Well, people do not always like the investigation into their affairs which takes place when a man goes before those Commissioners. I do not think that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member would be of any advantage, and it would be a great deal more expensive to carry out than the proposal in the Bill. Under these cir- cumstances I cannot accept the Amendment.

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

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in hoping that my hon. and learned Friend will not press this proposal to a Division. Indeed, I think the point has been practically settled by words inserted in the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend (Mr. A. J. Balfour), which provide that the value is to be fixed by the Commissioners. There is, however, a point in the Amendment which I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite might very fairly consider. He has expressed his intention of making some provision in the Bill by which the Commissioners will relieve the executors of an estate of the cost of valuation in cases where they require an expensive valuation to be made. The great evil of these valuations of course is their cost, and if a rota of valuers were appointed for each county either by the Inland Revenue Authorities or by the County Council, one of whom might be called in in any case where it was necessary to have an expensive valuation, it might be possible either for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or for the County Council to fix a scale of charges which would limit the excessive charges now made by valuers. I think that from this point of view the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend certainly deserves the consideration of the Government. It would be the object of valuers of a high class to get their names placed upon such a rota, and a position on the rota would compensate them for some reduction in the charges. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take this into consideration.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I will certainly take that into consideration. I would point out that the Amendment adopted on the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) will really in a great degree, as regards agricultural land, dispense with valuation altogether, because, as you have the Income Tax valuation agreed upon, the question of a valuation in the sense suggested now would seldom arise. Therefore it is not a very material matter.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, he felt constrained to support Her Majesty's Government on this Amendment, and he trusted that his hon. and learned Friend would not divide upon it. In regard to real estate the matter of valuation had been settled, and he thought in the right way, by the directions that had been given to the Commissioners. There remained, therefore, only personal property. It would be the simplest thing in the world to value stock, and therefore there would remain only such matters as pictures, which had been dealt with satisfactorily for generations by the Commissioners. He thought they could be dealt with as satisfactorily in the future as in the past. He should in any case most strongly object to setting up an unbroken line of valuers to impose their valuations upon other persons, such valuations to be binding upon the Commissioners. He thought it would be a most unfortunate thing to set up a close corporation of auctioneers and surveyors. These gentlemen were bad enough now, but they would become unbearable if the Amendment were adopted. He thought it would be most objectionable to establish these new tyrants in every county in England.

*SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

I hope it will not be understood that we at all accept the interpretation which has been placed by my hon. Friend who has just sat down upon the Amendment adopted on the Motion of my right hon. Friend (Mr. A. J. Balfour) a few nights ago. The whole of my right hon. Friend's Amendment is governed by market value, and although 25 years' purchase of the Income Tax assessment was to be taken as a maximum in certain cases, it was to be nothing but a limit, and in the case of much agricultural property the valuation might be very much below 25 years' purchase. I think there would be a good many cases where valuers might have to be called upon, and where the idea of a rota might be put in force.

MR. AMBROSE

said, he was satisfied that there were thousands of cases in which the limitation of the Amendment of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) would have no application whatever. He was certain that the practice which had been in vogue for 100 years as regarded personal estate would utterly break down when brought to apply to real estate. His hon. Friend the Member for Lynn Regis (Mr. Gibson Bowles) would prefer the tyranny of the Commissioners to the tyranny of a perfectly independent body of persons appointed by the County Council. He (Mr. Ambrose) did not agree with his hon. Friend, and he was certain that a day would come when it would be regretted that some such provision as was embodied in his Amendment had not been inserted in the Bill. He had moved his Amendment with the object of improving the Bill, but he could not hope to carry it if he was not supported by gentlemen on his own side of the House, and he would therefore ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.) moved to insert, at the end of line 14, the following words:— The executors of the deceased may require the Commissioners, in their valuation of real estate, to value separately each part, whether each estate, each farm, or each plot. He said, he thought it would be a reasonable thing that in valuations of this sort the Commissioners might be required to give the value of each part of the estate if necessary. A considerable hardship might be done if the whole estate were valued en bloc, and he thought it was only reasonable that where a very heavy duty was being charged the persons upon whom it would fall should be able to ask how it was made up. He confined his Amendment absolutely and entirely to realty. They knew very well that many people had property in different plots, each of which was of a totally different character to the other, and therefore it seemed to him that it was highly desirable that the Commissioners should be bound to take the valuation on each separate part. Unless the details of the valuation were given it was almost impossible to expect that a proper opinion should be arrived at. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said these valuations were rarely disputed, but that was really owing to the fact that so many of the smaller class of owners were afraid to appeal against the decisions of the Commissioners, as they knew that the costs were very heavy, and they preferred to pay in excess rather than have the trouble and annoyance and possible expense of contesting these matters. It was, therefore, only right that some such reasonable proposal as the one he now made should be adopted.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 14, after the word "necessary," to insert the words— The person accountable for the duty may require the Commissioners, in their valuation of real estate, to value separately each part, whether each estate, each farm, or each plot."—(Mr. Bartley.)

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

*SIR J. RIGBY

said, he doubted whether the hon. Gentleman really appreciated the effect of this Amendment, which would multiply the clerks that would be required without any reason at all. The hon. Member did not try to discriminate between one case and another, but proposed that wherever there was an estate on which the duty had to be paid the Commissioners should be required to value it plot by plot. They would be at the mercy of thousands of persons, and it would be a very much more uncertain thing than to value an estate as a whole. The hon. Member said the reason why there had been no appeals was the fact that persons were afraid they might be acting against their own interests. Why, there were thousands of estates, consisting of land and buildings, which every year were valued for probate. These were not really solid objections, and what had been done in times past in regard to leaseholds could well be now done, and in many cases much more easily when dealing with fee simple estates. What had been sufficient in times past would be sufficient now, but what the Amendment proposed was that each plot should be taken separate to the other, at immense expense, great difficulty, and with no real advantage. What was required was to know what was the value of all the property that was to be included in the valuation and in respect of which duty was payable.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

thought there was a good deal more in the Amendment than the Attorney General seemed to think. The hon. and learned Gentleman was justified in objecting to the Commissioners being called upon to value every separate plot, but he thought there was a good deal in the case when his hon. Friend insisted upon different classes of property being valued separately. For instance, upon an estate where there was a good deal of agricultural and a good deal of mining property, the two classes should be valued separately, so that the person accountable for the duty should know exactly what value was put upon each of them. As he understood the scheme, in future they would have to pay Estate Duty upon the principal value of unworked mines, and he would like to ask how it was going to be arrived at? because all its value was undergound. That was a case that had not yet arisen; but when dealing with a duty of this kind and an entirely new class of property, it was only fair that the people interested should know exactly upon what scale and in what manner they were being valued. If his hon. Friend insisted upon every plot being valued then he could not agree with him, but he entirely agreed with the view that each separate class of property should be valued.

MR. BARTLEY

said, it was only in regard to small properties that he proposed that each plot should be valued, because the Amendment specially said each estate and each class of property going down to plot. The Amendment was originally put down in connection with another Amendment that had reference to the handing over of a, portion of the property where there was no cash.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he would point out there was really a substantial matter requiring the consideration of the Government. He did not wish to minimise what was said by the Attorney General as to the existing state of the law, but the hon. and learned Gentleman must remember that a different state of things was going to prevail; there was to be a valuation in the first instance by the Commissioners, and subsequently an appeal, and to avoid expense and delay there should be a power under the rules to require sub-division for the valuation. Practically, the only information given to them was that given them by the Attorney General when he said they did not want this, because in the hands of rich people thousands of large estates were being valued for the purposes of probate. If the Attorney General thought the Amendment went too far there would be no objection to alter it, but he thought it right they should distinguish between particular classes of property. Under the existing law, in very many cases property had to be valued separately, and the reason for that was obvious. In valuing the property in the gross a great mistake might be made which would not occur when the property was valued separately. The Amendment pointed to an administrative difficulty which required to be met beforehand either by the framing of rules or by the insertion of words providing that the competent authority might require a proper subdivision of valuation. It was but right that the person sought to be charged should be in a position to know what value was put on the different items of his property.

*SIR J. RIGBY

said, he hoped the Committee would sympathise with those who had had to draw a Bill of this extent and scope when they saw that its critics and those who proposed to amend it found themselves met with all sorts of difficulties. The first step in the matter was that the person accountable must send in the valuation. What he objected to was that the Commissioners should be driven to do that which the parties could do for themselves. When they had gone to the trouble of separating the different plots, of course the Commissioners, if they objected, would be obliged to point out where the objection came in. He denied that any difficulty would arise in considering the nature of the property; it was a matter of arithmetic alone. And with regard to the alleged difficulty of valuing minerals underground, the fact was notorious that sales of such property, unworked and unwon, took place from day to day, the value being as closely estimated as if the minerals were gotten on the face of the soil; therefore, there was no real difficulty about it. The person accountable for the duty could make as many valuations as he chose.

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

said, the hon. and learned Attorney General spoke about the critics of the Bill, but if he would look at the Amendments to Clause 7 he would find that the learned Solicitor General was also amongst the critics. The point of sub- stance was this: For the purposes of the Estate Duty the property should be valued according to its different class, but it should also be valued in sub-divisions in the case of property going to several beneficiaries, in order to ascertain what portion of the Estate Duty was recoverable from each beneficiary. Property did not always pass en bloc as the Government seemed to think it did; and if the Inland Revenue valuation was according to the different classes, they would arrive at the amount of duty not only to be paid to the Inland Revenue, but the amount recoverable from each beneficiary. The Attorney General referred to thousands of valuations taking place of large estates in the hands of rich people; but the fact was, that 55,000 valuations out of 68,000 represented estates of a less value than £1,000, so that there were very few cases where the valuations were in regard to estates of over £1,000.

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

said, he did not wish to delay the Committee, but he did not think the Attorney General had quite appreciated one of the difficulties his hon. Friend had to deal with, and he would like to remind the Solicitor General of the Amendment of his the Government accepted on Friday night which laid down certain rules which applied a certain limit beyond which, in the case of agricultural land, the valuers were not to go. In the common case of an ordinary agricultural estate 9–10ths or 19–20ths would come under the definition of property where no part was due to expectation or increased revenue therefrom, but the twentieth part might consist of property from which increased income might be expected, as accommodation land or building land, and if they were going to describe that estate they would not describe it as a whole from which increased income was likely to accrue; the Inland Revenue would never ride off on a chicane of that kind. That was a point that was well worthy of consideration, and might be met by a modification of the Amendment. Only one other point, which he borrowed from his hon. Friend behind him, who brought to the notice of the Committee the case of the unworked minerals. He thought it was desirable and convenient that where a real estate consisted of various kinds of property, those properties should be distinguished for pur- poses of valuation in some way or other. He quite agreed they could not ask the Inland Revenue to go to the cost of making a minute survey of every kind of property; but he went further, and said that the total value was not the same as the various parts of which it was composed, and in which case it would be unjust to the executor to cut up the property into small items. Take the case of a residential property with sporting convenience, which might have an immense value for purposes of sale; but if they measured the value of that field by field and added the value of each part together, they would reach a sum very much less than it would fetch as a whole, and in that case the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, on the principle of the Bill, be defrauded, and he quite agreed, therefore, they could not ask that that estate should be sub-divided. But he thought that, in order to make it quite clear what was the intention of the Amendment of his the Government adopted the other night, it might be convenient to introduce words which would require a separate valuation. He did not know whether these words he had sketched would meet the case— The executors of the deceased may require the Commissioners in their valuation to distinguish between that part of the estate, if any, which consists of agricultural property on which there is no expectation of increased income, unworked minerals, buildings, and land which derives part of its value from the expectation that it will be used for building. Either now or upon Report it would be desirable the Government should consider the question, and if these words would not do that, the Government should bring up an Amendment that would meet the case.

MR. R. T. REID

said, with regard to the general argument he did not think it desirable that he should say anything, inasmuch as it had been dealt with by the Attorney General. With regard to the specific point which had been put as to separate valuation of separate classes of property, he believed that at the present time the Commissioners did full justice in the matter. If it were thought that justice had not been done, a safeguard was given, in the last resort, by way of appeal to the Courts. The right hon. Gentleman said that not only should they discriminate between the valuation of agricultural land, but that they should go further, and discriminate between particular classes and kinds of property, such as mines, and minerals, and so forth. He did not suppose that there was any obligation to divide the property now, still he rather thought that in any fair case the Commissioners would be quite disposed to give any reasonable information. But that raised a general question altogether which he did not think was raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member, and he was sure it would be obvious that the Government could not accept this Amendment, and, indeed, it would not be desirable to do so. He submitted if it were desirable to raise this point, the best plan would be to agree upon an Amendment which would carry out precisely what hon. Members opposite thought should be embodied in such Amendment, and put it down for the Report stage, when it could be debated. To carry out the Amendment as it now stood would throw an enormous amount of labour on the Inland Revenue. He would suggest to the hon. Member that as his Amendment had not attracted in its present form the support of those gentlemen who had spoken, the right course would be not to press it further at this stage, but to bring up an Amendment designed to carry out the object in view on the Report stage, when it could be debated.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

remarked that the Attorney General had said that the valuation of real estate had always been carried out. Yes, but never upon the principal value. It had hitherto only been so valued in exceptional cases. As to this Amendment, it proposed that various kinds of property should be valued separately in order to ascertain the value of the whole. He did not see how the Commissioners were to arrive at the value as a whole unless by valuation of the separate parts of which an estate was composed. He further submitted that even in valuing the different parts of an estate the Government would not have fulfilled their own obligations under their own Bill, because he recalled to the recollection of the learned Solicitor General—who knew the Bill as well as anybody by this time—Clause 9, under which the rateable portion of the duty was to be a first charge upon the property subject to that duty. In other words, if he inherited a field, a rateable portion of the duty on the whole estate was to be a rateable charge upon his field, and if he did not pay the duty they might come down and levy the charge upon that field, so that the Commissioners must not only apportion part of the estate, but apportion it to each one of the beneficiaries, otherwise Clause 9 was nonsense. By that same Clause 9 the executor was empowered to mortgage or sell the field to which he (Mr. Gibson Bowles) might have succeeded in case he did not repay him the duty in respect of it. The question arose as to what rateable portion of the duty his field was liable, and there again it was absolutely necessary not merely that the different portions of the estate should be separately valued, but positively the separate interest taken by each beneficiary under the will in respect of each property. One of the most stupendous difficulties that would arise under this Bill would be the apportionment of the proper share of duty to each beneficiary who took a benefit in the estate. When they came to levy the duty, they would be brought face to face with the necessity of charging upon the estate itself and upon the beneficiaries who took that estate; therefore, he submitted, first of all, that there was no such valuation known to the Succession Duty Act as that proposed to be made here; secondly, that it was absolutely necessary they should value the separate parts of the estate, otherwise they could not value the whole, and that in addition the Government had already pledged themselves to value not merely the separate parts of the estate, but the separate interest of each beneficiary, otherwise it would be absolutely impossible to work Clause 9. The Government, therefore, ought to accept this Amendment to enable them to take a step towards the further step they would have to take for carrying out Clause 9.

MR. HANBURY

said, that some of the difficulties anticipated by the Attorney General would not arise in connection with settled estates. As to the question of valuation, he contended there would not be any practical difficulty in valuing different classes of property separately. When properties were so distinct in character as mining and agricultural property, they would have separate valuers for each class of property, and all they asked was that the beneficiaries should know what these separate values were.

MR. BARTLEY

said, the point he wished to raise would be met by the simple words— The person accountable for the duty may require the Commissioners in their valuation of real estate to value separately each separate class of property. That was the intention of the clause, and surely the Government could hardly object to such a very simple statement. In valuing a complicated estate it would be absolutely necessary to have different classes of valuers, and therefore he thought it would certainly be fair to accept this Amendment. He would move to amend the Amendment, so that it would read as follows:— The person accountable for the duty may require the Commissioners in their valuation of real estate to value separately each class of property.

SIR R. WEBSTER

asked the Solicitor General if he did not think this reasonable concession could be made? It was obvious that if the Commissioners did their duty reasonably, there would be a separate valuation of each separate class of property. If the hon. and learned Gentleman desired it, he could define the separate classes of property hereafter, so as to give the minimum of concession, but surely some such Amendment was absolutely necessary.

MR. R. T. REID

said, he had stated—and he thought it was a very fair statement—that this, like anything else in the Bill, was a matter of considerable importance. He had said the language which had been used in the proposed Amendment was not apt. Another Amendment had been put down, and he did not think they ought to be asked on the spur of the moment to accept a fresh Amendment on an important matter. Was not the sensible thing to do for hon. Members to formally consider the Amendment it was proposed to put down, and then put it down for the Report stage, when they should have an opportunity beforehand of fully considering it?

MR. BRODRICK (Surrey, Guildford)

considered the best course would be for the Solicitor General to accept these words, which he could then amend on Report if it was considered necessary. It would be a mistake to leave this matter to the Report stage, because then they would have no further power to amend the Amendment hereafter, the Bill not going to the other House. In these circumstances, he asked the Government to accept the Amendment, and then on the Report stage they could amend it themselves if they considered it advisable to do so. In reality the cases designed to be covered by the Amendment were cases which would arise on almost every estate that had to be valued, because there must be a certain amount of land which would not be purely agricultural property, and to exclude the whole of such an estate from participation in the benefit of the Amendment would be a great hardship. He hoped his hon. Friend Id press the Amendment.

Amendment amended, by leaving out from the first word "each," to the end of the Amendment, and adding the words "separate class of property."

Question put, That the words 'The person accountable for the duty may require the Commissioners in their valuation of real estate to value separately each separate class of property' be there inserted.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 189; Noes 217.—(Division List, No. 102.)

MR. BYRNE (Essex, Walthamstow)

rose to move the omission of Sub-section (6) in order to insert the following subsection:—

1. "(a) Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Commissioners, whether as to the value placed by them on any property, or otherwise, may appeal to the High Court within the time, and in the manner, and on the conditions directed by Rules of Court;
2. (b) If the appeal shall be with reference to the value placed by the Commissioners on any property, the Court shall determine such value, and upon the hearing of such appeal evidence may be given by either party by affidavit, or, if the Court shall so direct, vivâ voce;
3. (c) In all cases the costs of the appeal shall follow the event unless the Court shall otherwise direct."

There were substantially three points on which he desired to have the clause amended. The first was in regard to the question of appeal. The Bill as it stood allowed an appeal from the Commissioners to the High Court on the question of value only, and he wanted an appeal to be allowed in all cases of differences between parties aggrieved and the Commissioners. The second point was un- doubtedly a most important one. The Bill provided that before any person aggrieved by the value placed on any property by the Commissioners could appeal against the valuation, he must pay, not a portion, not a deposit, but the whole amount which the Commissioners had placed upon the property. It seemed to him to be most unjust that a person who desired to appeal should be obliged to pay the whole of the duty claimed, though it might exceed the amount that should be paid by thousands of pounds. Again, if a person elected to pay the duty in eight annual instalments, he would have to pay the whole duty before he could appeal. The third point was in reference to the costs. His Amendment provided that in all cases of appeal the cost should follow the event, unless the Court otherwise directed.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 15, to leave out Sub-section (6) and insert—

1. "(a) Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Commissioners, whether as to the value placed by them on any property, or otherwise, may appeal to the High Court within the time, and in the manner, and on the conditions directed by Rules of Court;
2. (b) If the appeal shall be with reference to the value placed by the Commissioners on any property, the Court shall determine such value, and upon the hearing of such appeal evidence may be given by either party by affidavit, or, if the Court shall so direct, vivâ voce;
3. (3) In all cases the costs of the appeal shall follow the event unless the Court shall otherwise direct."—(Mr. Byrne.)

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

*SIR J. RIGBY

(who was imperfectly heard) said, the Government had a right to complain of the manner in which trivial Amendments of this kind were placed on the Paper, evidently without thought or consideration. Under the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member an appeal was to be allowed in every matter. If a party wanted an extension of the time allowed by the Commissioners for furnishing the accounts of the estate he might appeal, if the Amendment were added to the Bill. That was ridiculous. The result of the Amendment would be that not only the time of the Commissioners, but the time of the High Court would be taken up by all sorts and kinds of disputes arising from the decisions of the Commissioners. Let them consider the mass of questions the Commissioners had to deal with; and under the Amendment every one of them might be brought up to the High Court and made the subject of redress litigation. The hon. and learned Gentleman complained that the clause allowed appeal only on one point—the point of valuation; but if the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman "or otherwise" were inserted, questions of no practical importance at all might be raised on appeal; and really, the Commissioners would never be able to get through their work. He was not ashamed to confess that there were faults in the Bill. He might tell those who never had the task of framing a Bill of this kind, that frequently one Amendment made in the Bill involved a great number of others, and it required the utmost patience, time, and trouble to get things well together. He thought the proper plan was the plan the Government proposed, subject, perhaps, to some verbal alterations. They could not accept such an extensive and extravagant proposal as that contained in the Amendment. They thought that in a Bill of this kind the number of appeals should be strictly limited, and they had already provided in the Bill that the question of appeal should be determined by the High Court. As to the question of costs following the event in cases of appeal, that was a matter already in the discretion of the Court.

SIR R. WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

said, they were all extremely glad to see the Attorney General back in restored health; but he should say he was a little surprised at the tone his hon. and learned Friend had imparted into his speech with reference to the Amendment before the Committee. What had the Committee being doing for the past fortnight during the absence of the Attorney General. It was all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the Amendment was put down without thought or consideration; but he could tell the Committee from his own knowledge that the Amendment, be it right or wrong, had been most anxiously considered and framed, and was put down because the Solicitor General asked the Opposition, if they desired to make alterations in the Bill, to put them on the Paper complete, so that the Government might be able to judge the scheme they proposed to substitute for the scheme in the Bill. Really, the Attorney General should not treat them as if they were Her Majesty's Judges. The Solicitor General had over and over again admitted that suggestions made by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Essex had enabled him to frame Amendments that appeared in previous clauses of the Bill; and it was really too bad that, on the first occasion they welcomed back the Attorney General, the hon. and learned Gentleman should have charged them with being so contemptible that they were unable to place reasonable propositions before the Committee. If the Attorney General applied his great mind to the Amendment he would find that it raised some very important points. The hon. and learned Gentleman would find lower down on the Paper Amendments which raised separately the several points contained in the Amendment before the Committee, so that if that Amendment were defeated those points could be considered separately; and the reason his hon. and learned Friend had placed the Amendment in its present form on the Paper was because the Government had said they would be glad to have Amendments grouped so that they might have the opportunity of judging them as a whole. The first blot in the clause which the Amendment sought to remedy was the provision by which appeal was only to be permitted on the payment of the duty in accordance with the valuation of the Commissioners. Not even security was allowed to be given; the money must be paid down; and in the case of those new duties which were, for the first time, to be raised on a scale higher than before and to be levied according to aggregation and graduation, no appeal was to be allowed unless a man had got the money to pay down. Another point which his hon. and learned Friend proposed was that the costs in all cases should follow the event except the Court should otherwise direct. The Attorney General had said that that was provided in the Bill already, but where was it so provided? It was all very well to say that this matter was always in the discretion of the Court; but it was right that the language of the Statute should lay down the rule. If the persons appealing were successful, it might be said by the Counsel for the Revenue authorities that it was the Government that was concerned, and that the Government ought not to pay costs; and therefore the Amendment was a very proper Amendment to propose. Another suggestion in the Amendment was that, in the hearing of an appeal in reference to value, evidence might be given by either party by affidavit. When they were dealing with a question of valuation it was extremely important to both sides to know beforehand the evidence on which the valuation was based. It was not a case of perjured witnesses, or of witnesses that required to be cross-examined. It was a case in which persons would make a valuation according to their judgment, and it was the right and proper thing that the evidence on which that judgment was based should be placed before both parties before the hearing of the appeal. During the three weeks the House had been in Committee on this Bill the Opposition had pointed out defects and difficulties in the Government scheme, and in no small number of instances the Government had acknowledged those difficulties and defects, either by accepting the Amendments or promising to consider the matters on Report. There were still many defects in the scheme. It was the duty of the Opposition to bring those defects under the notice of the Committee, and the threats of the Attorney General would not deter them from moving such Amendments as they thought desirable.

MR. AMBROSE (Middlesex, Harrow)

said, the Attorney General had argued that there was an appeal under the Bill. Could anything be more preposterous or a greater sham than the kind of appeal that was given by the Bill? The Committee had already agreed that owners of property might have the option of paying the duty in instalments in eight years. Why was that provision made? Because everyone knew perfectly well that in nine cases out of every ten the party who had to pay duty would not have it to pay down, and could only raise it from the property. Yet the right of appeal was to be made dependent on the payment of the money. Did the Government mean that the party should appeal at the end of eight years when he had paid all the instalments of the duty? That, of course, was preposterous, for at the end of eight years all the evidence would be gone; the whole aspect of the matter would be changed, and there would be no possibility of carrying an appeal. The Bill provided that any person aggrieved by the Commissioner's valuation might appeal to the High Court— Within the time and in the manner and on the conditions directed by Rules of Court. To leave to the Judges the power of prescribing the conditions of appeal was to hand over to the Judges power over the taxation legislation of Parliament, and possibly to make appeal absolutely impossible. He knew cases in which appeals were impossible owing to the Regulations which had been framed by the Courts. The right to appeal ought to be absolute, without any condition or restriction whatever. If the English people had lost their sense of controlling their own taxation, let the clause pass; but he had yet to learn that the English people had given up their control of taxation, and were willing to hand it over to the Inland Revenue Commissioners and the Judges. He did not think that those questions of taxation ought to be referred to the High Court. The High Court had to decide questions of law; and the High Court ought not to be asked to decide questions of taxation as between the Crown and the subject. The independence of the Judges might be challenged, when it was known that the Government which had the power of appointing and promoting Judges had given the Judges the power of increasing taxation. Of course, the Judges would do their duty; but, in a matter of this kind, it was impossible to protect them from charges that sometimes leaned one way or the other. He thought the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend ought to be amended, so that the question of valuation would be, on appeal, determined by a jury. He, therefore, suggested that after the word "Court," in paragraph (b), the words "with the assistance of a special jury, if desired by either party" should be inserted. The question of valuation was a very important question, and ought not to be settled by mere rule of thumb.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he would remind the Attorney General that under the Bill a number of entirely new questions would arise which would require to be determined by the High Court.

*SIR J. RIGBY

said, the Committee were now upon the Amendment.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, that if the hon. and learned Attorney General would refrain from jumping before coming to the ditch he would see that he (Mr. Gibson Bowles) was speaking to the Amendment. Matters of great importance and necessity might arise requiring to be determined by the High Court, not merely for the ascertainment of the duty, but for the guidance of the Commissioners themselves. It had been constantly necessary to take cases into Court for the settlement of nice points of law. These cases would be multiplied tenfold under the Bill, particularly as to property outside the United Kingdom, and property subject to aggregation. The Attorney General seemed to have a curious idea of the High Court. He said they ought not to submit all these questions to the High Court. Why not? The hon. and learned Gentleman said they might do it if they would pay the duty in advance. Why should litigants be called on to pay the stakes before the race was run? Was that the principle upon which the hon. and learned Attorney General or anyone else made his book on the Ascot Cup? He should think not. By the Succession Duty Act of 1853 no such condition as that was imposed upon an appellant. The duty was not to be paid in advance when that duty was in dispute. Had the hon. and learned Attorney General forgotten that Act when he talked about importing no new element into the law? By Section 50 of that Act, a party dissatisfied might appeal, and the Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter, and to award costs, too; and, where the amount involved did not exceed £50, the party dissatisfied might lodge his appeal in the County Court. There was not a word in the Act about paying the duty in advance. Well, such being the law, it was a little too much for the Attorney General to come down and speak as if they were proposing some new monstrosity never heard of before in the history of law. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had cited the example of the Colony of Victoria. But by the Act passed in that colony in 1890, it was provided that appeals should be tried by the Master in Equity of the Supreme Court, and that either party to the dispute might have the matter tried by a jury, and the costs of such appeals were made to follow the event. The proposals of the Government were manifestly unfair. It was monstrous that they should leave in the hands of any Government in the country the right to drag an unfortunate taxpayer into Court on an appeal arising perhaps out of an excessive assessment, and then that if the appellant lost he should have to pay the costs, and if he won the Government should be allowed to refuse to pay.

SIR D. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

said, he had listened most attentively to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Harrow, and, as far as he could understand it, it seemed to be an argument against appeals altogether. He did not understand that the Judges would have the right of increasing assessments made by the Commissioners. Amendments moved by hon. Members opposite in the course of this Bill were in the interests of a class. In fact, he had heard of no Amendment from that side which was not in the interest of the rich and powerful. He would ask whether it would not be possible, instead of demanding down on the nail the whole sum which should be paid in eight years, that security for payment should be required? He thought the Opposition would have some reason to complain if the Government insisted upon a payment, which the Bill allowed to be spread over eight years, being required, in case of an appeal, to be paid down at once. The amount might be an impossible one to pay. He thought that the Courts should have discretionary power to take security pending an appeal.

*SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, he hoped that the Government would give an answer to the suggestion of the last speaker. That hon. Baronet, he thought, had been rather unfortunate in his absences from the Committee. He (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) would point out to him that many Amendments from the Opposition side were moved in the interests of the poorer classes and not, as he had said, in the interests of the rich and powerful. This proposal to give the Government the power of insisting on the payment of the duty before the right to appeal could be exercised was one which would affect the poor, and the Amendment was directly in their interest. He hoped they would hear from the Government a statement that they would in some way modify their proposal beyond the point the Attorney General said was necessary—which only extended as far as this—namely, where the option had been exercised, or was about to be exercised, of paying the duty by instalments, then only such instalments as were due should be paid before the right of appeal was exercised. This was not a matter, by any means, which affected real property only; it touched various kinds of personalty much more. A man might leave behind him a large amount of personal property of a kind which could not be immediately realised. How in the world in that case was an executor to find the money before exorcising his right of appeal? It would be perfectly impossible. Why was it that Her Majesty's Government had thought it necessary to import this provision into the Bill? As the hon. Member for Lynn Regis had showed conclusively, the proposal of the Bill was contrary to the existing law, the individual liable to Succession Duty not being required to pay a penny before the decision of the Court was given. That ought to be the rule in the present case. He (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) hoped that in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Secretary of State for India (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would be able to make some statement which would relieve the minds of hon. Members on this matter and assure them that Her Majesty's Government, in proposing this right of appeal, intended that the right should be a real one. It was absurd to put into an Act of Parliament a right of appeal and then deny the exercise of that right until the sum in dispute—which might be a large one—had been paid down. He hoped to hear some statement from the Government to the effect that they did not intend to adhere to this most unfair proposal.

*MR. LAWRENCE (Liverpool, Abercromby)

said, it seemed hard and unnecessary to require the money to be paid in, having regard to the fact that interest at 3 per cent. was already running on the amount, and in considering the question of interest to be paid by executors it must be borne in mind that agricultural land did not return 3 per cent., so there was already a stimulus to ready payment. A further injustice was apparent that when an excess amount had been charged there was no arrangement in the Bill whereby it would be returned to the executor, and an allowance made for excess interest he had paid.

MR. CARSON (Dublin University)

said, he would ask for an answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General as to the question about costs. It appeared to him (Mr. Carson) that as the clause stood the Courts, would have no power to give even a successful litigant costs against the Crown. This would be a great hardship upon persons against whom an excessive demand for Estate Duty had been made.

*SIR J. RIGBY

(who was almost inaudible in the Gallery) was understood to say that, with regard to costs against the Government, as the law had formerly stood they could not be recovered unless the Act under which the case was triable made provision for such recovery. The law had been altered, however, and tinder the changes made by the Judicature Acts a successful litigant against the Crown would, in certain cases, get his costs. Under the provisions of the Acts relating to the Income Tax and to the Inhabited House Duty parties disputing their assessment were required to pay the duty before they appealed. In the absence of such a provision the temptation to embark in litigation with the object of delaying payment would be very great, and the expense which the Government would be put to would be a matter of serious financial concern. The moment it was shown there was reasonable doubt as to the utility of the Government proposal he had offered to put words into the clause to obviate the difficulty complained of. He proposed, however, in this respect not to act upon the spur of the moment, but after due consideration and on arriving at a deliberate conclusion in the matter. In matters relating to the public Revenue there was an Act he believed of the year 1861—though he could not be sure—which provided that in litigation with the Crown, where the money sued for would, if recovered, go to the public Revenue, costs should be paid as between subject and subject. He thought he was right in that. He considered that the clause was sufficient for its purpose, and until they had ascertained the contrary he saw no reason for the adoption of a somewhat misty clause as to costs.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he thought the Government had not fully realised the position in which the Committee found itself. It was true that his hon. Friend's Amendment raised three questions of great importance, and on those three questions, as the discussion had ranged over a whole series of Amendments, he would say a word before he sat down. The question put from the Chair covered one point, and one alone—namely, whether there should be an appeal or anything besides the value of the property as assessed by the Commissioners. The question put was whether Sub-section 6 should stand part of the Bill. If that sub-section were carried it would be impossible to have an appeal except on the value as assessed by the Commissioners of particular parcels of property. With regard to that question, it was said that no one had dared to meet the challenge thrown out that if the Amendment were carried in its present form a vast mass of questions would be brought before the Courts by contentious litigants, and the whole course of administration in the Inland Revenue Office would be blocked, and the Courts themselves would be hardly able to deal with the mass of business brought before them. That was the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. He did not say it was without force. Though couched in unfortunate language, there might have been the kernel and nucleus of truth in the argument. The Attorney General did not appear yet to have discovered in all his experience of Committee work in the House that the Government had something more to do besides pointing out weak spots in Amendments moved to their Bills. No doubt they had so show Amendments to be defective, if they were so; but they had to do more. It was the duty of the Government to show that the Bill to which the Amendments were moved really carried out the principle of justice and of equity. The Attorney General was more successful in showing that the Amendment went too far than in proving that the Bill went far enough. He never attempted to show that the Bill went far enough. It did no go far enough. What did it do? It gave an appeal upon questions concerning the valuation of a part of a property, but other matters besides that would arise which might be of vital importance to those who had to pay the duty, and in which it was right to have the decision of the Inland Revenue Court overruled if it was wrong. Possibly the Amendment might be modified, and he would ask the Government if they were prepared to accept words giving the right of appeal to any person aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioners as to the amount of duty they had to pay? Were the Government prepared to allow an appeal not upon any frivolous ground, not upon mere rules of procedure, but upon the amount of duty to be paid? That would be a plain, simple, and equitable mode of dealing with the question, and a change of a word or two in the first part of the Amendment would carry out the object in view. He thought also that it would have been well if the Government had satisfied themselves on the point by reference to the Statutes at large, and not merely trusted to memory whether or not there was power to claim costs against the Crown in cases like this. Of course, they could not expect the Attorney General, with all he had to bear in mind, to be able to tell them at once from memory what was the real state of the law. This was a point that ought to be cleared up. On the question of affidavits he would not interpose between his hon. Friend the Member for the Walthamstow Division and the Attorney General beyond saying that if the Courts thought fit to deal with the question by affidavits the power was one which might be exercised without objection. With reference to the point as to whether there was to be a right of appeal before the whole of the duty was paid, that the argument of the Attorney General on the Act of 1853 and the Stamp Act of 1891 did not quite satisfy him. Indeed, he might present the hon. and learned Gentleman with an example more powerful than those he had quoted, because he believed that under the existing Probate Law the whole duty had to be paid before any appeal could lie. The Government were now for the first time increasing the Death Duties to a point which might make it difficult for an inheritor of personalty to pay without selling large portions of it. Let them take the case of an owner of works of art and pictures under settlement, and he would ask the Committee to conceive the hardship of a man in such circumstances being forced to sell his pictures in order to pay the duty, and before the Court finally decided whether the duty in respect of which those pictures had to be sold was the duty which ought to be paid. Suppose the Court did decide after the sale that the duty charged was unjust. How was that injustice to be remedied? How was the man to get back his pictures? The iniquity was so obvious that he was convinced the Government would not be able to stand by the clause in its present form. As the Question in the form in which it was put from the Chair precluded the discussion at that stage of other points which had been raised he would reserve until a later opportunity what he had to say upon them.

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, he had listened with great attention to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, and he would like to be allowed to say at once that it was not the interest of the Government, in collecting this or any other tax, to collect it in a form which should be oppressive to the taxpayer. Consistently with obtaining the duty it was the interest of the Government to make the method of raising the tax as easy as possible to those who had to pay it. But he was sure that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite could not have any desire to place any practical difficulty in the way of the Departments in collecting the money which Parliament had sanctioned. He gathered from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman that he did not think the Amendment in its present form offered the best possible plan of carrying out the objects he had in view. He recognised that there was a great deal of force in what had been said, and the Government wished to consider how best an arrangement could be made whereby the position of the taxpayer might be alleviated and at the same time the practical collection of the Revenue secured. As had already been pointed out under the Stamp Act of 1891, the money had to be paid before any appeal could be brought. But he thought that the case with reference to pictures cited by the right hon. Gentleman was a strong one, and he was ready to consider whether or not there was adequate security for the protection of those upon whom the Government admitted that they were laying a heavy burden. He pointed out, however, that the subject had always the right of appeal to the Courts at his command by the simple process of not paying the money claimed, and challenging the equity and legality of the charge. The Government were not disposed to disregard the evidence on the question, and in concert with hon. Gentlemen opposite were ready to consider how they might reconcile the two principles—to make the payment easy for the taxpayer and safe for the Government. He was bound to look to the latter point, but it was equally the duty of Members on all sides, of the House to study the interests of the taxpayers. He hoped, therefore, the Committee might be able to come to some satisfactory arrangement on this point.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he had listened with pleasure to the conciliatory speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and he fully appreciated the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had met their objections. But what practical steps were to be taken to meet the difficulty? Was the Chancellor of the Exchequer prepared to suggest any words in place of the Amendment?

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, he could not suggest words now, because he must confer first of all with the persons who had to administer the duty. Could it not be dealt with on Report?

MR. BYRNE

thought that it would be better to withdraw the Amendment and bring up a new clause.

SIR R. WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

doubted if it would be more convenient to strike the sub-section out altogether and bring up a new clause. In that way they would reserve the whole matter; but, as a matter of fact, there were subsequent Amendments down which raised every one of these points, and the question was, whether it would not be better to discuss the subject on those Amendments?

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, he thought that Sub-section 6 should be withdrawn and the whole question left open for treatment when the new clause was brought up.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he hoped the Government would not run away with the idea that the Stamp Act of 1891 afforded a reasonable precedent. That was only applicable to very small matters.

MR. BYRNE

asked if the Government would draw up the new clause?

SIR W. HARCOURT

Yes.

MAJOR DARWIN (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

asked for an assurance that all the Amendments on the Paper relating to this question would receive the consideration of the Government. He had one which he thought it very desirable to have incorporated in the clause.

SIR W. HARCOURT

The whole subject shall be carefully considered.

Question put, and negatived.

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

*SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, he had an Amendment to substitute the County Courts for the High Court. He presumed that that was one of the matters which the new clause would deal with.

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, he was in favour of the principle of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, because the Government wished to save expense as far as possible, especially in small cases.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, there was one point he should like to mention. He had felt some difficulty in fixing the limit at £10,000. He would like to see that raised if possible.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I will bear that in mind.

Motion agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved, in page 5, line 23, to leave out from the word "duties" to the word "shall." He said, his object in proposing the Amendment to omit these words, i.e., "mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act," was to secure the insertion of other words which would make more clear what existing law and practices were to be incorporated. The Government by naming the First Schedule intended to bring in the Probate, Legacy, Temporary Estates, and Succession Duties, but it would refer to only certain portions of the Succession Duty, and confusion might arise unless clearer words were inserted.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 23, to leave out from the word "duties" to the word "shall."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)

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

MR. R. T. REID

thought, perhaps, it would be sufficient if the clause read— The existing law and practice relating to any of the duties now leviable on or with reference to death shall, &c.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he would accept those words.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

said, he would suggest to the Solicitor General the desirability of adding the further words "so far as the same are applicable."

MR. R. T. REID

It is usual to insert such words. Probably they had better come in after "Act," in line 24.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 24, after the word "Act," to insert the words "so far as the same are applicable."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 25, after the word "collection," to leave out the word "and"; and in same page, same line, after the word "recovery," to insert the words "and re-payment."—(Mr. R. T. Reid.)

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

asked whether this Amendment did not raise the question of the repayment of excessive duty paid to the Commissioners? Either there should be no interest paid by the person accountable for the duty or the Commissioners should pay interest if they received too much duty. How far did the insertion of the word "repayment" affect that point?

MR. R. T. REID

said, the introduction of the word "repayment" would leave the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman entirely untouched. If the right hon. Member read the clause he would find the words— Shall apply for the purposes of the collection and recovery of Estate Duty as if such law and practice were in terms made applicable to this part of the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 25, after the word "duty," to insert the words— And for the exemption of the property of common seamen, marines, or soldiers who are slain or die in the service of Her Majesty."—(Mr. R. T. Reid.)

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

MR. BARTLEY

inquired if the word "common" was necessary? In the present times it did not read very well.

MR. HANBURY

said, it was the language used in old Acts. But he would like to ask the Solicitor General if other property should be exempted—savings bank deposits, amounts due to the servants of the Crown, and similar moneys. There was also the question of officers' property.

MR. R. T. REID

said, he was under the impression that all these cases were already provided for.

MR. HANBURY

Yes, but there is a limit of £100, I believe.

MR. R. T. REID

I will look into it.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

thought this matter required still further consideration. He understood the law to be that property of whatever amount belonging to common seamen, marines, or soldiers slain in the service of Her Majesty was exempt from the tax. Was that so?

MR. R. T. REID

Yes.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

That being so, was it a fair position? An officer might be a very poor man, and, it was conceivable, might have little more to leave than some common seaman or soldier. Surely officers should be placed on the same footing, because they were often quite as poor as men serving as seamen or soldiers. Indeed, it might occur that a soldier who was slain might be the possessor of a large amount of property, which, perhaps, had been left to him unknown to himself. Yet that property would escape all duty. He did think that if any exemption were allowed it should extend to the officer if he were a poor man.

MR. R. T. REID

said, there might be other than soldiers or sailors who had done heroic acts and others who had sacrificed their lives in ways other than heroic. Everyone, however, desired to exempt the common soldier. If the principle was taken further they would have to consider the cases of men who went down into coal-pits for rescue purposes or of lifeboat men or others who performed heroic acts, and he was not sure but that they might find a good many other cases.

*SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, if the exemption of common soldiers were extended to the officers it would not bring in the cases to which the hon. and learned Gentleman alluded. They were all in the same service. At present a soldier who might have more money than his officer would be exempted, while the latter must pay. A far more logical exemption would be that property below a certain limit, whether belonging to officers or to the men serving under them, should be exempted. He did not know whether he could move to insert the word "officer" before "common soldier."

MR. R. T. REID

was understood to say that he could not accept an Amendment of this kind which had been refused by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, he thought that on the Report stage they ought to do something in the way suggested by his right hon. Friend. There was no doubt that the exemption might go too far even in the case of common soldiers. The common soldier might be a man of large property, while the officer might be a very poor man. The fairer plan would be to provide that in the case of either an officer or soldier dying in the Service, if their property was below a certain limit, it should be exempt. He certainly thought the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman went a little too far as regarded the common soldier. He had picked out only the private soldier and had not brought in the officer for exemption. Under the law which existed up to last year certain exemptions were made in favour of the officers as well as of the soldiers. If they were going to do justice all round the soldier and the officer alike ought to have a limit, and under that limit the property should be exempt.

*MR. BRODRICK (Surrey, Guildford)

said, that while he was at the War Office he met with many cases in which property was administered for private soldiers deceased. But it would be a great hardship to exclude officers and warrant officers. If the hon. Gentleman were to include officers and make the limit £250, it would probably cover the cases of 999 soldiers out of a thousand, and the loss to the Revenue would be very slight.

MR. R. T. REID

said, he hoped this matter would be allowed to stand over for the Report stage. It was obvious that he could not now reply to the Amendments suggested, but he would speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, this matter of exemption required more atten- tion than it had yet received. His hon. Friend had run in as the saviour of the common soldier, but he forgot the exemptions under the old Act. If they maintained the exemption of the common soldier and marine and sailor and did away with the exemption of the widow, they would have to consider how they were going to deal with the exemption of the Royal Family. He did not think these exemptions could be disposed of in this way. He agreed that some relief ought to be afforded in certain instances, but he hoped the Solicitor General would deal with them on some principle, such as fixing a limit under which no tax should be charged.

MR. BARTLEY

said, if the matter were postponed, it must be on the strict understanding that they should go into the whole subject on Report. They must examine these particular cases, and also the question of exemption on account of heroic acts—whether there should not be exemption up to £100 where acts of heroism were performed for the public good. On the Report stage he should move exemption in these cases up to a small amount that could not injure the Chancellor of the Exchequer's receipts.

MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.)

said, he thought the hon. Member for North Islington was a little hypercritical about the employment of the term "common soldier." The term had been used in the Articles of War for the last 200 years, and there was nothing derogatory in it any more than there was in alluding to the late Member for North-West Ham as the "Common" Serjeant, or to the hon. Member for Peterborough as a member of the "Common" Council.

Question put, and agreed to.

*MR. T. H. BOLTON

said, he rose to move the omission of Sub-section 2, which read as follows:— The executor of the deceased shall, to the best of his knowledge and belief, specify, in appropriate accounts annexed to the Inland Revenue affidavit, all the property in respect of which Estate Duty is payable upon the death of the deceased. As though this sub-section were not enough, the Solicitor General proposed to add to it—according to an Amendment on the Paper— and shall be accountable for the Estate Duty on all personal property wheresoever situate of which the deceased was competent to dispose at his death. In order to understand the liability of the executor, he would ask the Committee to refer to the fourth sub-section of the same clause, which said that the executor—who was the person accountable—should if required by the Commissioners deliver to them and verify a statement of such particulars and evidence as they require relating to any property which they have reason to believe to form part of an estate liable to Estate Duty on the death of the deceased. So that the executor was not only bound to specify in appropriate accounts to the best of his knowledge and belief, but he was also, on the requisition of the Commissioners, to give particulars and evidence, and he was to do that under very severe penalties. If the Committee would refer to Sub-section 5 of the same clause, they would find that the person who failed to comply with any of the foregoing provisions would be liable to pay £100, or, if Estate Duty was payable, a sum equal to treble the amount of the Estate Duty for which he was accountable according as the Commissioners elected. Therefore, whether the information was of any use or not, and whether it resulted in anything or not, the penalty was £100 fine for non-compliance with the provisions of the clause, and if there was any result the executor was not only liable to pay the duty, but he was liable to pay treble the amount. He might be able to charge the duty against the estate, but for his default he certainly would not be able to charge twice the amount of duty which was added to the duty by way of penalty. This clause as it stood would involve the executor in the necessity of making inquiries into things which did not concern him except for the purposes of the Estate Duty. The duty of an executor or an administrator as personal representative of the dead man was to look after the funeral, administer the affairs, get in the assets, discharge the liabilities, and divide whatever might be remaining—after he had paid the debts— among the persons who, according to the will or the Statute, were entitled to the estate. That was the ordinary duty of an executor and administrator, but the Bill proposed to superadd to that duties which executors had never hitherto had to perform—which they had never hitherto been held responsible for, or called to account on, or required to ascertain in- formation about, or to give evidence with regard to. The duty of an executor was now to be enlarged so as to impose on him the obligation of finding out all the property, however derived, in which the deceased had an interest, and which passed by deceased's death to anyone wherever the property might be or wherever the beneficiaries might happen to reside. The result of the clause would be that before the executor could obtain his authority to act before he could obtain probate, he would have to ascertain not only what property the deceased had, but also what property he had any interest in anywhere throughout the world, and which passed on his death anywhere to anybody throughout the world. He would not be able to do this in a perfunctory and general way, for ho would have to give information and particulars. In ordinary cases, no doubt, no difficulty would arise. He (Mr. T. H. Bolton) was free to admit that. But there were a vast number of cases in which difficulties would arise, and people who were liable to penalties would naturally take time to make inquiries and satisfy themselves before they ran any risk. He maintained that the clause would put upon an executor obligations which hitherto he had not had to bear and which to a large extent were unnecessary lie really thought the proposal put a great, serious, and unnecessary obligation upon the executor. An executor was a person who took upon himself very delicate, difficult, and arduous and responsible duties, without any remuneration, and mostly at great sacrifice of time and trouble, and so far from imposing these obligations and holding over him in terrorem pains and penalties, the object of the Government should be to afford an honest man who did his duty reasonable protection and not deter him from discharging his duties. He was one of those who believed that a man who honestly discharged the duties of executor not only did an act of kindness to a dead man, but also did service to the State, because he discharged an office of trust and responsibility. He did not know how they would ever find any appreciable number of men to undertake the office of executor with these serious anxieties and troubles cast upon them. He knew the Solicitor General would refer him to the words of the clause—"to the best of his knowledge and belief" —but he would remind the Solicitor General, who was an able lawyer, that it would not be sufficient for an executor to rely upon his own casual acquaintance with the deceased's affairs, and to put down in the return to the Government such items of estate and property as he thought the deceased was entitled to and such value as he thought might be put upon them. He would have to get valuations and, in some cases, expert opinions. These returns had to be prepared with care. It would be the executor's duty to make inquiries, and in the course of those inquiries all sorts of questions would arise as to the property of the deceased. Expensive inquiries and investigations would have to be made, and expensive opinions obtained, before the executor could honestly and successfully prepare the statement in order to satisfy the authorities of Somerset House. The executor would not only have to make a return of the personal property of the dead man, of property which came within his executorship, but of all property passing on the death, such, for instance, as property under any settlement in which the deceased bad an interest, however small. All that would have to be inquired into and information obtained. He did not find any power given for the executor to charge over, as against any separate estate, the expenses which he would be put to in making those inquiries into separate estates in which the deceased had an interest. The expenses might reach scores and hundreds of pounds; and when the information was given to Somerset House, the executor had nothing but his own testator's estate from which to recoup himself. Let them take the case of a man who was a tenant for life under a settled estate, which would pass away from most of his family. That man might have saved a very small sum or might possess very little indeed as provision for daughters not interested under the settlement. In that case his executor would have to make inquiries and get all this information, and might not be able to recoup himself out of the settled estate, and might be obliged to throw it upon the dead man's own property, to the disadvantage of the daughters, or other people entitled. There ought to be some provision in the Act which would give the executor power to recoup himself at the expense of the estate in respect of which the inquiries were made. He thought also that by this clause the obtaining of probate in many cases would be seriously delayed. There should be some provision, some express power for an executor to obtain partial probate or probate on account, or a conditional grant of probate, so that he might be able to deal with the property as soon as possible, and not be involved in the delay which would be necessary to get a complete representation. He had suggested some days ago—and the proposal met with sympathy in various parts of the House—that under certain circumstances, especially in cases of this kind, there should be power to get partial or conditional probate to enable an executor to deal with matters that required immediate attention, and he now suggested that there should be power in the Bill to enable the Government to grant provisional or partial probate and to take part of the duty, and discharge parcels of the estate that might be disposed of. He moved the Amendment with a view to relieve executors of a very serious responsibility, and he hoped the subject would be fairly considered.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 27, to leave out Sub-section (2).—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)

Question proposed, "That 'Sub-section (2)' stand part of the Clause."

MR. R. T. REID

If this duty is to be levied it is manifest that the Committee of the House of Commons would be acting very unwisely if they were to pass the tax and cripple the legitimate means by which the tax can be ascertained and levied. Now, what is this clause? It is nothing more than this— The executor of the deceased shall, to the best of his knowledge and belief, specify in appropriate accounts annexed to the Inland Revenue affidavit, all the property in respect of which Estate Duty is payable upon the death of the deceased. Those are the words which cause all the mischief which had been so eloquently described by the right hon. Gentleman. Now, suppose you have a duty which, in the opinion of the House, is a legitimate duty, how could you better or more reasonably ascertain what is due than by requiring an executor of the testator, to the best of his knowledge and belief, to make a declaration? I grant that an executor is a person who is not paid; most of us have learned that, to our cost; but there are such things as public duties, and a man who takes upon himself the private burden of winding up the estate of a deceased relative or friend really does incur some obligation to the Exchequer. Now, I do not think it is proved that the burdens incumbent upon executors are in any degree aggravated by the provisions of this Bill. Consider what an executor has got to do already. He is now bound, as part of the property liable to the duty, to include the accrued income of the deceased from any property, real or personal, settled or unsettled, up to the date of his death. Executors have to discharge these duties at the present time; in other words, they have to include and to enumerate in their accounts the income upon every class of property enjoyed by the deceased, up to the time of his death. Well, all we modestly ask is that he should also include the capital instead of the income alone. Not merely do we do that, but it is provided in Clause 5, Sub-section 3, that when the executor does not know the amount or value of any property passing on the death, while knowing the existence of it, he may state in an Inland Revenue affidavit that such property exists, but that he does not know the amount or value thereof, and that he undertakes, as soon as the amount or value is ascertained, to bring in an account thereof. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the fact that the matter incurs expense. Later on in the clause there is an Amendment standing in my name which I hope will afford some satisfaction—I had almost said consolation—to the hon. Gentleman upon that point. It seems to me that, however much we may differ as to the policy or as to the various clauses of this Bill, we ought not to differ about this: that if the tax is to be imposed we ought to take steps to enforce the payment of it.

SIR R. WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

said, he entirely agreed with the sentiment that they ought to take proper steps to enforce the payment of the duty and the rendering of the accounts, and to see that the Government did not lose it. But the real question was, whether this sub-section did not go a great deal too far? He appealed to hon. Members on the other side of the House who were impartial, and who had been good enough at times most intelligently to follow the Debates, to observe what the clause was. He was not asking that the executor should be free from any of his personal obligations; but this was a clause imposing an absolute penalty of £100, or an absolute penalty of treble the Estate Duty for which he was accountable. He held that that was not right, especially having regard to what the executor now had to find out. The point was that this was not the kind of obligation by which an executor ought to come under such a liability. There was no question of false returns, for which the penalty extended to £500. He was not desirous of a person escaping if a false return were made, but Sub-section 5 of the clause subjected everybody "who failed to comply with any of the foregoing provisions" of the section to a penalty of £100.

MR. R. T. REID

said, it was quite true that there was a penalty imposed by Sub-section 5, but there were many Amendments down to it.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, his point was that the statement to be made by the executor as to the accounts subjected him to a penalty, and they had not had the slightest suggestion from the learned Solicitor General that he was going to modify this penalty clause, and make it less stringent. If any of the documents should be altered by the executor, to none of the obligations or penalties imposed upon him did they take exception, but they said that the Government were now calling upon the executor for the first time to perform duties of a much wider and of a more difficult character. Everything the testator was competent to dispose of was to be brought into account, including property abroad and in the colonies. Let hon. Members consider what the position of an executor would be if there happened to be a grudge taken against him by some subordinate in the Inland Revenue Department. He spoke with some knowledge on this matter. It was not the first time he had known attempts made, even by the Inland Revenue, to enforce penalties under circumstances under which they ought not to be enforced, and he submitted that executors were not the class of men who ought to be subjected to so severe a penalty. Let them summon the executor, if they liked, before the High Court, but he submitted that the objection which had been taken by the hon. Member for St. Pancras was a reasonable one, for while imposing fresh duties upon the executor they were making him liable in respect of matters which would largely depend upon the information of others. He knew of no case where a penalty had ever been imposed in respect of a duty which depended upon knowledge and belief. Everybody knew how wide those words were, and how impossible it was for even competent authorities to say to what extent belief ought to apply. He submitted that it was not right to insert a penal sub-section of such stringency.

MR. BARTLEY

said, the proposal seemed to him to make it absolutely impossible for anybody to undertake the office of executor. If the Bill should pass he could not conceive any sane man ever undertaking the duty at all. This clause made him liable to every sort of punishment and penalty, even if, to the best of his knowledge and belief, he should make some mistake. What would take place would be that they would have Companies or institutions established to carry out the duties; because, unless a man had a very large interest in the property, the liabilities were really overwhelming. If a man made a mistake he was liable to all these penalties.

MR. R. T. REID

No. If he fails to do it to the best of his knowledge and belief.

MR. BARTLEY

said, that was no doubt a legal question, but those of them who were laymen knew that "to the best of his knowledge and belief" was such a vague term that many of them might fall under the penalties of the Act without sufficient knowledge. If this clause were left in the Bill, unless he were left a large share in any property he would never act as executor.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he would like to point out the enormous extension of the duties now sought to be put upon executors. He granted that if an account was required to be rendered there must be a penalty for the non-rendering of that account, but he asserted that, in the case of the executor, the only account that it was reasonable to require from him was an account of the property which he had received or could have received, which he had recovered or could have recovered by virtue of his office. The executor had certain powers given to him to recover and deal with property. Of that property he ought undoubtedly to be made to deliver a full and true account, to the best of his knowledge and belief, and he thought it was reasonable that a penalty should be imposed on him if he failed; but they were imposing almost impossible tasks under this Bill, and enormously increased duties. The penalties would be reasonable enough if the duties of the executor were limited to the rendering of an account of all property which he could really ascertain. But the duty of the executor with respect to this Bill was not limited to property which the deceased was competent to dispose of. And now he would put this to the Solicitor General. On what ground did the Government ask the executor to account for properties in respect of which they did not impose upon him liability to pay duty? His liability to pay duty was limited to personal property of which the deceased was competent to dispose, but his liability to account went over the whole habitable globe and extended to every kind of property, actual and potential. If he was to be made liable to account for this property why did they not impose upon him liability to pay duty? They knew that such a proposition would be so monstrously unjust that the whole earth would rise in rebellion against it. Look what the executor had got to account for? First of all the property of which the deceased was competent to dispose and property in which the deceased or any other person had an interest ceasing on the death of the deceased. There were circumstances in which annuities were given to cease on the death of a Royal person whose death could easily be ascertained. On the death of that person some other person had an interest ceasing on that death, and the executor of the Royal person would have to bring in an account of that property. There were many circumstances under which such an executor could not possibly know anything about the property which would pass with reference to that death. Then they came to the whole of the category in Section 38 of the Act of 1881, which referred to property in the shape of gifts and dispositions made with intent to evade the duty. That was very proper matter to be taxed, but he did not know how the executor could necessarily know of it. The truth was the liability of the executor to account should be limited, as his liability was limited to the property which came into his hands. It was reasonable they should put full liability in respect to that. There were various other classes of property for which the executor was bound to account, and of which he might, from the necessities of the case, know nothing. This Estate Duty was payable, not merely on property passing by death, but on property passing with reference to the death. It might arise long after death. It might be a debt due to the estate which accrued years after. How could they impose upon an executor under a penalty of £100 the liability to give an account of property which had not yet come to anybody's knowledge whatever, for it might not, at the time, have come into existence.

MR. R. T. REID

I may say that it is my intention to propose a mitigation of the penalties.

SIR R. WEBSTER

Is the Amendment on the Paper?

MR. R. T. REID

replied that it was not yet on the Paper.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

said, that having regard to the promise of the Solicitor General he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. R. T. REID moved, in page 5, line 30, after "deceased," to insert— and shall be accountable for the Estate Duty on all personal property wheresoever situate of which the deceased was competent to dispose at his death. This, he explained, was merely a formal Amendment, in order to put into shipshape Clauses 2 and 3. Clause 2, Section 7, if amended as he proposed, would now deal with the duties of executor, and Clause 3 would deal with the duties of persons other than executors, or amended by himself. Roughly speaking, Clause 2 dealt with executors and personal free property, and Clause 3 dealt with trustees, guardians, and so forth, and the corresponding character of property—namely, settled or real property, as the case might be. The reason for the Amendment was this: The executor was the person on whom the Government relied for the payment of the duties on free personalty. Whether such property was situated in this country or anywhere else there was no other person accountable. He was not saying one syllable, and he desired above all things not to say anything, about the taxation of personal property abroad. He thought the Committee had decided to say nothing about it at the present moment. Suppose there was any property abroad which was liable to taxation for this duty—free personal property— under these circumstances they said the executor should be accountable. The point was to get the duty. The executor had personalty in this country, and the position of the Government was this: The executor might say there was such an amount to pay for duty, and the Government must get it from the property over the water. The Government replied, No; that he must pay it out of the money he had got in this country, always assuming, a matter which had not yet been decided, that the Committee were of opinion that the property over the water had to pay duty at all. But if it had to pay duty this was the only way the Government could get it.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 30, after the word "deceased," to insert the words and shall be accountable for the Estate Duty on all personal property wheresoever situate of which the deceased was competent to dispose at his death."—(Mr. R. T. Reid.)

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

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

fully recognised the desire the Solicitor General had that they should not at this moment discuss the question of property out of the United Kingdom. But it was very difficult or impossible to avoid it on this Amendment, because—and that was the mischief of it—the Amendment made an executor liable for property out of the United Kingdom. The Solicitor General frankly told them that the object was to get the duty, and if he got the duty he cared for neither God nor man. But he (Mr. Gibson Bowles) did. What he cared for was the miserable executor, and he thought it was very hard to say that the executor should be pursued with the unrelenting animosity of which the Inland Revenue was capable, and perhaps thrown into the dungeons of Somerset House to languish for the rest of his days because, having come into the possession of £1,000 here, he was called upon to pay £10,000 duty in respect of property elsewhere. He would put this case, which was by no means an imaginary case. Suppose a gentleman was domiciled in this country who possessed £20,000,000 abroad and £1,000,000 here. His £1,000,000 here would go to the executor here, and assuming that the £20,000,000 abroad was handed over to the foreign executor, what would happen? There would be £1,600,000 duty due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would go to the English executor and say, you have got £1,000,000, hand me over that. The exchequer was still £600,000 short of duty, but meanwhile the whole of the English property went to pay the duty payable upon the foreign property. It seemed to him to inflict a tremendous hardship upon the executor that they should call upon him to pay duty upon property as to which he had probably no executorship. There might be a foreign executor, and they could not reasonably say to the English executor that he should be called upon to pay duty on foreign property with which he had nothing in the world to do, of which he had no knowledge, and of which he was not even executor. He repeated, that the Government had departed from all known principles of taxation and accountability. That a man should account for property which came into his hands was fair and just, but that they should call upon a man to account for property which did not come into his hands, of which it was impossible he should have perfect knowledge, and of which he might not have any knowledge at all, was most unreasonable, and only showed what a miserable system, founded on false premises, was intended to be set up by this Bill that the Government were driven to such a monstrous injustice as was embodied in this Amendment and the sub-section to which it related.

SIR R. WEBSTER

hoped the Solicitor General would not shut his mind against any modification of this Amendment. In the first place, this seemed rather an inappropriate place to which to add the words. The question was one of substance, and not of drafting. This addition, which was to make the executor accountable, came in tacked on to a clause as to rendering accounts and affidavits. He would submit to the Solicitor General that it would be far better that this should come as a separate sub-section. But apart from that, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would be willing to limit the accountability at any rate to the assets received by the executor here. As this addition to the clause was framed, the mere fact that there was foreign property, liable to duty, which the executor never might be able to touch or handle, which he could not himself receive, would render the English property which came to his hands liable for the full amount of that duty. That seemed to him in principle to be wrong, especially if they remembered they were supposed hereafter to be going to charge against the persons who received shares of property the Estate Duty relatively for which their property was liable. How could they justify the proposal to make the executor pay from the English property the duty due in respect of foreign property when they did not know whether that foreign property would ever come into his hands? This was not a question of account or information, but a question of the executor being held accountable, and if the principle of the Bill was that there was to be passed on, through the executor, to the persons entitled, liability to pay a relative proportion of the Estate Duty, it was quite inconsistent with that principle that the executor should be accountable for the whole duty on foreign property. He did hope the Solicitor General would modify his Amendment by saying— When such property shall come into his hands, or to the extent to which assets have come into his hands. He thought the proper form would be, perhaps, to make the Amendment read— Shall be accountable for the Estate Duty on all personal property that shall come into his hands or control.

*MR. T. H. BOLTON

desired to call the attention of the Solicitor General to the words— The executor shall be accountable for the Estate Duty on personal property of which the deceased was competent to dispose at his death. Would that extend to property over which the deceased had power of appointment?

MR. R. T. REID

General power of appointment.

*MR. T. H. BOLTON

said, he would put this case. Suppose a man who was tenant for life of settled personal property left a small personal estate of his own, but very considerable settled property; that he exercised his power of appointment in favour of his children, but when the children asked the trustee to divide the settled property amongst them it was found to be non est, having been misappropriated. When it had to be divided it was not there for division; the appointment had been made, and the Government were entitled to duty. Was the executor responsible for the duty? Or suppose the fund was out of the jurisdiction, and could not be reached. Was the executor to be responsible for the duty on that?

MR. R. T. REID

said, as he understood the point of the hon. Member it was that the fund, although appointed, had been misappropriated. Very well, then, nothing passed. The fund supposed to exist did not exist, and there would, therefore, be no duty payable. The hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight seemed to apprehend that the executor would be liable beyond the limit of the property coming into his own hands. He confessed he had no such apprehension that that would be the effect of the clause as it stood, but, at the same time, if the hon. and learned Member thought so he was quite prepared to meet him and to insert the words— shall not be liable for any duty in excess of assets of which he has control.

SIR R. WEBSTER

thanked the Solicitor General for partly meeting their views, but he confessed, on consideration, that he thought these words did not go quite far enough. It seemed to him that an executor who had ex hypothesi not had the control of foreign estates ought not to be accountable for the Estate Duty on foreign, assets, especially when it was assumed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to charge rateably against the recipients their proportion of the Estate Duty. He accepted the Amendment to the Amendment so far as it went, and he hoped that before they came to a later stage of the Bill the hon. and learned Gentleman would feel that even a further concession was necessary.

MR. BARTLEY

said, they had it now from the Solicitor General that the Amendment he had got on the Paper was to put into ship-shape these clauses. He thought it well to have that state- ment placed on record. The fact that the Bill had been drafted in such a fashion that even the Solicitor General was bound to state that these Amendments were necessary to put the clauses into ship-shape showed that this discussion had not been obstructive.

MR. GOSCHEN

asked when they should be able to discuss the question of the taxation of property situated abroad? He did not mean as regarded time, but in what part of the Bill would the matter come up?

SIR W. HARCOURT

I do not see very well how we can discuss the question of property situated abroad, including in that colonial property, until we come to the new clause which deals with property situated abroad, which is the end of Clause 2, which is passed. I do not think we can deal with that until we come to the Report stage. I would remind the Committee that my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London stated that he bad an Amendment upon this subject which he would bring up on the Report stage.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he thought perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not quite remember what had occurred on this matter. He (Sir R. Webster) and the hon. Member for Liverpool had down Amendments on the Paper with regard to the reduction of the Colonial Duty on the last clause. They came up for debate on Thursday, when the Solicitor General appealed to them not to take the discussion then, on the ground that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was engaged in negotiations, and it would not be right to hamper him in the matter. Subsequent to that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India got up and made a similar appeal. He then asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, if he withdrew his Amendment, it was on the distinct understanding that a discussion should take place in Committee and not on the Report stage. The Secretary for India agreed to his (Sir R. Webster) and the hon. Member for Liverpool withdrawing their Amendment, on the understanding that the discussion with regard to colonial property should take place in the Committee, and not on the Report stage. He only mentioned this, because he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not wish to go back upon the understanding that had been made.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, his recollection did not exactly tally with that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He distinctly pointed out that the Report stage was the proper time to raise this question of Colonial Duties. Subsequently his hon. and learned Friend no doubt stated that he should like to raise the question on the Committee stage, and in that case he told him that the only alternative would be to bring up a new clause after the Bill passed through.

SIR W. HARCOURT

The difficulty is this: we have already passed Clause 2, containing these words— and all such property, when situate out of the United Kingdom, shall be included, if it is liable to Legacy or Succession Duty, or would be so liable but for the relationship of the person to whom it passes. Hon. Gentlemen will see it is quite impossible to introduce anything inconsistent with these words, and therefore, if these words are to be modified, it can only be done on the Report stage.

COMMANDER BETHELL

said, the understanding was that the matter would be brought up in a new clause in Committee on the Bill, and if that were not done, that the Bill should be re-committed.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, the words which the Solicitor General proposed to add to the Amendment would not include the question—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I do not think this discussion is in Order.

MR. GOSCHEN

One word more, before we pass away from the subject of colonial property, as I do not want the impression to be given that the matter is entirely disposed of. I wish to say that we may consider the question still open with regard to a new clause or the recommital of the Bill.

*MR. T. H. BOLTON

said, it was all very well to make an executor responsible for giving information with regard to property of which he had full knowledge; but it was too much to make him accountable for property which could not by any efforts of his own—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! There is no Question before the Committee at the present moment, because I have not put the Amendment to the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to add, at the end, the words— but shall not be liable for any duty in excess of assets of which he has control."—(Mr. R. T. Reid.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added to the proposed Amendment."

*MR. T. H. BOLTON

urged that the words would carry the responsibility of the executor very far indeed; in fact, much too far. They left him liable to pay duty on property over which ho had no control; for instance, property over which the deceased had the power of appointment, which was in the hands of trustees, and over which the executor had no power whatever and could not reach. It was quite right to make the executor liable for money that came to his own hands; but to make him liable for the assets administered by other persons seemed to be carrying the responsibility of the executor too far, and as it was coupled with penalties it placed the executor in a position of great difficulty and anxiety.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he wished to move to amend the proposed Amendment by leaving out the words "liable for any duty" in order to insert the words "accountable for the duty on any property." He desired the Amendment to the Amendment to read— but shall not be accountable for the duty on any property over which he has no control.

MR. R. T. REID

asked whether it was customary to move an Amendment to an Amendment to an Amendment; and whether the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman would not render nugatory the words of the original Amendment standing in his name?

THE CHAIRMAN

It is competent for the hon. Member to move his suggested Amendment, though I am bound to say that it is a course that is both unusual and inconvenient.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, after that intimation, he would not move the Amendment; but they would divide against the Amendment of the Solicitor General.

Amendment amended, by adding, at the end thereof, the words— but shall not be liable for any duty in excess of assets of which he has control."—(Mr. R. T. Reid.)

Question proposed, That the words 'and shall be accountable for the Estate Duty on all personal property wheresoever situate of which the deceased was competent to dispose at his death, but shall not be liable for any duty in excess of assets of which he has control' be there inserted.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he had referred to The Times' report of what had occurred on Thursday night in reference to the question of the duties on colonial property. He had said that he was willing to withdraw his Amendment, provided he was assured, on behalf of the Government, that the matter could be raised on a later clause of the Bill. Thereupon the Secretary for India said it could be raised on the Report stage, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol said it was not fair that the question should be postponed until the Report stage; and the Secretary for India then said that there would be no difficulty in raising the question on a new clause.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Yes, on Report.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, that was not so. The reference to the new clause was made only after the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol had complained that it would not be right to postpone the question till Report. Everyone present understood the Secretary for India to refer to a new clause in Committee, and not to a new clause on Report, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that interpretation of his remarks.

SIR W. HARCOURT

If the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks he can frame a new clause consistent with Clause 2, we will be happy to consider it.

SIR R. WEBSTER

I will put it on the Paper to-night.

Question put.

The Committee divided:— Ayes 158; Noes 108.—(Division List, No. 103.)

*SIR M. HICKS-BEACH moved to insert at the end of the last Amendment— But the delivery of the certificate to be delivered under forty-fourth year of Victoria, chapter twelve, section thirty, shall not be delayed by reason of the particulars of property, other than personal property in the United Kingdom, not being included in the accounts. He was informed that under the clause, taken with the existing law, it would be practically impossible for an executor to obtain probate of an estate vested in him without great delay; and the object of his Amendment was to secure that probate might be obtained by the executor subject to the subsequent adjustment of the duty that might be payable on the property not included in the accounts. As he understood the Amendment, there was nothing in it contrary to the principle of aggregation. It was intended to obviate the delay which he thought would otherwise result from the fact of aggregation. Obviously, it must be to the advantage of everybody that the executor should be able to obtain probate as soon as possible; and that some arrangement should be made by which he might be able to realise personalty, and pay out at least portions of the legacies, without having to wait to bring into the account property situated abroad or in the Colonies, of which he had no cognisance, and over which ho had himself no control.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, at the end of the last added words, to insert— But the delivery of the certificate to be delivered under forty-fourth year of Victoria, chapter twelve, section thirty, shall not be delayed by reason of the particulars of property, other than personal property in the United Kingdom, not being included in the accounts."—(Sir M. Hicks-Beach.)

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

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, the object of the Amendment was secured by the Bill as it stood. In Clause 5 there was a provision that an executor need undergo no delay in obtaining probate of property the particulars of which he was acquainted with, because there was other property which, for one reason or another, he was unable to include in the account.

*MR. BUTCHER

said, the difficulty which his right hon. Friend endeavoured to obviate by his Amendment was in connection with personal property out of the Kingdom which could not be included in the account, because the details were not known. In such a ease the executor might not be able to get the details of the property situated abroad for some considerable time, and the object of the Amendment was to avoid the delay in granting probate until all those details were obtained. If there was no clause in the Bill to enable probate to be obtained, without having to wait until particulars of the foreign property was got, the omission ought certainly to be supplied.

MR. R. T. REID

said, that Clause 5, Sub-section 3, of the amended Bill contained such a provision. If his memory served him right, he believed it was he that moved the Amendment for the express purpose of meeting the difficulty which had been referred to. There was no doubt that the executor, on furnishing the account of the property within his knowledge, would get the certificate in respect of that property.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, that under the circumstances he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. R. T. REID moved, in page 5, line 31, at beginning, insert where property passes on the death of the deceased and his executor is not accountable for the Estate Duty theron. He said, the Amendment was merely consequential on the other Amendments which had been adopted.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 31, at beginning, to insert the words where property passes on the death of the deceased and his executor is not accountable for the Estate Duty thereon."—(Mr. R. T. Reid.)

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

Question put, and agreed to.

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

Page 5, line 31, after "property," insert "so"

Page 5, lines 31 and 32, leave out "on the death of the deceased."

On Motion of Sir R. WEBSTER, the following Amendment was agreed to:—

Page 5, line 32, after "any," insert "beneficial."

On Motion of Mr. R. T. REID, the following Amendment was agreed to:—

Page 5, line 34, leave out "executor of the deceased."

MR. BUTCHER

said, he desired to move an Amendment which would prevent an agent or bailiff being held liable to pay duty. That they should not be responsible was, he was sure, the intention of the Government, but under the clause as it stood responsibility might attach to them.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 36, after the word "thereof," to insert the words "not being merely an agent or bailiff for another person."—(Mr. Butcher.)

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

MR. R. T. REID

said, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw the Amendment when he pointed out the great authority on which these words in the clause were used. They were taken from the 44th section of the Succession Duty Act of 1853, which was a model of skill and draftsmanship, and that they were sufficient for the purpose in view had been amply proved in the 40 years that had passed since that Act was placed upon the Statute Book. The hon. and learned Gentleman would see that his Amendment was not necessary.

MR. BUTCHER

said, that in the Succession Duty Act a certain definite class of persons were specified, but the terms of the clause under consideration would include persons who might be agents simply, and the Amendment was necessary in order to make it plain that they were not to be accountable for duty.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, that the words in the Bill did not follow those in the Succession Duty Act, and that the Amendment ought to be inserted. The words trustee, guardian, committee or other person in whom any interest in the property so passing, or the management thereof, is at any time vested would not exclude an agent. These were terms of art; and if the Solicitor General was so enamoured of them, he should follow the terms of the Succession Duty Act.

MR. BYRNE

said, that if the precise words of the Succession Duty Act were adopted in the clause the object of the Amendment would be effected.

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, the Government did not think the words necessary, and could not accept them.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, it was monstrous that they should be met in this way. They had been told that the wording of the Succession Duty Act had been followed, but that was not the case. In that Act there was no "other person" referred to as being vested with the management. If reasonable Amendments were not to be met reasonably, the Committee must be put to the trouble of dividing. It was admitted that what it was desired to provide for was the object attained by the Succession Duty Act; and, that being the case, why not adopt the words of the Succession Duty Act?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, that the Opposition would be satisfied if the words of the Succession Duty Act, which the Government said they intended to apply to the Bill, wore followed. The Government had not defended the words of the clause on their merits.

SIR J. LUBBOCK

asked the Government why they objected to the words proposed?

SIR W.HARCOURT

said, they were unnecessary.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, the Government had set up as their defence of the words of the clause as against the criticisms of the hon. and learned Member for York that the words were in the Act of 1853 and had stood the test of 40 years' experience. The Opposition admitted the force of that argument. They therefore asked for one of two things—that the Government should either show by argument and not by dogmatism why they had departed from the original words of the Succession Duty Act or adopt those words in the clause.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, the words of the clause would apply to managers and not merely to persons receiving the property. He hoped the hon. Member for York would press the Amendment to a Division if the Government did not give some further explanation.

MR. BYRNE

asked the Government to state that the words of the clause would not apply to a receiver. If they did he would go with them.

SIR J. LUBBOCK

said, that all they asked was that the Government should explain why they thought the words of the Amendment unnecessary. Merely to say that they did not think them necessary was no argument to address to the Committee.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 166.—(Division List, No. 104.)

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he desired to move, in page 5, lines 36 to 38, to strike out— And every person in whom the same is vested in position by alienation or other derivative title shall be accountable for the Estate Duty on the property. He did not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General desired to take the discussion on these words. He had looked through the hon. Gentleman's Amendments and could find in them nothing dealing with this point. He took these words to mean that every person to whom any property came, from whatever title it was derived, if they were purchasers for value and entitled to receive possession, wore accountable for Estate Duty. Amendments had been put down to Section 9 to give express protection to purchasers for value, and it was necessary to know why these words were put in here—that was to say, in Clause 7—if they had not the meaning he (Sir R. Webster) said they Lad. So far as he could calculate on looking through the Bill, there was to be a charge in respect of every property in regard to Estate Duty. He would call the attention of the Committee to the scheme of the Bill. Sub-section 1, of Clause 9, was as follows:— A rateable part of the Estate Duty on an estate in proportion to the value of any property which does not pass to the executor as such, shall be a first charge on the property liable to duty. This was not the case of an executor, but of persons to whom the interest in the property passed, and it was to make sure that the Revenue did not lose the duty. The words had been put in to provide that every person who was a beneficiary who gave notice that the Estate Duty had not been paid should be accountable. He should be glad to hear from Her Majesty's Government either that the words to which he called attention had another meaning than that he attributed to them, or that it was intended to move an Amendment to cover the point he raised. There might be some Act of Parliament from which these words were taken, and if so the Committee would like to hear what was its purview and object, and to see whether the Solicitor General had followed it as successfully as he did on the Amendment last dealt with.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 36, to leave out the words "and" to the word "property," in line 38.—(Sir R. Webster.)

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

MR. R. T. REID

said, he must be rash enough to repeat the sin which, in the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he committed on the last Amendment. These words were also taken from Section 44 of the Act of 1853. He should be glad to amend the sub-section if amendment were necessary.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, that no one who read the words of Sub-section 3 of Clause 7 would believe that the draftsman had been working from the Succession Duty Act. In the Succession Duty Act the first qualification was that the provision was to be in respect of property at the time the succession became an interest and passed. These words could not prevent anything happening which the general scope and purview of the clause would render possible. There was a special Act of Parliament passed in 1889 actually protecting purchasers for value and mortgagees in respect of this duty. He wished to know why the words were wanted here? Unless they were guarding words, they would have a larger meaning given to general words, and the question arose whether they excluded persons subsequently excluded? He should like to know who were the class of persons intended to be hit by the words?

MR. R. T. REID

said, he had stated that he was prepared to amend the section, but hon. Members opposite seemed determined to look a gift horse in the mouth.

*SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

Would not these words do— Not being a bonâ fide purchaser for value.

MR. R. T. REID

Probably they would, but I will look into the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Mr. GIBSON BOWLES, the following Amendment was agreed to:—

Page 5, line 41, after "account," insert "to the best of his knowledge and belief."

SIR J. LUBBOCK

said, he desired to move an Amendment limiting the duty of the person in whom property is vested to deliver and verify an account only to the extent of the property "actually received or disposed of by him." He was not sure how far Amendments already agreed to would render these words unnecessary. He admitted that it was reasonable for every person to give an account of property received or disposed of by him, but a man would not give an account of property that he had no knowledge of.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 41, after the word "property," to insert the words "actually received or disposed of by him."—(Sir J. Lubbock.)

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

MR. R. T. REID

said, it was stated what a person had to give an account of—namely, that which he had received, and had a knowledge of. Clearly, it would not be proper to limit him to giving information to that which he himself possessed. The Amendment was not necessary, having regard to the whole construction of the clause, as well as specific words in the earlier part of it.

SIR J. LUBBOCK

said, it might be reasonable that he should give an account of any property received or disposed of by him, but how could he give an account of property over which he had no control, and how was he to verify a statement as to property of which he knew nothing? The Amendment seemed to him necessary.

MR. R. T. REID

said, he had accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lynn Regis which bore upon these matters. If a person had no information there was an end of the matter, but if he had some he should be required to give the Inland Revenue the benefit of it.

MR. BYRNE

said, it appeared to him that the words were necessary. This part of the clause ought to correspond with the earlier portion, which would make certain persons accountable to the extent of the property actually received or disposed of by them. He had thought that the latter part of the clause meant to make such persons deliver an account of property for which they were accountable and nothing else. He now understood that something else was meant; therefore, he thought the Amendment essential.

MR. R. T. REID

said, the meaning of the clause was that a man should pay for what he had and account for what he knew of.

MR. GRANT LAWSON

Has an account to be given by each of these—the executor of the deceased, trustee, guardian, committee, or other person in whom any interest is vested?

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, that people would have to make statements founded upon imagination only— and make them on oath.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 126; Noes 155.—(Division List, No. 105.)

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, that upon a point of Order he wished to point out that Sub-section 4, taken in connection with Sub-section 5, would impose a charge which was not warranted by the Resolution. They required a person to deliver an account, and in case of failure he was liable to pay three times the amount of the duty, and where there was no duty payable he was liable to a penalty of £100. The two clauses would impose a penalty upon a person who was not liable to pay duty at all, but only required to know something; even if no Estate Duty was payable he was liable to a fine of £100. He submitted that the power to fine a person who was not accountable was not authorised by the Resolution.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I think the subsections are in Order. They contain provisions as to a penalty to which it is not necessary that any preliminary Resolution should apply.

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

Page 6, line 1, leave out "so."

Page 6, line 1, after "accountable," insert "for Estate Duty."

SIR J. LUBBOCK moved, in page 6, line 1, to leave out from "accountable," to "shall," in line 3. He said the Bill required not only that a person should give an account, but to verify it if the Commissioners believed he had received any information. That imposed a responsibility which it was impossible to carry out, and yet if it were not fulfilled a very heavy fine could be imposed. For the present he would content himself with moving the omission of the words.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 1, to leave out all the words from the word "accountable" to the word "shall," in line 3.—(Sir J. Lubbock.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'and every person' stand part of the Clause."

MR. R. T. REID

said, the right hon. Baronet took an unnecessarily strong view of this provision. The great bulk of people throughout the country would, no doubt, give a true and honest account of what had been done with the property. But there were rogues and dishonest people who, knowing that duty was payable, desired to cheat the Revenue. If they were so hampered that they could not give the necessary powers to the Inland Revenue officers, information as to what had become of the property could not be obtained. There must be some power of the kind in regard to any tax, and especially in connection with a tax of this kind. The section required that persons who had information as to the disposal of property should be required to make and verify an account of it. Was there anything so very meritorious in that? Supposing any hon. Gentleman in the House were called upon to give an account of any particular matter within his knowledge. Would he not be discharging a public duty by furnishing it? Why should he be either ashamed or afraid to give such information? He saw no reason why there should be any limitation upon the powers of the Inland Revenue to detect fraud.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, if he really thought that this clause was framed with a view of meeting the requirements that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, he should not support the Amendment. But it did not seem to him to meet the case of persons who had rendered false accounts or of persons who cheated the Government out of their duty. If there were such offenders there were clauses in the Bill which would meet their case. He should like to know whether there was the slightest authority for any procedure of this kind in the hands of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue at the present time? It would be a great satisfaction to him if he could find out that any such power had been given to Somerset House or the Income Tax Commissioners or any persons who were in authority. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he was informed that the Inland Revenue Commissioners found that the Legacy Duty was avoided, and that they had not sufficient machinery to discover the offenders, and then he proposed to modify the penal clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that this tax ought to be collected without friction, and that the machinery of the Bill ought to he such that the levying and collection of the tax should work easier in future. Would the House consider what were the powers given? It was not a question of the person accountable or a person who had taken away property; but in regard to any particulars which the Commissioners required they might call upon persons whom they believed to have taken possession to give and verify the particulars they required. They knew that in this Bill foreign property was to be included, and that other property never before subject to the tax was to be brought in. Had the Government considered what was the power they were putting into the hands of the Commissioners? If the Commissioners believed that some person had taken possession of or administered part of the property they could call upon him to furnish an account and verify it. He submitted that this power went beyond anything that was needed. It might lead to the raising of difficult and troublesome questions on the part of the Commissioners, who might receive statements made by persons who had nothing to do with the estate. It was certain that if the clause was framed with the idea of getting at people who made away with property it would not answer its purpose, because a man who was capable of making away with property would not stop at making an affidavit which would prevent the Commissioners from following it up. He could not imagine any state of circumstances which would justify these words being inserted in the Bill.

MR. BARTLEY

said, it appeared to him the Government was asking for the performance of a duty which could not be fulfilled. These persons were to make a statement about any property that the Commissioners thought formed part of an estate that was liable to duty. How could a person give full particulars about a property of which he knew nothing? Very likely the Commissioners might attack the wrong man, and endeavour to compel him to give particulars about an estate of which he knew nothing at all. The words were so wide and sweeping that it seemed to him the Commissioners, knowing how difficult the Bill had made it to obtain executors, would attack any person who was supposed to have had anything to do with the property.

MR. BYRNE

said, the Commissioners called upon this unfortunate man to deliver an account, and to verify it on oath, so that he would have to consult a solicitor, and would never get reimbursed for the expense. He did not think it fair that these inquisitorial powers should be given to the Commissioners.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he thought he saw what was suggested by the insertion of these words. It was to get the settlement of other property within the purview of the executor, and the notion was that information having been given that A B knew something about the property the Commissioners should go to him for a statement whether he did or did not know anything about the property. What he wanted to point out was that, first of all, this individual "whom the Commissioners might believe," and so on, was an entirely new personage in ancient or modern history. He had never figured in an Act of Parliament before. If he had, he would challenge the Solicitor General to tell him where. He had certainly never figured in the Succession or Legacy Duty Acts, and these Acts had been carried into full effect without him. The Solicitor General had told them that the various Departments had information as to property in the country upon which duty was to be paid. That information could be obtained without the exercise of any such inquisitorial power as was proposed here. Under this provision they were to take a person and compel him to divulge not what he knew, but what the Commissioners required him to know. Nothing of the kind had ever been suggested before. The powers under the Succession and Legacy Duty Acts had always been found ample for their purpose, and the Department had been able to obtain all the information wanted. He thought it was monstrous that the Government should introduce this extraordinary personage. What would be the result? That whenever any jealousy arose over the distribution of property on the death of the deceased, then the sub-section would be a direct invitation to some person to send off a letter to the Inland Revenue Department saying that A B knew more about this matter than had been divulged. Then would come down a Commissioner with all pomp and circumstance. A B might say that he knew nothing about it, but the Commissioner would say, "Under Sub-section 4 we require you to know about it." If the unfortunate A B, who never knew anything at all about the matter, should tell the Commissioner to go to the—door, he would be fined £100.

MR. MARTIN (Worcester, Droitwich)

said, he thought the Government might be able to see their way to leave out the word "believe," and insert "discover or find." If that were done the Commissioners would get all the information they required.

SIR J. LUBBOCK

said, he must ask how was a person to verify an account of which he knew nothing? Would the Government agree, after the word "shall," to insert the words "to the extent of his knowledge"? [An hon. MEMBER: No.] He was not asking the hon. Member, but the Government. It was reasonable that they should ask a person what he knew, but they ought not to go beyond that. He could not see why the Solicitor General should not agree that after the word "shall," in the third line, there should be inserted the words "to the extent of his knowledge."

SIR W. HARCOURT

Is it really worth while to waste further time upon this discussion? The fact is that if the Inland Revenue Commissioners think that a person can give information they will ask him. If he says he knows nothing, there is an end of the matter.

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

said, he did not intend to take part in this discussion; but he did not think hon. Members opposite had realised the importance of the matter. They did not know whether there was any precedent for this provision. It struck him that the section introduced for the first time powers which, if extended, would necessitate the introduction of new rules of evidence. He did not think that any time had been wasted over the discussion During the evening's discussion innumerable weaknesses had been found in the Government Bill, nearly three-fourths of which had been admitted by the Government themselves.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 147; Noes 114.—(Division List, No. 106.)

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.