§ The first point is this. I propose that where any legacy, succession, or temporary 1079 Estate Duty which tinder the Finance Act of 1894 is merged in the new Estate Duty has prior to that Act, been paid on the principal value of any property, and such property subsequently becomes liable to the new Estate Duty under the same disposition, an allowance shall be made for the Legacy, Succession, or temporary Estate Duty already paid. ["Hear, hear!"] As the law stands the unfortunate subject has to pay these duties twice over. The second and third proposals are to prevent the duty being claimed either where a person has created a life interest in his own property and the property reverts to himself on the termination of that interest, or where he has, in settling his property, created a life interest subsequent to his own, and, through the lapse of such interest in his own lifetime, his life interest becomes enlarged into absolute ownership. There have been cases of considerable hardship under both these heads. Then I propose to adopt the Legacy Duty rule in two points —first, to enable an annuitant to pay the Estate Duty by installments, instead of having now to pay by a lump sum. The second point is with regard to the mode in which the Estate Duty is charged on works of art or other objects or collections of national or historic interest not yielding income. [Cheers.] That rule is not to charge the duty on such articles until they are sold or come into the possession of a person competent to dispose of them. Of course, in such a case these articles could not be aggregated with the rest of the estate for the purpose of the duty, but will pay according to their value. I make this proposal not by any means only in the interest of the families which happen to possess such objects, though I think it a hardship that they should be compelled, as they would be often under the existing law, to part with things which would lose half their interest if severed from the families, or even the houses, to which they belong and have belonged for generations. I think it a hardship that they should be compelled to part with heirlooms which to families might be of incalculable importance. I think it is hard that our system of taxation should run the risk of enforcing sales in any such cases, but, more than that, I think it is contrary to public policy. ["Hear, hear!"] We ought to encourage the retention of such 1080 articles by those who have inherited them instead of discouraging them by extraordinary taxation of this kind.[Cheers.] If sold, they are liable to be taken away to foreign countries instead of being kept at home where they would be of interest not only to the possessors, but also to the great masses of the population in the large towns who constantly derive benefit and pleasure, either by way of loan or otherwise, from these collections. [Cheers.] There are some minor points with which I need not trouble the Committee, as they will not affect the Revenue. In all I estimate a loss of revenue from the changes I propose of about £200,000 a year. This leaves me still with £1,508,000.