MR. GIBSON BOWLESI beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, has he considered the question whether Estate Duty is charged by the Finance Act, 1894, at the death of a life tenant of settled property who has surrendered his life interest in such property within twelve months of his death; has he taken the opinion upon that question of the Law Officers of the Crown; and, if so, will he state the general effect of that opinion; and does he, having regard to the language used by the Attorney-General in the Court of Appeal during the case of Attorney-General v. Beech, propose to take into the High Court the question whether the duty is payable in such cases with the contention on behalf of the Crown that it is so payable; and, if so, will he, as was done in the case of the Attorney-General v. Beech, undertake to pay the reasonable costs of both sides incurred in obtaining a final judicial decision on this question?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERThis is a legal Question on which my view is of no value. Nor do I think it could be settled by taking the opinion of the Law Officers—for even the present Law Officers are fallible, and the opinion of the late Law Officers on the case that has been already decided has been shown to have been wrong. I think the Question must go to the High Court, and, as it is really a part of the same matter as the case referred to, I think the Inland Revenue would be justified in paying reasonable costs in the same way as in that case.