HC Deb 01 August 1906 vol 162 cc1142-4

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1:—

*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,) Manchester, N.W.

said there was a technical Amendment to the clause which it was his duty to submit to the Committee. This Bill was one to enable persons married under laws which had received the assent of the Crown in the Colonies, to inherit real estate in this country, and otherwise to receive the privileges of those who had entered into lawful marriages in this country. There was a proviso to Clause 1 which was designed to prevent this Act having any retrospective effect. The Amendment he had to ask the Committee to accept was to leave out the words Nor any claim by the Crown for any duty due at the passing of this Act, in order to insert a new proviso prepared on the advice of the Board of Inland Revenue to make sure that duties paid in respect of deaths before the passing of the Bill were not to be returned and that duties commuted or compounded for in the anticipation of death until after the passing of the Bill were not to be returned.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the words, ' Nor any claim by the Crown for any duty due at the passing of this Act.'

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

SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)

said he must enter a protest against the pressing of an Amendment of this kind without any notice having been given. He did not suppose there was any Member of the House who understood what the meaning of the Amendment was. He certainly did not, and he was doubtful whether the hon. Member who moved it understood it himself. Of course, the hon. Member had the power of passing the Amendment, and he seemed to think that that was sufficient, and he did not think it necessary to display the courtesy of putting his proposals upon the Paper so that they could be understood. It was almost a farce in regard to business of this kind if long and complicated Amendments were put before the House without notice.

*MR. CHURCHILL

said he was sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentle- man did not understand the Amendment, because it was couched in the legal rigmarole of which he was so great a master. It was not his desire to show any discourtesy to the Committee and least of all to the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed it. The Amendment was of a purely formal and technical character and did not alter the original sense or intention of the measure. He regretted that it had drawn from the right hon. Gentleman such very severe and wounding comments as he had thought it his duty to make.

SIR E. CARSON

I do not understand a word of it.

*MR. CHURCHILL

was sorry that his right hon. friend did not understand the Amendment, because it was, as he had said, drawn in that legal rigmarole of which he was such a master. The only object of it was to provide that the provisions of the Bill should not be retrospective.

SIR E. CARSON

inquired if the Lords would be able to make an Amendment on the matter now before the Committee.

*MR. CHURCHILL

said that was a matter of procedure upon which he could not be expected to give any opinion.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," put and negatived.

New proviso inserted.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [No. 339.]