§ The provisions as to the assessment, collection, and recovery of Estate Duty under the Finance Act, 1804, shall apply as if Increment Value Duty were an addition to the Estate Duty; but where any interest in land in respect of which Increment Value Duty is payable is property passing to the personal representative as such, the duty shall be payable out of the interest in land in exoneration of the rest of the deceased's estate, and shall be collected upon an account to be delivered by the personal representative, setting forth the particulars of the increment value in respect of the property.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved, after "Finance Act, 1894,"to insert the words "including appeals." We come at this point to a most important question —that of appeals, and of course the whole of this subject is very difficult to follow. Under the Finance Act, 1894, the provisions of which are incorporated in Clause 5 of this Bill so far as they relate to the assessment, collection, and recovery of Estate Duty, there is a complete system of appeals provided for. If we turn to the following Clause 6 we shall find, in referring to the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, the question of appeals is expressly excluded. Everyone who has had any practical experience of the working of the Death Duties knows what excellent sections there are. What is the reason for this Amendment? Have we not seen scattered about this Bill that appeals shall not lie upon this point and appeals shall be allowable on other points? So things get so complicated that it is really necessary for the Government to state distinctly whether they intend to give the right of appeal in this clause or not. The whole object of my Amendment is to clear up this point. I move to insert the words "including appeals" after "Finance Act, 1894."["The provisions as to the assessment, collection, and recovery of Estate Duty under the Finance Act, 1894, shall apply as if Increment Value Duty were an addition to the Estate Duty."]
2248§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThe hon. Member has argued the question whether there ought to be the right of appeal from the decision of the Commissioners or from the decision of the referee, who is in the position of an appellate court from the Commissioners under Clause 22 of the Bill. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that there have already been considerable discussions as to whether there ought to be any appeal, and, if so, what appeal ought to be given in addition to that already provided in Clause 22. In those discussions my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly never closed the door against any further appeal. On the contrary, he gave a distinct pledge that he would consider the matter, and further said he was open to be convinced by any arguments which might be addressed to him upon that point. I understood—I am not quite sure that I am accurate—that the arrangement was that the discussion on the question of appeal should be taken on Clause 22. Whether or not that was the arrangement, I am certain of this, that that is the proper place to have the discussion and finally decide it. There is another reason why we should not deal with the question here. This clause only applies the provisions: of the Finance Act, 1894, with reference to the assessment, collection, and recovery of duty, to the Increment Duty which will be recoverable under this Act. This clause, therefore, only applies to the occasion of death. The Committee will agree with me that if there is to be an appeal at all in reference to assessment, collection, or any other question which may arise upon duty—Increment Duty upon death, or Increment Duty on transfer of freehold estate or lease—that the appeal ought to be the same in all cases, and therefore you ought not in piecemeal fashion deal with the question of appeal. Reference has been made to the Finance Act of 1894, but the appeal section of the Act is a totally different section from that which contains the provisions which are here applied. The provisions relating to assessment, collection, and recovery of duty are in section (8) of the Finance Act, 1894, while the section which deals with appeal is section (10)—a 2249 totally different section. I therefore submit, apart altogether from the arrangement which has been made between the two sides of the House to have the discussion on the question of appeal taken on Clause 22, that in any event this is not the proper place for it, because this clause deals with only one of the occasions in which Increment Duty is assessed, collected or recovered, namely, on death, whereas if there is to be an appeal it should be upon all occasions on which Increment Duty is to be levied.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDThis is the first occasion upon which this important matter has been dealt with. I have given notice to deal with it on each successive occasion, and if I allowed this opportunity to pass I am afraid I shall be told that it is not open to me to go back and reopen the question of appeal. I hope we are reasonable on this side of the House, and if we have the authoritative assurance on the part of the Government that they are going to grant on all occasions—not only on death, but on transfer or lease—a reasonable and proper appeal to a proper court, so that the subjects of the realm could rely upon getting justice in spite of any Commissioners, I would not press the Amendment. We are entitled to have a definite statement of policy made to us by the Government. Unless we can get that, I shall be bound to take the Amendment to a Division.
§ Mr. PRETYMANMay I ask the learned Solicitor-General, even if Clause 22 is all that he indicated, whether it will not be still necessary to insert words here as to an appeal, because this clause specially deals with reference to the Finance Act, 1894? There are other sections in the Bill which relate to assessment, collection, and recovery of Increment Value Duty, and will it not be equally necessary to refer to appeals here as it is to refer to assessment collection and recovery?
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThat would not be so. I tried to explain that this clause really incorporates provisions which, broadly speaking, are in Clause 8 of the Finance Act, 1894. They are provisions which deal with assessment recovery and collection; they do not touch appeals. When we come to Clause 22, if appeals are allowed, there will be no necessity to amend this clause. It will be competent for the Committee to enact in Clause 22 that there should be an appeal not only in case of transfer in death, but on every 2250 occasion. I cannot give any further assurance to the hon. Member (Mr. Watson Rutherford) than has already been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot give him an assurance that an appeal will be allowed. The assurance is that we have an open mind upon the matter, and will discuss it on Clause 22. I can assure him that if an appeal is granted it will be granted not only on transfer on death, but on all other occasions.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINNo doubt it would be necessary to have further provisions in Clause 22 even if we adopted this Amendment. I confess I do not like to pass the clause as it stands without any more definite assurance than the Government have given that we shall have a satisfactory appeal. The learned Solicitor-General made an odd observation. He said there was already an appellate court from the Commissioners in the shape of the referee. It is one of the odd features of the tribunals as proposed in the Bill that the question of valuation is to be dealt with by the Commissioners, who have no knowledge of valuations, and that questions of law are to be settled by the referee who has no knowledge of law. That is rather a strange thing. In these circumstances the learned Solicitor-General will understand that we do not consider the appellate court, as he calls it, as a satisfactory protection for the citizens who will have to pay this tax. Ho said the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to keep an open mind. I think he went a little further than that. I only know of one undertaking in answer to a criticism of my own on the second reading. I understood there was an undertaking by the Minister who followed me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be prepared to give the right of appeal on a point of law not merely to the referee, but to the courts.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSWhatever assurance was given I do not want to add to or detract from it.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe Solicitor-General said the Chancellor of the Exchequer was open to conviction by the arguments addressed to him. I do not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer for snatching a little well-earned rest, but it would be more satisfactory if he were present to listen to these arguments. The Solicitor-General wants us to postpone the whole thing till we reach Clause 22. We 2251 are now embodying all the provisions of the Finance Act, 1894, dealing with assessment, collection, and recovery of Estate Duty which tell against the citizen, but we are not embodying the protection inserted in that Act to secure him from injustice. I do not suggest it will follow that the powers given to those officers would for a moment be consciously abused, but what the Committee have to remember is that there is a possibility of them being abused owing to error or misjudgment. Under these circumstances, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here to go further into the matter, and as it is obviously impossible for the Solicitor-General to make promises for which he has no authority, I think my hon. Friend must press the Amendment he has moved.
§ Mr. F. E. SMITHI listened with interest to the last speech of the learned Solicitor-General, but after giving the best attention I could to the objections he raised against the Amendment, I was utterly at a loss to find in them anything of real substance. As I understood the objection of the learned Solicitor-General was two-fold. In the first place he appeared to suggest that there was an undefined resolve on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider an Amendment which might be moved hereafter with the object of giving a right of appeal. But it seems to me impossible that we should be satisfied with vague and unsubstantial promises of that kind, especially in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman. The learned Solicitor-General has also argued that the general discussion of appellate rights might be considerably prejudiced if a proviso were inserted here securing the right of appeal in the limited number of cases dealt with under Clause 5. In a number of other cases, however, which are just as distinguishable as the cases dealt with by Clause 22, the Government draftsman has provided quite separate machinery for dealing with appeal. If that was found a possible and convenient course in those instances, I do not see why it should not be found a convenient course in the clause we are dealing with now. I may also point out that we have no guarantee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not move the closure on that part of Clause 22, which might enable my hon. Friend to raise at that stage the point he has raised now. I believe what was said by the Chancellor 2252 of the Exchequer was something to the effect that he would keep an open mind.
I do not think he went much farther than that. If the only answer we get is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may consider some alternative proposal at a later stage of the Bill, I, for one, must say I am not satisfied that on the strength of that we shall ever have an opportunity of discussing the matter. Under those circumstances what is the proposal of my hon. Friend? He has suggested that, without prejudice to increasing still further the larger appellate right contained in another part of the Bill in relation to the provision of Clause 5, there shall be a right of appeal. The only question is whether the appellate rights, which were considered reasonable in the 1894 Act when dealing with the recovery of Estate Duty on land, are also reasonable when applied to Increment Duty. I understood the learned Solicitor-General to say that the provisions in the Finance Act of 1894, which deal with the assessment, collection, and recovery of Estate Duty were contained in Clause 8 of that Act, and he pointed out that the provisions which deal with appeal are contained in Clause 10 of the Act. That is quite true. But I do not think he disputed that the provisions in Clause 10, which deals, as I have said, with appeal, are applicable to Clause 8, which is incorporated in this Bill. If that is so the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend's Amendment disappears. If it is worth while to incorporate for the purposes of an Increment Duty the provisions contained in the Finance Act of 1894 with reference to the assessment, collection, and recovery of Estate Duty, then some reason must be given why the appellate rights secured in Clause 10 should not be equally available. With great respect, I venture to challenge entirely as a matter of drafting the proposition of the learned Solicitor-General that the Amendment in substance would naturally fall to be dealt with when Clause 22 is under discussion.
§ Mr. ROWLAND HUNTFor a great many years past an Englishman has been sure of a fair hearing and even-handed justice from a judge and a jury of his own countrymen. Now, for the first time in this Bill, it is proposed that instead of that he is to be under the tyranny of an irresponsible and autocratic body of Commissioners, and his only appeal is to be to a referee, also appointed by the Govern- 2253 ment, who has no knowledge of law. I must say that, as far as I can make out, the only thing which the Government have got to say is, "Do please put it aside until you have got a long way down the Bill." It is a plan they have always adopted when they have got into a difficulty. They have tried to put it off as far as possile in the Bill. Therefore, I think we should take the very first opportunity of protesting against this part of the Bill, which takes away from an Englishman a right that, I think I may say, he has had for centuries.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMI would like to address one argument to the Solicitor-General. Under this proposal we are applying in certain important respects, the Finance Act of 1894 to this new Increment Value Duty. The point I would put
§ is this. The Finance Act of 1894 is not the Act which passed from this House. It is the Act which passed from this House as interpreted for the last 15 or 16 years, and it will continue to be that Act as interpreted in the sixteenth and seventeenth years, and so in respect of all the Death Duties, but not in respect of this new duty. It seems to me an absurdity that you should cut off the continuous channel of interpretation in respect of this one duty, and, at the same time, amalgamate with other duties in connection, which the continuous interpretation of our courts is still to be part of the privileges of this land.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed in the Amendment be inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 59; Noes. 137.
2255| Division No. 304.] | AYES. | [6.50 a.m. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Haddock, George B. | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hamilton, Marquess of | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Helmsley, Viscount | Stanier, Seville |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hunt, Rowland | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Joynson-Hicks, William | Starkey, John R. |
| Bull, Sir William James | Lambson, Hon Frederick William | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Garlile, E. Hildred | Lane-Fox, G. R | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Morpeth, Viscount | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Newdegate, F. A. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Oddy, John James | Younger, George |
| Fell, Arthur | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | |
| Forster, Henry William | Pretyman, E. G. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Watson Rutherford and Mr. F. E. Smith. |
| Foster, P. S. | Ratcliff, Major R. F. | |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Remnant, James Farquharson | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Cooper, G. J. | Hemmerde, Edward George |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Henry, Charles S. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Armitage, R. | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Hodge, John |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Barnes, G. N. | Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh) | Hudson, Walter |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Hyde, Clarendon G. |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Elibank, Master of | Idris, T. H. W. |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Essex, R. W. | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Bennett, E. N. | Evans, Sir S. T. | Jenkins, J. |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Brace, William | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Glover, Thomas | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Macpherson, J T. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Haworth, Arthur A. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Maddison, Frederick |
| Clough, William | Hedges, A. Paget | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Helme, Nerval Watson | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Mond, A. | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Vivian, Henry |
| Montgomery, H. G. | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Nannetti, Joseph p. | Seddon, J. | Wardle, George J. |
| Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Seely, Colonel | Waring, Walter |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Simon, John Allsebrook | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Stanger, H. Y. | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Pirie, Duncan V. | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Pointer, J. | Strachey, Sir Edward | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Summerbell, T. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Winfrey, R. |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) | Thomasson, Franklin | |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | |
| Robinson, S. | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS moved after "Finance Act, 1894,"to insert the words "except section seven, sub-section five."
§ The object of the Amendment is rather to get a declaration from the Government as to what are the exact sections of the Act of 1894 which the Government intend to incorporate in the provisions of this Bill. It is exceedingly difficult for those who have to administer an Act of Parliament to go back to find out exactly what is included in the provisions of an Act. I am moving to omit Clause 7, which clearly cannot apply to Increment Duty. It deals with deaths and deductions from Estate Duty. There is a fundamental difference between Estate Duty and Increment Duty; yet the Government are going to incorporate in this Bill all the provisions of the Act of 1894, and I think we are entitled to ask under which particular clauses of this Act we should have to pay Increment Tax. Estate Duty is payable on lands situated abroad. Are we to pay Increment Duty upon such lands? It was decided a week ago that we shall not pay. But the main difference in the Act of 1894 and this Bill is with regard to the question of aggregation. If you refer to the previous clauses of the Finance Act, 1894, Clause 6 is headed "Assessment, collection, and recovery of Estate Duty." We are entitled to ask the Solicitor-General whether this Clause 6 is to be incorporated under the Act we are now discussing? If the Solicitor-General will give us some indication which of these sections are to be included it will be helpful. Then there is a very important section, that relating to payment by instalments. Under the Estate Duty you can spread the payment over eight years, payable by 16 half-yearly instalments. Is that clause, giving the subject a very important right indeed, to be incorporated? Is the whole thing to be made as nearly as possible on the lines of the Estate Duty?
2256§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThe Amendment, I understand, has been moved in order to obtain a declaration from the Government. The clause is really one dealing with machinery, and all the machinery of the Act of 1894 in effect is incorporated in this clause. We have incorporated the machinery both as regards the assessment, collection, and recovery of the duty, and amongst these is the provision for payment by instalments.
§ Mr. PRETYMANIt does seem to me that we have arrived at a point of great obscurity. We do not know where we really do stand. This section goes so far as to say that these provisions "shall apply as if Increment Value Duty were an addition to the Estate Duty? Every single one of these sections apply to Estate Duty. We want some definite information as to which parts of the other Act are to apply and which are not. We should then have been able to consider the matter quietly before next Monday, and probably should not have had to raise the point at all. We are bound now to ask the learned Solicitor-General to tell us what we should have been able to discover for ourselves. No doubt he is right. He is a lawyer, and I am not. Still, it is my duty as a Member of Parliament to be satisfied on this matter, and I am not at all satisfied yet by what the learned Solicitor-General has said.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYIt is obvious that the intention of the Government, according to the drafting of this clause, is that Clauses 6, 7 and 8 of the Finance Act, 1894, only are to apply to the Increment Value Duty. I ask the Committee to note the words "as if the Increment Value Duty were in addition to the Estate Duty." In considering the Finance Act, 1894, you have to look at each one of these clauses and see what is the effect of treating the Increment Value Duty as a Death Duty. 2257 I really do not know which predominates —the Finance Act, 1894, or the clauses of this Bill that we have already passed. Take Clause 7 of the Finance Act, 1894. It says that an allowance shall not be made for debts incurred by the deceased or incumbrances created by disposition made by the deceased unless such debts or incumbrances were incurred or created bonâfide for valuable consideration in money or money's worth wholly for the deceased's own use and benefit. Does that apply to Increment Duty as well?
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSClearly not.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYThen why is it enacted in this Bill that Clause 7 of the Finance Act, 1894, is one of the sections that shall apply? It says clearly that the provisions as to assessment, collection and recovery of Estate Duty shall apply. Section 5 of Clause 7 of the Finance Act, 1894, deals with what is called principal value. How does principal value under that section compare in total value as defined in this Bill? It is obviously not applicable. The fact is that nobody knows which of the sections of the Finance Act, 1894, are applicable to this clause of the Bill. I hope we shall have a clear exposition from some member of the Government on these points.
§ Mr. E. H. CARLILEIn supporting the Amendment, I beg to point out that here we have all the vices of legislation by reference in their most extreme form. The Government apparently have not taken the trouble to ascertain how far the Finance Act, 1894, applies to the present Bill. It is preposterous that we should be asked to consider a matter of this sort. It is not treating the Committee fairly to simply chuck in the Finance Act of 1894, and afterwards to decide which sections of it shall apply to this Bill. Some parts of the Finance Act of 1894 are to be considered in connection with this Bill, and I argue that we cannot discuss this question efficiently at the present moment, because the sections in question are not specified to us. Therefore, in view of the position in which the Committee is placed, I beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell)I cannot at this juncture accept that Motion.
§ Mr. F. E. SMITHAs there have been a good many interruptions of speakers on 2258 this side I should like to say that if Members are to sit up until this late or early hour hon. Gentlemen opposite should make up their minds that they will at least give to the discussion of any points which are taken such reasonable attention as is required. It has been pointed out over and over again in the House of Commons that the practice of legislation by reference is attaining proportions which makes it extremely dangerous, and one to be resisted on every possible occasion. But of all the gross and flagrant cases of legislation by reference that I can recollect none have been open to graver objections from the legal point of view than the one which is now engaging the attention of the Committee. I earnestly press on the attention of the Committee, and I do not speak without experience, that by giving their countenance to legislation by reference they are doing a service to no part of the community except the legal profession. It is a system which leads to endless confusion and confiscation. Take the words in Clause 5,"The provisions as to the assessment, collection, and recovery of Estate Duty under the Finance Act, 1894, shall apply as if Increment Value Duty were an addition to the Estate Duty." Those words are extremely loose and dangerous.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe Committee is placed in some difficulty by this section because of the peculiar position the Government have taken in regard to it. It was early pointed out that this Bill was encumbered with quite an unusual amount of reference to other duties—that it was legislation by reference to extremes, and the senior Member for Trinity College, Dublin, asked the Government to supply the House with a White Paper which would show the sections of the various Acts referred to. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he thought that was a very fair request to make and that he would be happy to supply the White Paper. If the Solicitor-General will turn to that White Paper he will find that in this case the Government have not given the reference. There is no reference to the provisions in the Finance Act of 1894 which are incorporated in this section. It is not so with most of the references. Where there is an easy reference it is supplied to us in the White Paper. Here we have no such guide, but are left to search through the Act of 1894 to find out what are the provisions which the Government mean to incorporate. The trouble which the Govern- 2259 ment took in telling us how much is or is not incorporated leads us to suppose that they do not themselves know what they are passing.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThe reason why this provision is not incorporated in the White Paper is very obvious. This is not a specific clause like the clauses which are given in the White Paper. It is because these provisions are generally applied to this section that the sections of the Act of Parliament are not quoted.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThat is no doubt perfectly true, but it strengthens my argument. Where you have a specific limited reference it is easily put in the White Paper, but where you have a general reference ranging over the whole Act without any reference to what clauses or
§ sub-clauses are intended the Government do not put it in. The explanation has really made my case much stronger.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSWe have had no real declaration at all. Everybody knows that these clauses are going to be incorporated in a Bill of this kind, but we cannot get any answer whatever from the Government as to which of the provisions of the Act of 1894 are to be included, although they have admitted that many of the provisions relating to the collection of Estate Duty are unsuitable to the collection of Increment Duty. Yet they will not tell us which.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 137.
2261| Division No. 305.] | AYES. | [7.40 a.m. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Hamilton, Marquess of | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Helmsley, Viscount | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hunt, Rowland | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Stanier, Beville |
| Bull, Sir William James | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Starkey, John R. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Valentia, Viscount |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Meysey-Thompscn, E. C. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Morpeth, Viscount | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Newdegate, F. A. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Oddy, John James | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Fell, Arthur | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Younger, George |
| Forster, Henry Wiliam | Pretyman, E. G. | |
| Foster, P. S. | Ratcliff, Major R. F. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr Joynson-Hicks and Mr. Remnant. |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Clough, William | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Clynes, J. R. | Ha2el, Dr. A. E. W. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Cooper, G. J. | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Armitage, R. | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Astbury, John Meir | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Hemmerde, Edward George |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Henry, Charles S. |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Barnard, E. B. | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Barnes, G. N. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Hodge, John |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh) | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Bennett, E. N. | Elibank, Master of | Hudson, Walter |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Essex, R. W. | Idris, T. H. W. |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Evans, Sir S. T. | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Jenkins, J. |
| Brace, William | Fuller, John Michael F. | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Jones, William (Carnarvanshire) |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Glover, Thomas | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Burke. E. Haviland- | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) |
| Macpherson, J. T. | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Maddison, Frederick | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Vivian, Henry |
| Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Robinson, S. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Wardle, George J. |
| Mond, A. | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. | Waring, Walter |
| Montgomery, H. G. | Seddon, J. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Morrell, Philip | Seely, Colonel | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Nannetti, Joseph P. | Silcock, Thomas Ball | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Simon, John Allsebrook | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Stanger, H. Y. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Strachey, Sir Edward | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Pirle, Duncan V. | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Pointer, J. | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Winfrey, R. |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Summerbell, T. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Thomasson, Franklin |
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS moved to add, at the end of the clause: "Provided that in respect of all property of the deceased, other than that assessed to Increment Value Duty, the Crown shall, as a creditor in respect of such Increment Value Duty, rank after all the other creditors of the deceased."
§ This is an Amendment of substance. I will submit a concrete case. Suppose a man dies owning property valued £l,000, having increment upon it of £200, and on which property there is a mortgage up to the hilt. There is, therefore, an Increment Duty payable upon that increment value of £200, although there is nothing in the property out of which it can be paid. Supposing he had property of £1,000 and debts of a similar amount, we should be in this position, that the Crown would come in as creditor for Increment Estate Duty in front of the ordinary creditors of the deceased man. The Crown would insist on taking their pound of flesh in the shape of the Increment Estate Duty, while the unfortunate butcher, baker, and candlestick maker could not be fully paid in respect of debts. I submit that is a hardship, and I do ask the very careful attention of the Government to this Amendment, which deals with the rights of poor people. Under the provisions of this Bill the Increment Duty on the fully encumbered property would come down on the property of the deceased man. It should come after the local trade creditors.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThe Amendment of the hon. Member is a specious Amendment, which appears to have some reason in it. But the hon. Member's analogy of the Death Duty is not a correct one. The provision he now seeks to make is to see that the Crown shall not have the priority which in law it generally has. We are not 2262 seeking to alter the position of the Crown at all, and I have not heard anything in the arguments of the hon. Member that leads me to think there is anything special in the Increment Value Duty which calls for the forfeiture of the rights of the Crown.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThe Death Duty does not affect creditors at all. Is the Crown to come in and take this Increment Value Duty, which it cannot do under the Death Duty, in priority of poor creditors? The Solicitor-General has made a statement; perhaps he will substantiate it. I do not think he can make his point good. It is perfectly clear that under the Death Duty small creditors are not prejudiced by the action of the Crown in obtaining the duty. In this case the poor creditors of a poor man will suffer, because a large portion of the estate may be taken. Although an estate may be extremely small, the total proportion which the increment bears to that estate may be very large indeed. A poor man may have his sole property in a building plot. He might not spend any money on it himself, and then he will not be entitled to any deductions. The probability is that the whole of the increment value which may inhere to that plot of land will be taxable increment. Supposing the man bought for £200 and the value goes up to £1,000, the whole £800 will be taxable, and the one-fifth—£160—will be taken for Increment Duty. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider it would be fair in the case of an estate of that kind that the Crown should take advantage of its general right of priority which has been exercised under statutes drawn on wholly different principles to this Bill, and which really does not prejudice small creditors in case of death and causes no real hardships? In the present case we are enacting 2263 a fiscal law wholly different from any fiscal law enacted in this country before. That is why these long Debates have arisen. We have to discover the incidence of this tax on all the different interests affected by it. We have no precedents and no analogies to go upon, and the Government do not attempt to meet the hardships we point out.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell)These are very general observations.
§ Mr. PRETYMANWith all respect, I was dealing specifically with the defence of the learned Solicitor-General, which was based on the analogy of the Death Duties. I am pointing out that the Death Duties are on a totally different basis. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to apply this totally new Bill on exactly the same principles of other Acts. We press most strongly that the Amendment shall be accepted.
§ Mr. REMNANTIn supporting the Amendment I wish to draw attention to the peculiarly harsh way in which the Bill will apply to a particular case. It is that of an old woman who invested all her hard-earned savings in a small piece of land. She had an idea that the land around it would develop in the future. She did not live to reap the whole benefit of it. When she died she left no property but this piece of land. Her children were all working men. [Interruption.] Judging by the hilarity with which that remark was received, I should think a good many men are children. Her sons were working men. They had helped her to pass her last few years comfortably by lending her some of their own hard-earned savings. When she died the property which she bought for £300 realised £l,650, which just sufficed to pay all she owed. If the Bill were allowed to pass without an Amendment such as is suggested by my hon. Friend, the Crown would have stepped in and, taking the £300 as the original value, would have received a considerable proportion of the £1,650, leaving a greatly diminished sum for distribution. If the Government cannot accept this Amendment, they would do well to make some provision for dealing specially with small estates up to a certain amount, so that these poor people would be helped.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMThe Solicitor-General a short time since agreed that any argument of substance deserved as much atten- 2264 tion from the Government in the early morning as in the early afternoon. I always feel great diffidence about expressing an opinion on these complicated legal points, but if I understood the learned Gentleman's argument aright it is in effect that whatever the language of the Act may be no creditor is damaged by the practice in respect of either Estate Duty or Succession Duty. He says the priority of the Crown always remains, but it is not enforced, and no damage is, in fact, caused to any other creditor. This clause says that the Increment Value Duty is in many respects to be treated precisely as the Estate Duty is treated. We urge that the creditor of an estate should not be damaged in respect of Increment Value Duty any more than he is damaged in respect of Estate Duty or Succession Duty. If the Government will get up and say that the creditor will not be damaged by the clause as it stands there is an end to the matter. But they have not done that. Therefore they must either accept the Amendment or promise that under words of their own introducing they will see that creditors do not suffer in a way in which they are not made to suffer in the case of the Estate Duty or the Succession Duty. I do not think that point would be met by limiting the concession to very small estates. The Committee should remember that the owner of what looks like a large estate is sometimes so indebted that he numbers more creditors probably than the owner of a small estate.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSI rise to make a suggestion to the Committee which will probably be successful in meeting some of the objections. I called the attention of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment to the fact that he apparently is forgetting the position of the mortgagee here, because the Crown will still have priority in respect of the property over the mortgagee, who is a creditor. What I suggest is that the Crown should rank pari passu with the other creditors.
§ Sir W. BULLI should like to remind the Committee of the provisions of the Intestates Act, 1890. Prior to that Act, i£ a man died intestate, leaving a widow, the latter only got one-third of his property, and the other two-thirds went to the Crown. By the Act I am referring to, the Crown specially allows the first £500 to go to the estate, so that in the case of small estates, at any rate, it is made per- 2265 fectly secure that, whatever its value, the first £500 will go to the estate. I venture to suggest to the learned Solicitor-General that a very good way out of the difficulty, certainly in the case of small estates, would be to follow the analogy of the Intestates Act of 1890.
§ Mr. LYTTELTONI venture to think that after the statements made from this side the Government will see fit further to extend their concession. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will realise that nothing could be more disastrous to the effect of his measure than to make it unpopular in the eyes of the subject. If any opponent of the Government could say that this Bill, differing from the Act which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull), secures priority for the Crown over widows on small estates, a very formidable point would be made against the Government and the Bill. I am glad to see the Prime Minister here, and I should like to ask him whether, in the case of creditors of a small estate after this Act comes into force, the word "windfall" will be practicable when they find the Crown has, without notice, stepped in front of them and seized a large part of their money which, but for this Act, would have been theirs and which they believe would have been theirs in the honest course of trade? Surely no more oppressive position could be taken up by a powerful Government. It is one from which they will shrink when they really come to consider it. I have urged these reasons because I have noticed during the course of the Debates on this Bill, that when it is shown that a considerable class of poor people are affected, and a considerable class of poor voters are affected, they show a certain amount of wisdom in making concessions. I suggest to them that having really in substance, though not in words, the precedent of the succession duties, they have really sound ground on which they might make a further concession in this respect.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDThis Amendment is, I venture to think, of very great importance. Of course, at first sight it is a curious thing to be asked to adopt an Amendment under which the duty to the Crown would really come last. There is a very large class of cases which is bound to arise under this exceptional duty which we are bound to take cognisance of. In the case of the Death Duty this diffi- 2266 culty does not arise, for the reason that the duty is only paid at the end of the amount which the deceased leaves; all the debts and mortgages and that sort of thing are taken out before the estate is assessed. But in this case the increment is to be ascertained without making any allowance whatever for mortgages or debts. The Crown, in many cases where people die very badly off, immediately comes into competition, in the first place, it may be with the mortgagee; in the second place with ordinary creditors, and in the third place with the widow or children. That is entirely in consequence of this duty being imposed not upon the person, or what the person leaves, but upon the thing, namely, the property, and then, by a sort of back door arrangement, this is made a Crown debt, and therefore a priority charge against the goods amassed by the person who happens to die owning the property. It seems to me the two positions are inconsistent, and that the Government ought to be seriously asked to take up one or other of the positions. Either the Government ought to make this duty a charge upon the land out and out and be done with it, in which case the person, or the person's estate, would be relieved; or the Government ought to take the definite stand that this is simply a charge upon the individual transferor or lessor of the deceased person's estate, as the case may be, and the property then would be entirely free. I think we are justified in raising this point, because there are bound to arise under this Act a vast number of cases where a man will find his estate will be either nil as regards his creditors but there will be duty to pay, or there will not be enough estate to pay the duty, and in either of those cases a very serious question is bound to arise as to who is to be paid and what is to become of the estate. This Amendment is a bonâ fide attempt to get a definite line taken by the Government upon this very important question.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI do hope the Committee can see their way to accept the very substantial concession made by the Solicitor-General. It meets much more than half-way the case made by the supporters of the Amendment. It is asking a good deal to put the Crown after every other creditor, and I think that we are meeting the views of hon. Gentlemen as far as possible. I think the best answer to the hon. Member who spoke last is the speech made by the hon. Member for 2267 Dover (Mr. Wyndham), who appealed to us to make no distinction between the large and small estates. We are not making any distinction.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSIn those circumstances, I would move the Amendment in the form suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. PRETYMANI do not wish to discuss this clause, and only hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be satisfied with the progress we have now made. I think it is only reasonable that the Committee should not be detained any longer. We are willing to discuss this clause, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might see his way to postpone its consideration.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI really do not want to do anything that is unfair, but will the hon. and gallant Member look at the position of things? We have been discussing Increment Duty for a whole month, and I do think that the beginning of the fifth week we should be able to get on to the Reversion Duty. I have been so long in Opposition that I have the Opposition mind, and I therefore would not press the Committee, unless I thought honestly and sincerely that it is a perfectly legitimate request. On Clause 6 there are really only two important points. One is whether we shall start in 1914, and the other is whether the collection shall be every fifteenth year. I do hope the hon. and gallant Member will not see the necessity of going on several hours with these two points.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI am sure I feel most willing, as all do, to come to some reasonable arrangement. But I think the arguments! of the Chancellor of the Exchequer strengthens our case rather than his own, for he has pointed out that there may be two points which raise discussion. They are points which I admit are fairly clear
§ issues, and we have to discuss them. Those who, like myself, take an interest in this Bill, have a great demand made upon their time. I started at nine o'clock yesterday morning. I am prepared to go on, but I do not think it is fair. If we are allowed to proceed with Clause 6 at the commencement of the sitting on Monday I am sure there will be no desire on the part of hon. Members on this side to unduly prolong the discussion. The right hon. Gentleman has got two clauses to-day, which is more progress than has hitherto been made, and it is unreasonable to ask us to discuss Clause 6 now. We do not desire to delay the Committee merely for the purpose of wasting time, and I do think the general conduct of the Bill in the future from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view will be improved by adjourning now.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI quite recognise the tone and spirit in which the hon. and gallant Member has discussed this matter, and the readiness he has shown to come to some reasonable understanding. I want it to be understood that Clause 6 should not be used as a barrier on Monday for not getting on. If the hon. and gallant Member says that all he wants is a reasonable opportunity for discussing what are only two points of substance, and can give an indication of the length of time which they will take for these two points on Monday that might offer a much more reasonable basis for coming to an arrangement.
§ Mr. PRETYMANIt is very difficult to give an absolute promise, but I can give a definite undertaking that we on this side will not prolong the discussion, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will get more by accepting it on that basis and dealing fairly with us than by trying to tie us down to some definite hour.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI know that that assurance is quite good enough for any Minister, and after Clause 5, I shall be prepared to report Progress.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 54.
2269| Division No. 306.] | AYES. | [8.40 a.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Barnard, E. B. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Astbury, John Meir | Barnes, G. N. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) |
| Armitage, R. | Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Beaumont, Hon. Hubert |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Hemmerde, Edward George | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Bennett, E. N. | Henry, Charles S. | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Higham, John Sharp | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) |
| Bowerman, C. W, | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Brace, William | Hodge, John | Roberts, G. H, (Norwich) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Horniman, Emslie John | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Robinson, S. |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Hudson, Walter | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Idris, T. H. W. | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Illingworth, Percy H. | Seddon, J. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Jenkins, J. | Seely, Colonel |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Clough, William | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Lamb, E. H. (Rochester) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Lehmann, R. C. | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Summerbell, T. |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lewis, John Herbert | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Macpherson, J. T. | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Thompson, J. W H. (Somerset. E.) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Maddison, Frederick | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton,) |
| Elibank, Master of | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Essex, R. W. | Marnham, F. J. | Vivian, Henry |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Massie, J. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Masterman, C. F. G. | Wardle, George J. |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Mond, A. | Waring, Walter |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Montgomery, H. G. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Glover, Thomas | Morrell, Philip | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Morse, L. L. | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Hart-Davies, T. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Pirie, Duncan V. | |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Pointer, J. | |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Baldwin, Stanley | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hamilton, Marquess of | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Helmsley, Viscount | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Joynson-Hicks, William | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Stanier, Beville |
| Bull, Sir William James | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Starkey, John R. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cecil, Evelys (Aston Manor) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Morpeth, Viscount | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Newdegate, F. A. | Wyndharn, Rt. Hon. George |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Oddy, John James | Younger, George |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | |
| Fell, Arthur | Pretyman, E. G. | |
| Foster, P. S. | Ratcliff, Major R. F. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Remnant, James Farquharson |
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDI hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not persist in this Motion. My colleagues below the Gangway and I have supported him right through the sitting. When we have had 2270 anything to say on this Bill which was of substantial contribution to the subject before the Committee, we have spoken; when we have felt there were Members of this House more capable than ourselves of discussing the question before the Committee, we have held our tongues. We have sat through the whole of this sitting. The hon. Gentleman who spoke just before 2271 the Division referred to the fact that he has been at work since 9.30 yesterday morning. I have been at work since eight o'clock yesterday morning. I am prepared to go on. We stood by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for two reasons: First of all, we want the honour and dignity of this House to be maintained. [Cries of "Oh, oh."] Hon. Members can sneer as much as they like. Taking the Labour Members as a whole in this House, they have contributed as much to the honour and the dignity of this House as any other section. We have sat through the whole of this sitting with mingled feelings, whilst speeches were made which were nothing but repetitions of speeches that have been made over and over again, and we were always under the impression until we came here that both sides of the House conspired to keep the House of Commons something that the people of the country could honour, because it honoured itself and did not stoop or allow its Members to stoop to proceedings within its walls which really are nothing but degradation to Parliamentary and representative institutions. The second reason why we have stopped here all night is that we want business to be done. [An HON. MEMBER: "A Socialist Budget."] Socialist Budget or no Socialist Budget, when hon. Members begin to tinker with Tariff Reform they will hear enough about Socialism. I put it to any hon. Member, on whatever side he sits, can he reasonably say that insufficient time has been given for a thorough discussion both as to the principles of these clauses and the machinery that has been devised to carry them out? If the right hon. Gentleman wants the support of all those who are in favour of the Budget through the long trying hours in the future, as undoubtedly he will, I hope he will ask us to support him through this sitting in order to get this section of the Bill finished. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well, from experience, in what spirit his conciliatory speeches and concessions have been received by the Opposition. Even now he is moving to report Progress upon a pledge which I am certain—and I say it in no offensive spirit—really amounts to nothing at all. If the hon. Member would only say that by a certain hour on Monday Clause 6 would be given that would be something. But we know perfectly well from experience that they will stretch it as far as possible, that they will give vague pledges which, when the time comes for 2272 fulfilling them, it will be utterly impossible for anyone to say meant something specifically and nothing else. I appeal to hon. Members, with whom we are in violent conflict so far as opinions are concerned, but not so far as the House of Commons is concerned, that if they are about to come to an arrangement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer they should give us something more definite than the statement made just before the last Division. Even if that definite statement is given, I shall be inclined to advise my colleagues to divide against the Motion. I sincerely hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way not to push this Motion, but will go on and finish Clause 6.
§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)I cannot, like the hon. Member, claim to have been present during the whole of the sitting, although I was here very late and came back fairly early. I have not the title which he and many of those around him have to speak as a man who has sustained the heat and burden of an all-night sitting. Let me say—and I am sure I express the sentiments of the whole House—that I heartily subscribe to the pledge he has given on behalf of his party that they have laboured as heartily and successfully as any section in this House to maintain its best traditions.
With regard to the point which my hon. Friend has raised, I hope he will allow the Motion of my right hon. Friend to pass without a Division. I listened carefully to what was said by hon. and gallant Members opposite, and I am perfectly certain we can rely just as much upon their statements as if we had a definite undertaking written out in black and white. I know we can rely upon what they have said, and that when we come to the discussion of Clause 6 we shall not be prejudiced in the least degree by the step we are now taking. Under all the circumstances, and having regard to the enormous labours which have devolved upon all sections of the House, and the more substantial progress recently made, I hope the Motion to report Progress will now be adopted. As an additional reason, I must refer to the onerous duties of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose work in connection with the Bill has, of course, been more arduous than that of any other Member. All sections of the House will agree with me that, after he has laboured as he has done, it is only fair and right that, by our present understanding, he should for a time be released for that rest 2273 without which, however willing, he cannot be expected to perform his duties as he would himself desire.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI desire to associate myself fully with the remarks of the Prime Minister as to the assiduity and courtesy with which the
§ Chancellor of the Exchequer discharges his extremely onerous duties.
§ Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 158; Noes, 43.
2275| Division No. 307.] | AYES. | [8.55 a.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Hart-Davies, T. | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Priestley Arthur (Grantham) |
| Armitage, R. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Radford, G. H. |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Hedges, A. Paget | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Helme, Norval Watson | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Helmstey, Viscount | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Hemmerde, Edward George | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Beach. Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Henry, Charles S. | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hobart, Sir Robert | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Hobhouss, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Robinson, S. |
| Bennett, E. N. | Horniman, Emslie John | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Berridge, T. H.D. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hunt, Rowland | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Idris, T. H. W. | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Illingworth, Percy H. | Seely, Colonel |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Joynson-Hicks, William | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Lamb Ernest H. (Rochester) | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Bull, Sir William James | Lambton, Hon Frederick William | Stanier, Beville |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwlch) | Starkey, John R. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Lewis, John Herbert | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Clough, William | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Maddison, Frederick | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Massie, J. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Mond, A. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Montgomery, H. G. | Verney, F. W. |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Vivian, Henry |
| Elibank, Master of | Morpeth, Viscount | Waring, Walter |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Morrell, Philip | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Fell, Arthur | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Forster, Henry William | Morse, L. L. | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Foster, P. S. | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Newdegate, F. A. | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. | Younger, George |
| Hamilton, Marquess of | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Pirie, Duncan V. | |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Seddon, J. | |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Higham, John Sharp | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Hodge, John | Summerbell, T. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hudson, Walter | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Brace, William | Jenkins, J. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Wardle, George J. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Lehmann, R. C. | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Macpherson, J. T. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Essex, R. W. | Marnham, F. J. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Nannetti, Joseph P. | |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Pearce, Robert (staffs., Leek) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr George Roberts and Mr. Charles Duncan. |
| Glover, Thomas | Pointer, J. | |
| Coddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next (19th July).
§ Mr. JOSEPH PEASEI beg to move, "That the House do now adjourn."
§ Adjourned at Five minutes after Nine o'clock a m. (Thursday, 15th July).