HC Deb 20 May 1909 vol 5 cc582-651

Motion made and Question proposed: "That in the case of persons dying on or after the 30th day of April, 1909, there shall be substituted for the rates of estate duty set out in the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1907, the following rates:—

Where the principal value of the estate Estate duty shall be payable at the rate per cent. of
£ £
Exceeds 100 and does not exceed 500 1
Exceeds 500 and does not exceed 1,000 2
Exceeds 1,000 and does not exceed 5,000 3
Exceeds 5,000 and does not exceed 10,000 4
Exceeds 10,000 and does not exceed 20,000 5
Exceeds 20,000 and does not exceed 40,000 6
Exceeds 40,000 and does not exceed 70,000 7
Exceeds 70,000 and does not exceed 100,000 8
Exceeds 100,000 and does not exceed 150,000 9
Exceeds 150,000 and does not exceed 200,000 10
Exceeds 200,000 and does not exceed 400,000 11
Exceeds 400,000 and does not exceed 600,000 12
Exceeds 600,000 and does not exceed 800,000 13
Exceeds 800,000 and does not exceed 1,000,000 14
Exceeds 1,000,000 15."

—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]

Mr. J. F. MASON (Windsor)

The Attorney-General, in the speech which he delivered yesterday afternoon, told us that he and his friends did not deny that all taxes had an injurious effect upon in dustry as a whole. But later on in that speech he made another statement. He said:— With regard to the general complaint of the extent to which this tax and all taxes deplete the capital of the community, when is the time to remember that and when is the proper occasion for all this eloquence? Not when you are voting for the tax, but when you are voting the expenditure; that is the time for it. The Attorney-General and his colleagues hardly bore that maxim in mind last year when they brought forward their non-contributive old age pension scheme, for discussion of the means to be found to carry out that scheme was hardly encouraged at that time. The hon. and learned Gentleman through the whole course of his speech, I think, assumed, or at all events he did not deny, that all taxes were equally bad so far as their effect on industry is concerned, whether they are imposed on capital or whether they are imposed upon income; and it is upon this point I wish to join issue with him. We all know that with very small exceptions the national capital is the aggregate capital in the hands of individuals, just as we know that the national income, with very small exceptions, is the aggregate income in the hands of individuals. Does anyone suggest that it is a matter of indifference whether a man lives upon his income or spends his capital, and if it is not indifferent in the case of the individual how can it be indifferent in the case of the nation? I do not hesitate to say that so far as this kind of taxation is desirable and necessary, I infinitely prefer the income tax to this form of tax on capital, which is called estate duty. I prefer the income tax, because you then take to a considerable extent, if not to its whole extent, income which would partly, at any rate, be spent unproductively, and so far as you take the margin of capitalisation available you take it before it is capitalised and not when the capitalisation has taken place. In approaching this question I endeavoured to do so from the point of view of what is in the interests of the nation as a whole, and to eliminate as far as possible from my mind the effect of these taxes on individuals or on a class. I have not gone into the details of the schemes that are proposed. The broad fact is that in these capital taxes you are seizing blocks of capital and you are destroying them, at the same time that by income tax you are necessarily destroying to some extent the source from which alone capital can be built up. I know that the right hon. Gentlemen opposite object to any reference to Socialism in regard to their Budget. I do not propose to make any reference to Socialism other than to say that in Socialism we have the suggestion to nationalise capital and to nationalise the means of production. But, after all, so far as I know, the Socialists propose to keep their capital as capital. The Socialists claim that wealth is produced solely by labour. Take care that in these forms of taxation in which you are now embarking you do not act as if wealth could not be produced, because you are here discouraging the creation of wealth, and at the same time destroying wealth that has been already created.

I do not think that anyone would deny that capital is already more heavily taxed in this country than elsewhere, and it is equally true that capital in this country has to face a far greater amount of competition with other nations than it has in the case of most of our rivals. For those reasons it is more profitable to invest capital in many other countries, in most other countries, than it is to do here. I think it is not surprising to find that the hens, when they discover their eggs to be wantonly stolen, are apt to stray out and lay in foreign hedgerows. This tendency to tax capital must inevitably have the effect of making capital dearer, and I think it is hardly disputed that cheap capital is as essential to the welfare of the country, and especially of the working classes, as is cheap food. After all, cheap capital means more employment and more work, and the fact is that cheap capital is the most essential thing to this country's prosperity. It is the one thing we should secure here to provide if we desire to continue on the road to prosperity.

So far as the proposal immediately before us goes, to increase the amount of money raised by the death duties, I admit that there would be less objection to such a proposal if the money were to be applied in time to the Sinking Fund, paying off the National Debt, because in doing that you are getting rid of a national liability. But the moment you apply it as you propose to do to your everyday national expenditure to that extent you are simply melting down capital into cash and dissolving it away. I know you will say of the case of which I am speaking that it is capital which is more or less movable and not land. But in the case of a millionaire you take £150,000 worth of capital; you melt that down. You say you cannot melt down capital which is fixed. That is quite true; but when you throw on the market a block of £150,000 worth of capital, that block has got to be absorbed, and can only be absorbed by taking the liquid capital which is in the market, and which, were it not for that block, would be used for the extension of industry, and in that way the creation of wealth.

The Budget is put forward as being in the interests of the poor, but I think it assumes too much in assuming that one mart can be made richer only by making another poorer. It seems to me to neglect the possibilities of creating fresh wealth and of making the nation as a whole richer without making anybody in particular poorer. Let us consider for a moment the proposal which is before us to continue this destruction of capital for a period of years. Since the year 1894 we have already in this way liquidated 250 millions of capital in the shape of death duties, and by the increase which the right hon. Gentleman now proposes that will be raised in the next 15 years from 250 millions to something like 350 millions. In other words, it is now proposed that during one generation we shall have liquidated an amount of capital equal to some 600 millions, a sum nearly approaching the total of the National Debt. I think that can hardly be called collecting eggs, but rather destroying the hen. This liquidating of capital is in some ways the road of bankruptcy. A nation, like an individual, should live on its income, and what is economically true of the individual's case is true of the national case. In my opinion dipping into capital for ordinary expenditure is a thing that should only be done as a last resort and in some national emergency. To dip into capital habitually is certain to spell bankruptcy in the end.

I am absolutely opposed to this policy of providing for annual expenditure out of capital. I think that the yearly expenditure of a nation, like that of an individual, should be provided for from the yearly income, and if social reform or any other expenditure can only be provided for by dipping into and melting down a large slice of capital, then I say the answer is that that expenditure is a luxury which the nation under those circumstances cannot afford. It is quite evident that the order of precedence is to ascertain what the national income is, and, bearing in mind that it is a very small amount, you must regard that as the taxable maximum, and that every time that you go beyond that maximum, say, for some great national emergency, you are to that extent eating into the financial vitals of the nation as a whole. I believe also that when you do eat into capital because of some national emergency you should bear in mind that it is your duty to repair the mischief at the first possible opportunity. To a large extent for 15 years past we have been eating into the financial vitals of the nation, and will anybody deny that there may not be some considerable connection between the course that we have followed and the present condition of unemployment? To my mind, we have been following a course that is killing the goose that laid the eggs. I believe that such a course, aggravated as it is proposed to be now, and possibly often will be proposed again, such a course must in the end lead to a very considerable depletion of capital, and that that can only be accompanied by scarcity of employment growing greater from one year to the other. As Lord Milner said the other day, you cannot indefinitely take water from a well without lowering its level. Such a policy seems to rob a nation of its capital and simply destroy its assets.

The Resolution that is before us, and, in fact, the Budget as a whole, is always supported by the suggestion that after all you are only taking money from the rich. So be it; but when you discriminate between one class and another it seems to me essential to remember different purposes to which the money of the rich and the poor may respectively be put. The incomes of the poor are, for the greater part, employed in meeting necessary expenditure. There is only a small margin available for capitalisation, and that margin is practically represented in the capital held by the friendly societies and similar bodies. And as soon as that is capitalised of course it is raided by taxes in the nature of the one we are considering, and more especially by those proposed in the case of land. It is principally from the incomes of the more well-to-do classes that you have the margin which is available for starting fresh enterprises, and we must always remember that it is only by starting fresh enterprises to replace those that are decaying or those that are failing, and thus of finding new capital that we can make real addition to the national wealth and to national employment. If you intend, as you do, to reduce this margin of income of the well-to-do classes, and therefore to reduce the source from which fresh capital can be built up, it seems to me that that is all the more reason why you should avoid, as far as you possibly can, the destruction of the capital which already exists to only too small an extent in this country.


Those who have followed the course of this Debate will, I think, agree that it has been remarkable not so much for what has been said, as for what has been left unsaid. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. James Mason) was something of an exception to the general rule. He is, I think, the first speaker who has attacked death duties in principle. Practically no one else has assailed the principle. It has been confessedly accepted as part of the financial system of the country by Members in all parts of the House, and that, I think, in itself, makes this Debate memorable as a triumphant vindication of Sir William Harcourt's foresight and practical sagacity when he placed these death duties on something like their present footing. When he proposed them they were assailed in principle. Members in Opposition did not accept them; they used very violent language in regard to them; and they were going to repeal them the moment they came into power. Within a year the Opposition had the opportunity of repealing the death duties, but they did nothing of the kind. They accepted them, because the prophecies which they had made had been falsified, and because they found that in the death duties there was a prolific source of revenue, the collection of which inflicted no great hardship upon anyone. Since that time the revenue from the death duties has been steadily increasing—or perhaps I should not say quite steadily, because there has been at times a retrogression, as last year, when the amount realised was a million or so less than in the preceding year. But although the rise has not been steady year by year, looking over the whole period it has been persistent, and instead of the 11 millions which were raised in the year 1894-5, last year we realised £18,370,000; and I think, looking to the history of the tax, it was natural and wise for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he required 16½ millions of money, to turn to the death duties as a source of still larger revenue in the future.

Another feature of the Debate is that, on the whole, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been criticised on the ground that he is trying to get too much money out of the death duties. Although I have, I believe, listened to every speech delivered in the Debate, I have heard no complaint that he is asking for too much money from this source. Until the speech of the hon. Member for Windsor, I think every speech in the Debate was taken up in putting the grievances of particular classes of owners of property, and not in saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asking from property as a whole too great a tax in the scale now proposed. All through the Debate this Resolution has been treated as if it proposed a tax upon land-owners and the agricultural interest. There is no discrimination between different forms of property. The Attorney-General yesterday dealt fully with that point. Land is taxed, but so is every other form of property in which capital is invested in this country. Really, listening to the speeches of hon. Members opposite, one would be almost tempted to dismiss them all without argument, as the familiar complaint which they made so loudly when Sir William Harcourt brought in the death duties; when the right hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) talked about the approaching ruin and complete destruction of agriculture; when even so careful a critic as the present Lord St. Aldwyn declared that Sir William Harcourt had taken a step which would be deeply injurious to the agricultural interests; and when the right hon. Member for South Dublin (Mr. Walter Long) said that this was not going to break up estates, as some of the Radicals on this side of the House hoped, but that the condition was such and the taxes proposed were such that land would be unsaleable in this country, and that no one would saddle himself with the responsibilities and difficulties connected with the ownership of land in such precarious tenure. Charities were to cease 15 years before the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) began to look into his charities list; and all sorts of evil consequences were to follow. All these prophecies have been falsified by the event. I confidently claim that agriculture to-day is considerably more prosperous than it was in 1894. I assert, and can prove by the figures of taxation, that the landed interest is not poorer to-day than it was before the death duties were put on. That, I think, is an answer to the speech of the hon. Member for Windsor in regard to the depletion of the capital of the country. I see no evidence at all that there has been any depletion of capital by these death duties. I believe that, in the main, they have been paid out of income, as they ought to be, and, as I think, the present scale of taxation can be.

But while I say all this, those who heard the speeches of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) and other land-owners on that side of the House will recognise that they are evidently labouring under a sincere sense of grievance. It is not the mere regular opposition to proposals of the present Government that animates the speeches which have been made. Anyone listening to them can see that hon. Members sincerely believe that the agricultural interest is being more hardly hit by these taxes than other forms of property. I want to examine the cause of that sense of grievance. I believe that though the actual amount of the tax is no more upon landed property than upon other forms of property, it does press more heavily upon the income derived from land, because land-owners are in the main content with a smaller return in proportion to the capital value of their estates than are the owners of property of any other description whatever. Owners of landed estates have to expend a large proportion of the gross rent of their property upon their estates. On a well-managed estate undoubtedly a great proportion of the rent goes back in buildings, cottages, fences, drains, and the various forms in which capital is invested in the estate, and in the management of the estate. I do not know what exactly the proportion may be on the average. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro Ferguson) yesterday suggested that 50 per cent. of the gross rental would not be too high a figure to represent the cost of management and so forth, and that the net rental of an agricultural land-owner could not be put at more than 50 per cent. of the gross rental. I think that that is a great deal too high, and that probably 30 per cent. would be an outside figure. In a great many calculations which are made, landowners forget to make allowances for the various outgoings on their part, partially in connection with estates, but outgoings which other men who have not estates have nevertheless to meet. There is usually a house on the estate, and there is the maintenance of the house, which is very often comparatively heavy. The house is frequently old, and costs a great deal for repairs and maintenance, and it is often large in proportion to the size of the estate. That may be a misfortune, but I think the net rent which the land-owner enjoys ought to be regarded as the amount which remains to him after he has made due allowance for the rent which the house would command if let to somebody else, and the cost of maintaining the house. He ought also to deduct from his gross rental that part which is absolutely necessary to be spent upon the estate in order to main- tain the revenue and to keep the estate in good order. If that is done, I think 30 per cent. is a large amount to take off the gross rental.

But whatever the percentage may be, my point does not lie there. I will take the figure of 50 per cent. suggested by the hon. Member for Leith Burghs. Why is it that land-owners are content with this small net return? It is because, unfortunately as I think, land has a value in this country altogether out of proportion to the annual revenue which it brings in to the owner. There is the consideration attaching to the ownership of land; there are the windfalls which have come to be associated with the ownership of land.


What are they?


Undeveloped minerals, sporting rights, and so on. The ownership of the soil has come practically to mean the ownership of everything that is over the soil and under the soil. Therefore the agricultural value of the land is no measure of its selling value. As a matter of fact, even though one concedes that the not rent is only 50 per cent. of the gross rent, the selling value is based not on the net rent, but upon the gross rent; and estates to-day will command not 25 years' purchase of the net rent, but 25 years' purchase of the gross rent. The Leader of the Opposition shakes his head. I could give him plenty of instances where estates have commanded 25, 30, or even 35 years' purchase of the gross rent.


You must deduct the standing charges first, such as land tax and tithes.


Certainly; but they are very small in numerous parts of the country, and land has largely been relieved of these standing charges. This over-valuation has two very unfortunate results from my point of view. First of all, it makes land-owning largely the luxury of the rich. Only a man who is comparatively well-to-do can afford to take 2 per cent. on his money instead of the 4 per cent. which men can ordinarily command. We have seen in our own time the small holders of land being crowded out. I am Member for one of the divisions of Westmoreland, and I know the neighbouring county of Cumberland. Those are two counties which were filled with small holders of land, who now have almost vanished. They have been swallowed up one by one by other landowners who have incomes partly independent of the value of their agricultural land. It is not only injurious from that point of view, but it has an injurious effect upon agriculture, because this land is the raw material on which the actual agriculturist has to work, and he finds that his raw material is made dearer by the overvaluation attaching to land. It must be remembered that this is a comparatively modern phenomenon. I do not want to go back to ancient history; but this immense increase in the value of land as compared with other forms of property is quite a modern feature. For instance, the stock upon the farm 500 years ago would very often be worth the fee-simple of the farm, but in the present day, as hon. Members know, it is a very small fraction indeed of the value of the farm.

What is the deduction that I draw from these facts, in the putting forward of which I have received very little opposition? What is the moral to be drawn? That is really the practical point for the Committee to consider. First of all, I agree with some other speakers—and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognises it in the Budget—that the present deductions allowed on agricultural land are insufficient to meet the justice of the case And I was very glad indeed to hear my right hon. Friend suggest, in answer to the hon. and Gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) that he would be prepared to consider the question as to whether land should not be assessed under schedule D instead of under schedule A for income tax. I think that would be much fairer. I believe me original difficulty was that it was supposed that landowners did not keep their accounts very rigidly. I believe accounts of estates have been kept of late years much better. Whether that is due to the increasing pressure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or not—


The hon. Member is insensibly and by degrees getting away from the point.


Then allow me to put it this way. I think we can meet the case of the income tax by making deductions and fairer assessments, but I do not think we can meet the death duties by that. The hon. Member for the Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro Ferguson) suggested yesterday that you can meet these death duties by assessing land upon a proper valuation. He suggested, I think, 25 years' purchase, or 50 per cent. of the gross rental. I do not think you can do that with the death duties. They are intentionally based on the market value of the property itself. You may deal with the difficulty of the over-valuation of the land in the case of income tax by proper deductions, I see no way of dealing with it in the case of the death duties where you must take the market value of the land. There is no other method; otherwise you give a preference to the land-owner. What is the position? Let me take the figures of the estate of £100,000, which has been commonly mentioned in the course of this Debate. There will be paid upon that under the present scale—supposing it is just £100,000 and no more—£8,000 of estate duty. There will be some other death duties which may bring it up to £9,000, £10,000, or £12.000. Conceivably, in certain rare cases, it may be even higher, but I think those cases will be exceptionally rare. I shall not be wrong if I take £12,000 as the capital sum to be paid. I do not accept what the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. J. F. Mason) says that this is to be paid out of capital. I think it would be very bad finance if the land owner or capitalist took it out of the capital of their estate. I think they ought to make provision out of the income of the estate. I propose to show how that can be done. I take a £100,000 man. If he has got his property in stocks and shares he will get an income of £4,000. Take the insurance at about £400. I am not taking precise figures, for it depends on the age. but still I think about £400 a year will about meet the case upon the £100,000 with which I am dealing. Now we see the grievance of the agriculturists in a concrete form. Four hundred pounds a year on £4,000 is 10 per cent. Four hundred pounds a year on £2,000 is 20 per cent. That is a grievance, and one which the other side used in this discussion. It is a real grievance for the man who has to retain his whole property in agricultural land. But I submit that the land-owner can meet the difficulty by selling a portion of the estate. Yes. I see a fall in the faces of hon. Members opposite. Supposing he sells £20,000 worth of land. It leaves him with £80,000. I am aware that that was denied yesterday by the hon. Member for Chelmsford. He said it depreciated the value of the estate. I do not think so. I think you are likely to increase the value of the land by the free circulation of it through the selling of a portion of the estate. Let me here say the man who has £100,000 worth of land and nothing else is a very rare creature. Probably the case is a purely imaginary one. [Cries of "No, no."] Well, I think so, for he possibly has valuable pictures. [Cries of "No, no."] Well, it may be, but if a man in the position I have described sells £20,000 worth of his property what is his position? The income on £80,000 will be £1,6000.. He invests his £20,000 at 4 per cent., or £800 a year. His total income will therefore be £2,400. If he pays £400 for insurance, that will still leave him with a net income of £2,000 a year, which is exactly what he had to spend before the Budget of my right hon. Friend. Now I say the grievance has disappeared. The trouble lies with those who insist upon keeping their property in this particular form, which, we are all agreed, is an expensive property for a man to hold. They considered selling was a grievance Hon. Members opposite deplored that. The hon. Member for Chelmsford thought of the sentimental attachment to the estate of those who were brought up on it. I do not deny it. It is very real, and a pleasing thing in this country; but may I ask if only one member of the family feels a sentimental attachment to the estate? Is a love of the soil confined, too, to the sons of the family only, and is there none amongst the daughters? I submit the sentimental argument is a very small one indeed in this matter. The present system under which a large argicultural estate, with no other money behind it, is kept going is a cruel one for the younger children of these families. It means that one man in the family gets the whole of the property and carries it on, while the other members of the family are turned out into the world to earn their own living as if they were the children of poor men. Therefore, I do not at all deplore what I think will be one effect of the taxes to be put on. They may lead to the breaking up of estates into smaller areas. But that must not be carried too far. Nobody could afford to own land if you carried that right through, and therefore that is met by my right hon. Friend's Budget. The smaller estates get off with light duties.

If I might make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend, I would like to say that he might consider the bottom end of his scale. I do not consider the other end is too heavy, but at the lower end he might look and see if he cannot make it easier for the people there—the holders of smaller plots of land. There might be a less steep graduation. Otherwise it seem9 to fe that the death duties can be met even by the agricultural interest in some such way as I have described, and as it will have the tendency to break up the great aggregations of land I personally welcome it as a desirable consummation. Just as I welcome it, and for the reason that it tends to break up the large estates, so may I be allowed to somewhat wonder at the Resolution which we are asked to vote upon presently with regard to five years. There is to be no breaking up during five years. Rather you are not forbidden to break up, but the incentive which at present exists to break up is to be taken away for five years. I really do not understand why that proposal should have been introduced. It makes in the very opposite direction to the other proposals of the Budget. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how this proposal is going to be worked. As I understand, all gifts made within five years preceding death are to be regarded as part of the corpus of the estate, and duty is to be paid upon them on the scale made out. What is a gift? There is nothing to show in the wording of the Act—at least, there is nothing to show a layman; I do not know if the lawyers can help me out of the difficulty—what a gift is. There is nothing to show whether it has to come out of the income or of the property. Is a sovereign given to a small boy a gift of which an honest man must keep a record for the five years before his death? If that seems an absurd case, I may suggest that there are a great many men who will have to be dealt with by my right hon. Friend to whom the gift to a son starting in business of £1,000 is no more than the gift of a sovereign that I mentioned.

Therefore I would like a definition of the word "gift." I was told when I made inquiry into the matter that the Estate Duties Office is very lenient. They interpret these things in a broad and generous spirit. Well, that may be all very well while money is plentiful, but when money is scarce the Treasury looks sharply around so that taxes may be made more prolific, and there is a more strict interpretation. But there is another objection to this, and that is that good account-keeping is penalised. The man who keeps no account of his money is the man you cannot find out. There is nothing to show where it has gone to. But if a man keeps a careful record, then you penalise him, or, rather, his successor, to the ownership of the estate, because the duty is to be paid as the result of his furnishing information to the Treasury. Again, I gather from what my right hon. Friend the Solicitor-General said yesterday that marriage settlements are to be exempt. I do not know why that is so. I think they are not exempt at the present time. If they are to be exempted, I ask why this preference to daughters? Why should the man who sets up his son in business be regarded as having performed a less laudable proceeding than a man who is marrying his daughter? Why is it considered undesirable that a man with a lifetime of experience behind him should give away his own property? Why should it be considered in the public interest for him to wait till death to distribute it? Why should he be considered to be making a disposition for the express purpose of evading the taxes? You do not want to make the period so long as to discourage a man from distributing, by way of gift to universities or public charities, or even by distributing the estate to his children, for he presumably knows how to distribute it far better than those who come after.. I have no figures, but I believe I am right in saying that there has been little attempt to evade the death duties. [Cries of dissent.] Well, that is my information. There were attempts when they were first imposed, but they were usually unsuccessful, because they were largely done by those who wished to reserve some claim on the property which they proposed to alienate. But where alienation absolutely takes place it seems to me in the public interest that we ought to encourage that rather than discourage it. I would plead with my right hon. Friend, while I heartily support his death duties, and congratulate him on having raised them, because I think he can get this extra money, that this five years' provision tends to prevent that more equal distribution of wealth, which I desire to see. I regret that he should have clogged his proposals with this provision, which I think is unworkable, and tends in the very opposite direction to the main proposals of his excellent Budget.


It is very gratifying to find that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down confined the whole of his speech to a special portion of the subject under discussion. Certainly after the scheme put forward by the hon. Member who has just spoken on the other side I am sure a great many Members of this. House will try to become owners of land. Now there is one characteristic about this Resolution which is not shown in the other Resolutions. It is this—we know exactly where we are. We know exactly the amount we would have to pay, and we will not have to wait until the Finance Bill is printed, which is the usual excuse put forward by the right hon. Gentleman to evade discussion. He cannot make that excuse in regard to this Resolution, and, therefore, we may hope for the pleasure of hearing his voice upon the subject. The chief point we have to deal with is the increased death duties in the middle of the scale. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down looks with pleasure on the increasing revenue which is to be derived by the State from the death duties. I cannot say I see any great pleasure in that respect, because I am certain that the increased revenue which we have seen in the last few years is not likely to be permanent. I believe this taxation will shortly reach the point where you will have arrived at the process of what is known as killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. With regard to the principle of these death duties, I certainly say for myself it is impossible to get away from the fact that we must have something in the nature of death duties. I think that principle was conceded in the year 1903. I am also convinced that the object of the promoters of the death duties was in no circumstances to dip into capital. It was the object of the promoters of the death duties that these duties should be paid out of income, and great care was taken during the life of the holder of the property or the estate so that it should be possible for his successor, without injuring the property or the estate, to be able to pay the death duties as a contribution to the State. I think that was the object, and I think a very good revenue was accumulated by the State out of the death duties, and what is more I believe that the death duties in their original form went a great way towards encouraging thrift in this country. There is another point in regard to the original death duties—I think they they were put forward by the promoters with the view to the better settlement of property, and they were only to be demanded once in a lifetime. The successors of the late Sir William Harcourt seem to have departed from these views, and by demanding successive payments they do away with the idea of the settlement of the property. That was all very well so long as by ordinary thrift and care effect is given to the idea that these charges should be paid out of income, but the rapacity of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer has altered that point of view altogether, and at the present moment it is impossible that the Death Duties should be paid out of income, and it is well known that the only way these Death Duties can be paid is by dipping into the capital of the estate and property, which means we are dipping into the capital that belongs to the nation. If we go on in this way it must end in the opposite manner to that which ought to be the object of every Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, to gain the largest possible revenue with the least possible injury to the sources of revenue. I certainly hope that in the course of this Debate we shall hear exactly what is the object of the Government in regard to this matter. I do not know whether we will have the true cause put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, to my mind, has been exceedingly reticent as to the manner in which he accepts this proposal.

We know perfectly well what is the object of hon. Members who sit on the benches below the Gangway. We know what the object of the Labour party is. They make no secret whatever as to their views and as to their objects. They tell us that legislation should be brought in for the purpose of removing altogether the ownership of private property in this country. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is no better process if he desires to follow that advice than the system of Death Duties which he proposes to inflict by his present Budget. Our object is to point out to the Government the path along which they are progressing, and where it leads to. The path along which the right hon. Gentleman is progressing is one which carries him to the fullest extent to the advanced doctrine of Socialism. I think we can assume that by the incidence of these Death Duties we will be dipping into the national capital. If any Chancellor of the Exchequer takes it upon himself to dip into the national capital of this country I believe the only true and sound finance is that the national capital which he takes into the Exchequer should be used for defraying the capital charges of this country.

Up to the present time it is always presumed that the Death Duties have been paid out of income, and that the revenue from the Death Duties have been used as income in this country. I believe the only method that can be used with advantage to this country in regard to the Death Duties is that the money should be used for paying off the National Debt, and that it should be by no means looked upon as part of the revenue of this country. I do not propose, as I said, to quarrel with the principles of Death Duties. I only desire to quarrel with the degree in which they are levied. The money has to be found, but I object to the process of taxation as put forward at the present moment. There can be no doubt about it, but the proposals made in the Budget are calculated to discourage thrift in this country; there is no object for anyone to put by money for their successors to pay the death duties. This is a policy which will not encourage saving, and I venture to say it will encourage the community to bear in mind the motto, "Eat, drink, and be merry, for to-morrow we die." I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has considered these Death Duties from the point of view of the smaller estates. I have no doubt his object is to attack the larger properties, though the numbers of people who depend upon these large properties should be apparent to everybody. I venture to draw his attention to the case of the small agricultural landlord. He will be hard hit in the sam3 manner. The right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to hit the owners of large property, but the result will not be so easily attained in so short a time. I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should reconsider the action he is taking in regard to the Death Duties, and bring forward duties that it is possible, with ordinary thrift and care, to pay out of income rather than dip into the capital of the country, which belongs to the nation.


I do not intend entirely to follow on the lines of the two hon. Members who have just addressed the House. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Westmoreland when he said it is as easy to pay duty out of landed property as out of personal property. Landed property is not as easy realisable, and the selling of a portion of the estate may very greatly depreciate the value of the whole. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman has not yet entirely framed his Bill which he is going to found upon these Resolutions, I should, in the first place, like to throw out a hint, and ask him whether he could not possibly see his way to making his great Budget more explicit than some of the great Budgets we have heard in the past. I think my3elf that one of the chief objects of taxation should be that individuals who have got to pay the tax should be able to form some estimate or idea of how much the tax will amount to. I think it was my first public appearance in this House when I spoke on the great Budget of Sir William Harcourt in 1894. I remember very well on that occasion Sir William Harcourt said the death duties were in a terrible state of confusion. I think there were no less than five different duties, and they wanted reforming. Sir William Harcourt said he was going to reform them— make things a great deal more explicit. He referred to the Death Duties of that day as the most extraordinary piece of legislation, which he compared to a tessellated pavement. I was very pleased when I heard him make that speech, and though I felt certain that I would have to pay a larger amount of taxation I was in hopes I should be able to form some estimate of what I would have to pay. After that great Budget passed and became the law of the land I was still doubtful about what the amount was.

Nobody who is not well up in the law can possibly tell at the present moment what the law in regard to these Death Duties are. I am sorry that we have not got a layman as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I may say I profoundly distrust the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe he belongs to a branch of the legal profession, and I am afraid he will still be hungering after that profession, and may leave these Death Duties under a mass of legal verbosity which will take an extremely good solicitor to be able to inform anybody how much he has to pay. I could give a good example from the very last Budget put before this House. There were three clauses in that Budget dealing with Estate Duties, and I am perfectly certain no one in this House who had not had legal training could tell anyone what they mean. I tried but I utterly failed—perhaps I may be very dense—but I know that I did accept the Prime Minister's statement—he was then Chancellor of the Exchequer—that there they were not increasing the Death Duties.

I had to take his word for it entirely, because nobody but a skilled lawyer could have understood what these clauses meant. I think it is one of the great faults in these different duties that it is almost impossible to tell, except in the very simplest of cases, how much the duties which will have to be paid will amount to. I think it is a great mistake that, in levying taxation, that in addition to those taxes put upon individuals, they should also have, for a certainty, piled up against them large lawyers' bills and bills for valuers and other people who have to be called in to find out what the amount a man will have to pay is. That, of course, to my mind, is a very great objection to this form of taxation, and, in addition to that—and this, I think, is a hardship upon all real estate—there is a second objection to these duties, and that is that they will fall with greater severity upon real property, owing to the fact that you have a great confabulation between the Treasury and the family solicitor and a good many valuers, which compels the owner whose taxation has increased to incur large legal bills for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of money which he has to pay the Government in taxation. If you raise the money by mortgage you then have a further solicitor's bill for preparing the mortgage and additional stamps upon the mortgage. If you want to sell there is an extra duty on the conveyance of the land and another large lawyer's fee. After all these disputes which arise between the different parties concerned have been legally settled, and which the person who has to pay does not understand, then you have probably to find £20,000, £30,000, or £40,000, and when you come to deal with this you are taxed again when you are trying to raise the money. If I may be allowed to say so, I think the inclusion of the five years' period will almost make it impossible for executors to close the will because there will probably be continual actions and squabbles going on for some five or six years afterwards. In addition to all this we have had several cases where undoubtedly the Treasury, in the interests of the National Exchequer, have brought legal proceedings against the executors and the heir, and I think some of those cases have nearly amounted to what I may venture to call Treasury persecution. It may be that some man has a legacy out of a large estate upon which there are large debts; he may have been the remainder man, and through the death of a brother he may be quite a poor man, and yet the Treasury comes down upon him for a very large duty. That man may feel that he has been unfairly treated by being called upon to pay such a large amount, and his solicitor may advise him that he has an excellent case of Treasury persecution, and what can this poor man do when he has to fight the Treasury? Remember that these proposals are not at all clear, and the moment there appears to be the least complication there is not a single lawyer who would be able to understand them without consulting his family solicitor. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he produces the Finance Act of 1909 will let us have an Act of Parliament which the ordinary layman can understand when he reads it.

With regard to the Death Duties, it is palpable to everybody that they must, to to a great extent, discourage sale. I cannot speak for many people, but as far as I know human nature, I am prepared to say that one of the greatest spurs to a man to succeed in this life and to become more wealthy and rise to a higher social position and get on, one of the greatest inducements driving him on is the consciousness that he will be able to leave his descendants in a better position than he was himself. If, however, the State is to step in and take away a large portion of his fortune that great inducement to saving and raising himself and family is to a large extent removed. On the first night this Budget was introduced the hon. Member for the Wirral Division of Cheshire (Mr. W. H. Lever) said that he liked this Budget, and that he was pleased to know he was going to pay his fair share of taxation. That is a noble sentiment which we all re-echo, but I wish to point out that we are advancing upon a very dangerous downhill grade, because although the hon. Member for Wirral is quite pleased that he is going to pay his fair share, I do not know whether hon. Members below the Gangway thinks he is paving his fair share. I am afraid they will tell him that he is not paying anything like his fair share, and when he congratulates himself in this way he may be congratulating himself a little too early. I say, without the least hesitation, that an increase of 2 or 3 per cent. on the scale of Death Duties will remove one of the best inducements which influence a man to rise and get on and improve his position. These swingeing duties no doubt arise from the unfortunate fact that there are about two men born into the world who can look after themselves and their own business to three who cannot look after themselves; and the principle upon which the Government appear to be acting at the present time is that the two men who can look after their own affairs and try to get on are to be handicapped in order to pay for the three who cannot get on. If this kind of thing is carried out to a much greater extent, instead of two persons being born into the world who can look after themselves as compared with three who cannot we shall get the proportion of one who can look after himself and four who cannot.

It is perfectly certain that these swingeing Death Duties will drive a large amount of capital out of the country, and this will be a big blow to the chief industries of this country. The Government require a huge surplus in order to carry out their different schemes, such as employment bureaux, afforestation, and hundreds of other schemes administered by Government officials. In my opinion, if you wish to get rid of distress and unemployment in this country you had far better let individuals manage their own private affairs than trust to Government Departments to find employment and working out schemes which ought to be carried out by private individuals. The hon. Member for Westmoreland (Mr. Leif Jones), in the course of his speech, made a long calculation as to how easy it was to pay these duties, and I heard a remark made by a hon. Member below the Gangway to the effect that it was a ridiculous thing when speaking of undeveloped minerals to complain of the tax because they only paid an income tax of 1s. in the £. That shows clearly that hon. Members below the Gangway do not realise what is being paid in taxation by the wealthy people of this country. I believe the calculation which has been worked on the principle laid down by Sir Henry Primrose as to what the present Death Duties will amount to if translated into income tax is quite correct. I may point out that this calculation takes 30 years as the ordinary life, which, I think, is a very high average, and, working out the present duties to be levied as Estate Duties, any person who is in the fortunate position of being a millionaire—that is to say, of having £40,030 a year—would pay income tax at the rate of 6s. 2d. in the £. A man in the less fortunate position of having an income of £4,000 a year from a capital of £100,000 would pay income tax at the rate of 4s. 2d. in the £. I have for this purpose taken the scale of Estate Duty, and I have also added three per cent. Legacy Duty. That may be a little high, but I do not think it is very high. I do not think anybody can deny that for a man who has got £4,000 a year an income tax of 4s. 2d. in the £, or one quarter of his income, is a very severe tax, and is far more than his fair share.

But after all the whole argument against the increasing of the death duties and the income tax is that in the proposals before us we are not maintaining the old relationship and proportion between direct and indirect taxation. The principle upon which previous Chancellors of the Exchequer have always acted has been that as far as possible there should be equality between direct and indirect taxation. I think it was a good principle to go on, because it laid down that if there was increased expenditure everybody paid something towards it in proportion to their income; and if there happened to be a saving of money and decreased national expenditure everybody got a little off their taxation, and they were all pleased that there had been a decrease. By the present proposals you are utterly doing away with any equality between direct and indirect taxation, and you are establishing the principle that one section of the community are to vote how the money is to be spent and only a small section of the community is to pay the taxes. In the case of the last Budget the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade boasted in regard to its departure from the equal proportion between direct and indirect taxation which was carried out. The right hon. Gentleman was then very pleased with himself, and he said that the Liberal Government had reached the high water mark of democratic finance. We all know what that was. The result was more people out of employment and greater distress last winter than for the last 20 years. We have gone still further on the path of democratic finance, and we have now passed the high water mark, in fact, we are experiencing a regular tidal wave, and for the hundreds who went under last year there will be thousands who will go under this year, and they will have only the Government to thank for their unfortunate position.


I think there is one thing which we can all congratulate ourselves upon, and it is that the principle of the Death Duties is no longer quarrelled with, and it has now come to a mere ques- tion of the amount. That is an immense advance from the time when Sir William Harcourt introduced his principle of the Death Duties. Then we had to fight the battle of the Liberal party on principle, but now we have only to deal with the amount. There is one distinction which it seems only fair and right to draw between agricultural property and property such as railway stock and shares, and so forth. I think that was a distinction which was hardly sufficiently acknowledged by the Attorney-General. That principle is one on which, I think, both sides of the House can agree. If you take the way in which money is spent it is quite different in one case from the other. Anybody who is acquainted with the expenditure of money on landed estates must be aware that a good land-owner returns a great amount of his money to his estate, and to those who live on it. That is not necessary when a man owns stocks and shares. He has no moral or legal duty to spend money in wages or in repairs or in the improvement of property, but those who have any acquaintance with landed property in England know that a large number of land-owners return a great amount of money, which improves the lives of those who live on their estates. That seems a great difference indeed in comparing mere personalty and realty in this country. I was told a short time ago of an estate which had a gross rental in 15 years of £62,000. In improvements alone £23,000 was spent during those 15 years, while the amounts spent in wages for outdoor work was £20,000, and the charges on the property amounted to £15,000. I should very much like to see an equality of treatment in regard to ail classes of the community. I hold no brief from landlords in particular, but nobody can deny that one of the great reasons why this country has become so prosperous in the past and why there is a growing prosperity in the country districts, is that as a whole landlords have done their duty towards their estates, although there may be instances where landlords have behaved badly and have squandered their money. In collecting the duties which have to be paid by the owners of landed estates it would be only fair to consider the amount of money spent in improvements, and not to deal with that class of property as if it were like stocks and shares. I think myself that there is one matter which has not been adequately debated, and that is the extreme hardship of quick succession. When three or four persons die in rapid succession, and when Death Duties have to be paid, I cannot help thinking that some particular arrangement should be made by which the estate should not be overwhelmed by the duties.

It is very difficult to draw up a clause which could be applicable in all cases. But I know some cases in which landlords have done their best by their estates. Yet, after rapid succession, there has been produced a poverty which is not anticipated, and I am sure that Sir William Harcourt, or those who supported his principle, never intended to bring about such a result. I think that is a case which might very well be provided against. It may be said that these are rare cases, but when you have rare cases which are very hard there is an extra reason for remedying it, particularly when the revenue from those cases will be very little. Surely because it is a rare case, that is a reason why the estate should not be inflicted with the burden. I should like to have asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer — if he had been here—to try and provide against very hard cases of that kind, and I think this is a matter which he might take into his consideration. I can only say that, on the whole, it is perfectly fair to tax people who are wealthy in a greater proportion than those who have less of this world's wealth. A 10 per cent. duty to a man who has got a thousand a year is a heavier tax than 20 per cent. to a man who has got £20,000 a year. If that principle existed in Death Duties, there would really be no cause of complaint. I heartily agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the main principles of his Budget, because I believe they are based on justice, and that he intends to put on the shoulders of those men best able to bear the heaviest taxes for the defence of this country and the various purposes of Government. I think that principle has been generally applied in this Budget, but I hope that he will take into consideration the hard cases and the unjust cases. I, for one, hope he will do so, and I hope that he will see this Budget pursed from everything that is unfair and unjust, and I hope that we may look upon it as a great historical Budget for the defence of the country and the prosperity of the nation.

Mr. G. D. FABER (York)

I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman at any length on the question of Death Duties, but I fear that many hardships are likely to arise out of the new proposals when you come to apply them, more especially to the land. Is it for the good of the community that such immense increases in the Death Duties and in the Legacy and Succession Duties should take place? The Member for the Appleby Division of Westmoreland says that in 1894 there was a tremendous advance in the Death Duties. Death Duties, in principle, are not objectionable. They only become objectionable in degree. When they become too high, then injustice arises. Sir William Harcourt, in introducing the Budget of 1894, made one remark that has struck me with great force. He said that under the natural law of the physical man death ends all. It was only by the arrangement of human society that the dead hand was able to dispose of property after death. It was for that reason Sir William Harcourt said, with reference to Death Duties, that society had a right to step in and claim a toll for the privilege granted. The amount of the toll is the question at issue. In 1894 Sir William Harcourt did away with a number of old duties and grouped them together under the name of Estate Duty. The Estate Duty meant this, that quite irrespective of degree of relationship, if a man left a certain sum (he State stepped in and took its share. Sir William Harcourt left untouched the old legacy and succession duties, so that under that Act there were two sets of duties—the Estate Duty on the whole corpus of the Estate, and the Legacy and Succession Duties. Let us look back for 15 years and consider the operation that has taken place, and what has been the effect of that operation. Has it done any good to the community? The Death Duties have gone on increasing rather more, and the community does not seem to have benefited by them. It is only after many years have passed that you can say Aye or No what has been the effect on the nation. Therefore I venture to think it is rather early yet to arrive at the confident conclusion that the duties imposed by the Act of 1894 not only did no harm to the community, but benefited it. Let us allow, for the sake of argument, that no harm has been done. Let me recall what the Prime Minister did when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer two years ago. What did he do with Sir William Harcourt's scale of death duties? I have already explained that Sir W. Harcourt did not touch the Legacy and Succession Duties; neither did the Prime Minister two years ago. They were left undisturbed, and when the Prime Minister altered Sir W. Harcourt's scale of Death Duties, he touched nothing until it reached an estate of £150,000.

I daresay hon. Members will remember what great amusement the present Prime Minister elicited in the course of his Budget speech when he said he was only going to touch the millionaire, and to begin the higher scale of duty at £150,000. I remember, too, that an hon. Member on the other side of the House, reputed to be richly endowed with this world's goods, walked out, and great laughter ensued. The walking out of the hon. Member was supposed to be connected with a remark made by the Prime Minister with regard to millionaires, and the Prime Minister himself caused much laughter when he said that he did not at any rate intend to tax living men; he only intended to tax dead ones, and he was only going to touch the scale of duties when it got to £150,000. One of his observations is well worth quoting. He said:— I am satisfied, after a great deal of investigation, that we may, without injuring property, without checking the accumulation of capital, and without injustice to any human being, reconsider the scale of duties imposed in 1904. I propose to leave the scale of duties as it is, up to £160,000. So much for that; but now, when we look at the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and compare it with Sir W. Harcourt's scheme of 1894, as amended by the Prime Minister two years ago, there is an extraordinary difference that must become apparent to the Committee. It is not only in regard to the estate of the millionaire, but it begins with estates as low as £5,000. I should like to stop here for a moment by way of criticism and say that this is an entirely new departure. It is a blow struck not only at the millionaire, but at the middle classes in this great community. If I may be allowed I will quote a few figures to show that my criticism is justified. Under the Act of 1894 an estate between £1,000 and £10,000 only paid 3 per cent.; under this Resolution an estate between £l,0C0 and £5,000 pays 3 per cent., and one between £5,C00 and £10,000 pays 4 per cent., so that the whole scale from £5,000 upwards has increased. The small estates of the country will suffer. I agree that the large ones also suffer considerably, but the trouble is not by any means confined to them. This strikes a blow much lower in the scale; it is using a pump which has not been used before. When you come to the Legacy and Succession Duty on the top of the Estate Duty you will find that the mischief in regard not only to large but to small estates is immensely aggravated, because under the old Legacy and Succession Duty Acts of George III.—and now I am on consanguinity—the duties to be paid show a great increase. A lineal ancestor or descendant of the testator paid 1 per cent. Legacy Duty, and that is not touched by the Resolution. A brother or sister or descendant of a brother or sister paid 3 per cent. under the old Act. Under this Resolution they are now to pay 5 per cent. Under the old Act an uncle or aunt and their descendants, and a great uncle and great aunt or their descendants paid 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. respectively. Under the proposed Resolution they will all now pay 10 per cent. The difference when worked out proves to be immense. I will take an estate of £5,001 and show the effect of the increased Estate Duty and of the increased Legacy Duty. We will suppose that this estate passes to a first cousin. It is in money, and not in land. Under the present law the 3 per cent. Estate Duty represents £ 150, and the 5 per cent. Legacy Duty £250, giving a total of £400. Under the proposed Resolution on this same estate the Estate Duty comes to £200 at 4 per cent., and the Legacy Duty at 10 per cent. amounts to £500, so that the whole duty in respect of that estate of £5,001 amounts to £700, instead of £400 under the present system. It is almost double; but if it happens that the estate is in land to be put into settlement you have to add the Settlement Duty, which used to be 1 per cent., and now is 2 per cent., so that if it be a case of land and not of money the difference would be even greater than before. So much for the £5,000 estate. Now we will take one higher up in the scale, and a not uncommon one—an estate, say, of £40,000 which is left to the first cousin again, a near relation in blood. Here I will take it in land—settled. Under the present law £40,000 worth of land would pay 4½ per cent. Estate Duty £1,800 and 5 per cent. Legacy Duty £2,000. There will also be 1 per cent. Succession Duty, £400, giving a total of £4,200. Under the Resolution now before the House the Estate Duty at 7 per cent. will produce £2,800, the Legacy Duty at 10 per cent. £4,000, and the Settlement Duty at 2 per cent. £800, making a total of £7,600 in duties upon a £40,000 landed estate, as against the old duty of £4,200— again something like twice, or almost twice, what it is at present. I do not want the Committee to go away at this early stage of our discussion with the idea that this is anything but a most drastic change.

I should like to apply a general criticism as to the effect of the Act on the various units that go to make up the community. The £5,000 estate is to pay duties which are nearly double. I know it has never been a popular thing in this House to make a cry in regard to the grievances of the millionaire, but I venture to suggest that, after all, he plays an important part in our social life, because, after all, these duties affect investments of his which must directly or indirectly employ labour. The millionaire is the money or honey bee of the hive. I gravely doubt the wisdom from the point of view of the community of taking such great chunks out of the fortunes of capitalists, and when you come to apply the same principle to a lower scale—to people with small holdings of property—the effect may be even more prejudicial, because when the smaller capitalist shuffles off this mortal coil and his successor enters into the business and is called upon to pay these heavy duties the result will probably be that you will injure not only him but the labour he employs. It is a difficult question, I confess, and I do not want in any way to approach it from the point of view of the capitalist only. We want to see what is best for the community. We have now a high income tax, a foundation tax of 1s. 2d. in the £, to which it is proposed to add a super-tax of 6d., in addition to this drastic alteration in Estate and Legacy Duties. We must not forget this fact. When Sir William Harcourt passed his Act in 1894 the income tax only stood at 8d., and when the present. Prime Minister altered the Death Duties two years ago the foundation income tax was only 1s. To-day the income tax is much higher. We must look at the matter as a whole. You are not only aiming a single-barrelled gun at the capital of this country, as Sir William Harcourt did in 1894, but, in the present Budget, you are using a six-chambered revolver, and you are firing shot after shot at the, monetary interests of this country. You may think that you can do it without fear, and without wishing to do any damage, but the dividing line will have to be drawn some day or other. It is a great experiment, to go on turning on the tap, expecting the flow always to remain the same, and that no harm will be done to the community, but the time must come— if the whole of our system is not going to degenerate into a new state, governed by Socialistic principles—when the line must be drawn against those principles, which I believe to be profoundly antagonistic to those of many hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. Unless you are going to fall into those dangerous ways, before long—not before long, but now—the time will come, and, indeed, you should consider whether the time has not come, to cry "Halt" as regards the attacks which are made, not in one but in half a dozen forms, upon the capital of this country, which, after all, lies at the root of the labour of this country and of our prosperity as a community.


I regret extremely that for the first time since these Resolutions were introduced I have to declare myself against them, and I do so with great reluctance, because I think a vast part of the Budget is just. But the increase of this Resolution, and the heavy taxation which is proposed by the previous Resolution, coming upon the top of an increase only two years ago, I feel to be radically unjust. Death Duties there must be; they are recognised as part of the machinery of finance in this country, but they have unfortunately in them a degree of injustice, certainly of inequity. They are uncertain in their incidence. They may fall half a dozen times in a quarter of a century. They have fallen on large estates three times in ten years, within my own knowledge, and they have fallen on another large estate twice within one year. Taxation of this description, therefore, ought to be put on with precaution, and with just regard to the other conditions, by which it is enacted. Therefore, I feel very strongly that it is very unwise and gives a certain amount of support to, I think, the unjust idea abroad that this Government is a Socialistic Government. There is no question that the contributions that are being demanded from capital in this Budget are extremely heavy, and I think the Government would have been very much wiser if it had postponed even for a year, the infliction of three heavy taxes of property in one year. There is also another disadvantage, which has been so often referred to that I need not refer to it again, except to say that the Death Duties are beyond all question a diminution of capital. It is perfectly right that capital should have to pay its share, but it should pay its share in the form of profits on capital. I think it is a generally recognised principle that the expenses of any one year should come out of the income of that year, and though I am afraid that very few Liberals will follow me into the other Lobby I believe it is the conviction of the majority of men on this aide of the House that there has been an unwise attack upon capital. I am glad that I had this opportunity of making this statement, for I do not wish to give a silent vote, but before concluding I wish to draw attention to the fact that this taxation is not only almost cruel in the present year, but that it is progressive. In the statement issued a few days ago we had figures showing what would be the result of these taxes during the next three years. I find that the increase of Estate Duty or Death Duty will next year, that is the year with which we are dealing, be 2½ millions, but in two years time it will be 4½ millions. Similarly having regard to the Succession Duties, although it seems nothing is expected from this year, the amount to be obtained within two years is as much as 2 millions. I am not prepared to help any party in this country to bleed capital quite so severely.


I should like to endorse what was said yesterday by the hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro Ferguson) as to the effect of this Resolution upon sylviculture. This Resolution means absolute destruction to any kind of forestry. It was difficult enough to induce land-owners to take an interest in forestry before, even when under the old system you got a fairly quick return, but the modern scientific forestry depends upon rotation and takes a very long time to develop—40 years is the very quickest time for growing a tree, and agriculturists can hardly hope to see the result of their expenditure. Therefore it is absolutely impossible to get men to spend money upon an enterprise when they are not likely to see the result of that expenditure, and when the trees they plant will be cut down by their sons to pay Death Duties, As it is, the existing Death Duties have a most deplorable result on forestry, and this Resolution will complete the destruction of it. I also wish to put the effect of a Resolution like this upon old-fashioned proprietory businesses—family businesses—the business which a man makes himself and wishes to leave to his son, or it may be his nephew. It may be a manufacturing business with immovable assets, and of which the fixed assets, at all events, represent a very large proportion of the whole. Let us take the case of a man dying and leaving £150,000 worth of business assets in the form of land, buildings, plant, and the rest. If Succession Duty be taken out of account, £15,000 is payable on his death in Estate Duty alone. That is an enormous impost upon a business like that, and if that is renewed within a short period it is perfectly crushing, especially when, as very often happens, the business is one which is only just able to hold its head above water. When new capital has to be found, and very likely the old capital plant has to be scrapped, it will mean the absolute destruction of the old family business. Of course, you may say a man could convert it into a Limited Liability Company, but, in the first place, I do not think it is very desirable that new issues should be freely encouraged, and, in the second place, I regard the creation of Limited Liability Companies in the case of old family businesses as an almost unmitigated evil. The good relations which in some places still exist between all parties on the land have been referred to, and in the case of family businesses that also exists, but where you have the conversion and amalgamation of businesses it is destructive to social well-being in these cases. These enormous amalgamations of companies and the directors controlling them cannot possibly be in touch with those employed. I know, for instance, an hon. Member of this House who is the chairman of one or two companies and a director of many more. He cannot be brought into touch with the working people. The directors may do their very best but they are absolutely out of touch with the workers. I think that fact has contributed a great deal to the success of hon. Members below the Gangway in their propaganda, and that the effect of these large amalgamations has tended to alienate the employers of labour from their own people. I should, therefore, deprecate any legislation which should encourage such amalgamations, as I fear a Resolution of this kind will. I would like to put this question to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Is it the policy of the Government to permanently reduce private capital and to take off large slices of it, which, without undue exertions, can never be replaced? It was formerly an object of legitimate ambition for a man to allow his son to start in life in as good a position as he is himself, but what kind of sacrifices will these proposals entail upon people of that sort? Take a man with £150,000, producing £6,000 a year. On the death of a man with this fortune, taking account of the Estate Duty alone, and taking it on what he leaves to his son and putting all questions of consanguinity out of sight, the estate pays £15,000, and to get back this sum in 30 years, which is an average calculation, involves a charge of 2s. 6d. in the pound. This man, therefore, pays, apart from the super-tax and other incidental duties, 3s. 8d. in the pound all through his life in order to die as well off as his father, but if, beyond that, he wants his son to begin life as rich as he himself, he must save another £15,000, and that will involve another £320 a year, equivalent to more than another 1s. Income Tax. Therefore, if the third generation is to be put in the same position as the first, all through the time of the second generation the unhappy man will have to pay some 4s. 10d. in the pound Income Tax on the original £6,000. If the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Philip Snowden) and his friends are not satisfied with that, they are very unreasonable people indeed. This Resolution, moreover, may have a disastrous effect upon the habits of many people in this country. Who is going to make his plans far ahead, with legislation of this kind being brought forward? I fear that men, so far from liking to save for their children, will give them what they can afford during their lifetime and allow them to struggle. They will take no obligation upon themselves. They will live in hired houses and will not attach themselves to any particular place, more than they can help to do so. That will be the luxury of the very rich, and altogether there will be an enormous destruction, or, at the best, dislocation of the traditions and amenities of old established duties and responsibilities, and an entire change for the worse in the social fabric from the bottom to the top.


We have still to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer reply upon the general case made last night and to-night, and we have to get through the Division on these Resolutions in time to enable the business which still remains to be discussed at this stage to be finished to-night. I therefore feel I owe no apology to the Committee for rising now, although I very greatly regret that I am forced into doing so before some Gentlemen on both sides of the House who desire to address the Committee. So far the only speech we have had from the Government Bench was the speech de- livered last night by the Attorney-General. He replied to a very masterly address by my hon. Friend the Member for the Chelmsford Division (Mr. Pretyman), and I think it will be admitted that we got very little enlightenment from the Attorney-General excepting perhaps on the highly technical questions which will have to be discussed when the Bill comes out, and which perhaps cannot be discussed to great advantage before it, namely, as to the number of times in which in certain circumstances Death Duties have to be paid in the course of one settlement.

I propose, however, to deal with larger aspects of the question. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not imitate the tactics of his learned Friend, for the Attorney-General seems to think that he had said all that was necessary upon the general case when he made two observations. The first was that all taxation was bad, and, therefore, for the Opposition to point out that a particular tax was bad was really adding nothing to the stock of knowledge which everyone possesses before they begin to discuss the Budget. Of course all taxes are bad. But there are degrees of demerit as between different kinds of taxes, a thing which did not seem to have occurred to the Attorney-General at all. He seemed really to hold the view that inasmuch as every form of taxation took money from the country which would otherwise belong to the individual all forms of taxation were equally good or equally bad, whichever way you like to look at it, The sacrifice which this country has to make is equivalent to £164,000,000 in a year, and if you extract that amount of money, and extract it you must, from the taxpayer it does not much matter how you get it. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not take that simple view of finance. His second point was that those who desire expenditure for certain great objects were excluded for that very reason from criticising any particular form in which the money necessary for that expenditure was going to be raised—my hon. Friends behind me certainly said you want "Dreadnoughts" and an increase of the Navy—and that really it is very ungracious, almost inconsistent, of those who insist on seeing increased national expenditure for any great national object to quarrel with the Government over any suggestion which has been made for meeting those needs. Again I must say I do not think that is a line of argument which really helps us to deal with the difficulties of taxation. I do not in the least deny the general proposition—indeed, I think I have often had to insist upon it—that while this House is perfectly delighted to force expenditure on the Government, they always grumble when they are asked to pay the Bill, and it is an observation which is extremely important and relevant to certain issues. But when we are met together to discuss in a business spirit the particular taxes proposed by the Government, that broad consideration, whatever its importance may be, and I do not underrate its importance, really is not relevant to the merits or demerits of any particular form of taxation.

I am perfectly ready to grant that the Death Duties have one merit which so far we have never been able to obtain from any other form of taxation in so simple a manner. Those who think that graduation may be a just and necessary method of obtaining part of the resources of the country must all admit that no one has succeeded in framing a satisfactory graduation for the Income Tax. The Government do not claim that they have done that, and the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Chiozza Money) cannot be wholly satisfied with the schemes of graduation which he from time to time has put before us. Graduation, at all events, is much more easily and simply applied to taxation by Death Duties than to taxation by the Income Tax, and so far it has one great advantage which no other form of direct taxation really has. But everyone must admit, and I think they must admit with increasing anxiety, that the principle of graduation carries with it real dangers. It is impossible, I think, to deny that you ought to have graduation, but who can doubt that the absolute impossibility of laying down a fixed point at which graduation ceases to be right and becomes wrong, ceases to be just and becomes oppressive, is so great, the facility of taxing the very few who are also the very rich is so great and the temptation to do so is so strong, that every Chancellor of the Exchequer who deals either with the Death Duties or with any form of graduated Income Tax is under a great temptation to do that which is not merely unjust but oppressive to the individual, but which may carry in its train what are not less real and not less formidable evils because they are somewhat remote. I agree you do not see in one year or in five or perhaps in ten the effect of a rash attack upon particular sized properties taxed beyond what either equity or sound prudence would suggest. But because the evils are deferred, because they are in some respects remote, because their immediate results touch but an almost infinitesimal section of the community, do not let us believe that these remote consequences can be avoided. I constantly hear this Budget called by its admirers a democratic Budget. Let us be careful that we do not begin to associate democracy with robbery, an association which has never been brought about in any modern civilised State, which is certainly not true of the great democratic community across the Atlantic, which has never been true in this country, and which I hope is not going to be true, but which I frankly say seems to me a nearer danger after this Budget than it has ever seemed to me before. Remember that in two years the present Government has increased on very large fortunes the amount of taxation by no less than 75 per cent. Sir William Harcourt I believe was of opinion that the scale he had introduced was not merely a scale suggested by the temporary necessities and expedients and financial needs of the moment, but was a scale based upon an equitable view of the situation, based upon the degree in which you really ought to have differential taxation.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George)

How does the right hon. Gentleman arrive at the increase of 75 per cent.?


I think the right hon. Gentleman will find, if he looks at the great fortunes at the top of the scale, that the general effect of the present Prime-Minister's addition and of his own addition amount to no less than 75 per cent. in two years. The people at the top of the scale are very few. I have never seen that they carry any great political influence, but, at all events, numerically, they are extremely few, and to put this enormous burden upon them in two years, without laying down any broad principle on which you are going, is perilous. I do not wish to put it more strongly, and the Government should be careful lest they are not leading us into paths at the end of which very serious social dangers will attack the credit and the commerce of this country. I admit the merit of graduation, but I respectfully warn the Government and the Committee against its dangers.

Now let us come in rather closer detail to the actual incidence of the tax from the point of view of the individuals first, and" then from the point of view of the community. The first is the least and the second the most important of these two classes of considerations. As regards individuals, I cannot help thinking it is very unequal as between individuals of equal wealth. Given two individuals, each owning property which, at death, would be valued at the same sum, I think you will find the incidence is really not the same. We had a very interesting speech in, I regret to say, a very empty House, from the hon. Member for Westmoreland (Mr. Leaf Jones), and he attempted, in a very sympathetic manner—he evidently desired to be fair—to answer some of the points made by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) last night. He said, in the first place, that the idea that land ought only to be considered as having an income-bearing value of half its gross value was much too low an estimate. I suspect, in some cases, it is much too low, and in others it is too high. It depends largely on the character of the property, on the amount of the inevitable outgoings, upon whether there are small holdings or large holdings, whether the bill for repairs is big or small, on endless considerations on which it is very difficult to lay down an absolute rule. But that is not the point I am going to make against the hon. Gentleman. He said we suffer in England and Scotland now—he did not refer to Ireland—from the over-value of land. He said an estate which was worth £100,000 in the market really only brought in £2,000 a year to its owner—in fact he valued land on a 2 per cent. basis—and that was a great public misfortune, because only the very rich could own the land as a luxury if they had to accept so small an interest on their outlay.


I accepted the 2 per cent. as given by the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs. I think it is too low an estimate, but I took it for the purpose of argument.


Again, I do not wish to quarrel over fractions, and I think if the hon. Gentleman will consider my point, he will see the force of the observations I am going to make. He seems to talk as if anybody with an estate on which the Government valuers, or perhaps his own valuers, put the amount at £100,000, would go and sell a tenth of that in the market just as if he had £100,000 in L. and N.W. Railway stock, and his argument was with regard to value that that is the market value of the land. It is not contended that it is not the fair market value of the railway stock, but there is no equality in the two things. There is a great deal of misconception in this House about market value. I have heard that phrase abused in regard to more than one subject. I have heard it greatly abused in regard to the wages of labour. That is not the market value which is a forced value. A value which is not constant; but is a forced value, is difficult to ascertain. I think I myself, if I had to sell land, would be delighted to sell it at the figure which the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I do not believe I could. If I have London and North-Western Railway stock I know I can sell, and I know exactly what I can sell it for. I think everybody who is acquainted with the economic conditions I am dealing with will admit that there are a great many things which have a market value in this sense, that if the owner can wait for an appropriate purchaser he then will get Such and such a value for his picture, or whatever it may be, or for some valuable commodity which he has in his possession. But if you have two men, one of whom can sell without extra loss any fraction of his property, whatever it may be, and another man who perhaps cannot sell his property at all, or who perhaps has to wait an indefinite number of years for a buyer, who cannot sell it by fractions, and who can only either sell it in a lump or large portions of it together—to treat these two men as in an identical situation when you are going to take, not part of their income, but part of their capital, is absurd. I do not think it can be seriously defended. I am quite certain the right hon. Gentleman, if he will think over the position, will see that I am right. There is an attempt here to meet the case by permitting payment in the case of land to be spread over some years, but that attempt does not bring the two kinds of property to anything like par.

There is another point I wish to bring out, and in regard to which I hope the House will not think that I desire to lay too much stress, but it is one which I do not think we ought to leave wholly out of account. The Death Duties make no distinction at all between private property which produces income and private property which does not produce income. The result is that directly you make the Death Duties very high there is a tremendous temptation to owners of property to turn their property, sometimes at great sentimental loss, from the non-income bearing into income-bearing kind. Take the case of pictures and furniture, referred to last night, first by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), and afterwards by the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General asked, I think with great plausibility, Do you mean to say that if a man has either inherited or invested a large sum of money in valuable, pictures and furniture his heirs are going to get off when he dies? I see the force of that argument, but observe the result of treating the non-income-bearing property exactly as income-bearing property. Of course, there is a tremendous temptation to sell that which does not bear income and to turn it into that which a man can use for his own enjoyment. You will discourage everything in the way of owning works of art and some of the higher forms of property by this process. You will turn people from that form of expenditure—without saying anything invidious—to other forms of expenditure which we may regard as somewhat lower. A man may spend money on mere display or mere self-indulgence, or he may buy a picture, but if he is going to pay not only a tax upon the non-income-bearing expenditure, but also pay Death Duties, he will consider whether he should buy works of art. I do think there is here great occasion of hardship as between individuals equally wealthy, between a man who has got a very large income from securities, which he does nothing to accumulate, and the man who has inherited and finds himself the possessor of a non-income-bearing property, on which a large sum for duty has to be paid. I do not think that the man who has that property ought to get off, and yet we must all feel that there is a tendency in this kind of taxation to divert expenditure into channels some of which are not the best, or the highest, or, on the whole, for the best future interests of the country. I should be sorry to see the time when nobody would afford or could afford to possess any property except that which brought him in an annual income, and when the possessors would be persons more happily situated like foreign millionaires, to whom would be gradually transferred possessions which are not merely the possessions of individuals, but possessions from which the country whole derives no little enjoyment.

I now turn to what is a less disputable point, and I think, perhaps, a more important point. It is the effect of this par- ticular kind of legislation upon the economic position of the country. In the first place it surely is an obvious evil of any tax that it should be spasmodic in its nature, and the higher you put taxation which is spasmodic the more violent you make these oscillations. You can state the Death Duties in terms of income tax, and for certain purposes that is a very illuminating way. I wish they were always treated by those who have to pay them as if they were income tax. It would be a very good thing if they were; but they are not, and if you make the Death Duties very high, it is almost impossible that they should be. I believe that the amount of taxation you are going to get out of fortunes at the higher end of the scale will be considerable. Cases might be easily stated in which they will be 6s. or 7s. in the £. That is enormous. People probably will not pay 6s. or 7s. in the pound. They will not spread it over so as to treat it as income tax. They will treat it in the form which I took by a hesitating observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be the way it ought to be treated. They will treat it as if it were intended to take a slice out of the property. If you look at it from that point of view, who can deny that this spasmodic form of taxation is not only occasionally very harsh to individuals, but must be extremely damaging to industry. Observe, it is perfectly arbitrary as regards the time at which it falls. You may say it is not arbitrary as regards the individual who has to pay when he comes into possession of the property. Sir William Harcourt said that a man who came into a large fortune really ought not to grumble if that event was clouded by the fact that he had to pay duty into the Exchequer. It is absolutely arbitrary as regards business. Whether a man is the owner of an estate which requires annual expenditure for upkeep, new buildings, and the rest, or whether he may be the possessor of a manufacturing business, or a trader in some other shape, this tax comes upon the business at an arbitrary moment, and it may be a very bad moment for the business. I do not think that in this Debate we have heard enough of the effects upon credit which this large slice, taken suddenly and arbitrarily as regards the moment, will have upon credit. We have heard a great deal, not too much, about the effect upon land, and I will say something upon that before I sit down, but we have heard little about the effect upon business, and yet surely that is a most im- portant point. You take 15 per cent. from a large business, and from large fortunes you are going to take much more. You take that suddenly from the capital of the business. That is a very serious matter. It must affect the carrying on of the business. It must diminish the resources. It must make it more difficult to get the necessary accommodation from bankers and others who are prepared to lend. It must diminish the power of extending business if trade is improving, and it must diminish the power of carrying on business at a relative loss if trade is bad. It must make the difference in many cases as to turning off workmen or keeping them on. It must have effects in all the businesses referred to by my hon. Friend in the speech he has just made. It must affect them in a very serious and adverse manner. I quite agree that when you come to huge corporations, like the London and Northwestern Railway, or some of the great businesses in the country, the effect is negligible, but it is not negligible in the case of the smaller businesses and smaller fortunes. The tide is running so strongly at this moment in favour of amalgamating businesses, and of increasing the size of corporations which manage businesses, that there is, quite apart from the vexed question of trusts and monopolies and those allied problems, a genuine and legitimate economic tendency in the direction of building up large concerns, and yet there is so great an advantage in retaining, as far as you can, the small businesses. And I greatly regret that we should at this time do anything by our legislation which would make the maintenance of the small businesses more difficult.

Analogous to this case of the small business is the case of the land-owner of moderate size. As the House knows landowners are not merely possessors of the soil, they are the capitalists who equip the soil and are responsible for the permanent improvement of the soil. I was rather surprised at an observation made by the hon. Member for Westmoreland in the speech to which I have already referred, in which he looked back as if to some distant Garden of Eden to a period some centuries ago, when, as he said, the stock on the land was more valuable than the fee simple of property. It may have been in days when the farm was not equipped on modern methods at a cost which is now absolutely necessary to carry on agriculture under modern conditions; but nowadays I believe there are innumerable examples in which the equipment of the farm and the stock on the farm are greater than the value of the land. The capitalist in this case, under our existing system, is the landlord. He provides all the permanent equipment. The hon. Gentleman desires to see properties made smaller and a larger number of owners in this country. I agree with him. I wish he had said so with more emphasis when we were discussing the Small Holdings Bill. I welcome his statement, even though it seems to be somewhat belated. But I do not believe that anything you do to hamper the existing land-owner is going to lead to the state of things which both the hon. Gentleman and I desire. The state of things it is going to lead to is not a different distribution of land, but an inferior management of the land under its existing distribution. Instead of having this particular class of capitalists engaged in agriculture, instead of having him resident in the place where his business is carried on, in the place where he is known, under the relation which happily exists almost all over the country between the owner and occupier and workmen, you would have him an absentee, letting the amenities of his estate to some wealthy people, British or foreign, and working the estate otherwise as economically as he can, and sometimes, through no fault of his own, too economically for the real success of the occupation in which he is engaged. If you could do what the hon. Gentleman seems to suppose, if you could cut off two or three fields a year and sell them for 28 years' purchase of the gross rent, which I think is the value put on it here, or 30 years' purchase of the gross rent, I agree in thinking that that system might work. But it is not practicable; it is not possible; it is not business; it is not what has been done; and it is not what can be done.

I agree with my hon. Friend who has spoken behind me, and with some Gentlemen on the other side of the House, that you are doing a real damage to this particular class of moderate-sized industries connected with land just as you are doing damage to other moderate-sized industries not connected with land at all. They are both on the same footing. Both of them in my opinion will really suffer by this particular apportionment method of mulcting them at intervals with more than the business can afford to pay when the manager of the business happens to die. This is the last observation with which I will trouble the House. Observe the result of this spasmodic taxation. It is to inflict injuries not merely on particular businesses, agricultural, manufacturing, or commercial, but to inflict injuries on particular localities. The system of taxation of the ordinary type spreads the sacrifice year by year, and there are no sharp shocks to the particular business or the particular trade. That is not the case when you extract from a business a given sum of money at a moment. My last argument applies both to businesses other than land and to land. If you suddenly deprive a landed business close to a small rural town or village of the resources which enable the owner to live in the place to keep his customers and keep his employment you will inflict an injury which is much greater than the mere money value, because it is all concentrated on a given spot. If a given employer of labour has to turn off his workmen at a particular moment, if he has to cease the habitual custom which he has given to tradesmen at a particular instant, you are doing far more injury by that taxation than if you could spread it over a larger period of time and a larger area in space. You do neither one nor the other. Undoubtedly the result of the Death Duties, even at the existing level, has been that you have inflicted great hardship on particular localities at a particular time, which a different and more continuous method of raising the same sum would altogether have avoided. These are evils, like all the other evils of taxation, which increase with the increase in the tax.

There is an observation which I think will have to be made with regard to other parts of the Budget, but it is an observation which I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to bear more carefully in mind than he has done. You will never get a particular import on a particular trade—I do not care on what basis it is made—perfectly fair. Absolute theoretical fairness is unobtainable; but every augmentation of a particular tax increases its hardships in a greater ratio than the money it brings in magnifies your tax, and that which was tolerable becomes intolerable; and some of the impositions which everybody was prepared to condone because they were small, become so heavy—when increased—that, at last, people will not bear them or at least will not bear them without a sense of burden and of burning injustice. Then there is also an evil which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not admit, namely, that it would produce a loss to the revenue. I think he is wrong. I think he will find it will. But, whether the impost produces a loss to the revenue or not, it is a very great social evil, and I must honestly say we find the taxes which the right hon. Gentleman is now putting on the real profit amounts, on the higher portions of the scale, to an income tax of one-third—it is not so much, I admit, on the lower scale—but when you have an annual appropriation by the State of one-third of the whole property, in addition, of course, to all the other rates and taxes which are paid under other heads, I think the Government must feel that they are driving this principle of graduated Death Duty to a point which is not merely hard but unjust to certain classes, and really dangerous to the future accumulation of capital and the desire, a legitimate and most wholesome desire which men have, of leaving their children at least as well off as themselves, and that you will do something to prevent this country being what, happily, it has long been, and still is, a country which has the greatest financial resources with which to deal with not only the commerce of these small islands but the whole commerce of the world.


In the persuasive speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken there is a great deal with which I agree. I am not sure I would not say that I accept all his general propositions. For instance, I quite admit the force of the last general principle which he laid down that all taxation must involve anomalies. It is quite impossible to have a fair and equal imposition. Whatever the tax is, it would hit some men much harder than another, and let another man off much lighter than he deserves to be let off. That, I think, is inevitable in every tax that has ever been invented. Any man who is acquainted in the slightest degree with the working principle of the income tax knows that perfectly well. In many cases a man is not really hit upon the actual profit which he makes. I also accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the more you increase a tax the greater will the anomaly be. You accentuate it. I rather think I said so when I made my Budget speech. For that reason I have always listened with the greatest care to all the criticisms which have come from experienced Members of this House as to the principles about agricultural land when they refer to the method of assess- ment and valuation, and deduction which ought to be made. I have always thought there was great force in them, certainly very great force when they come to deal with the income tax. I have given a great deal of looking into this matter even before this. I have admitted as far as income tax is concerned that on the whole the method of taxing the owner of agricultural land is unfair to the good landlord, whereas on the other hand I think it gives advantages to the bad landlord that he does not deserve, because the deductions are made from the good and bad landlord, though in the case of the bad landlord he does not spend the money, whereas in the case of the good landlord he spends a great deal more and does not get the benefit. All that I have admitted; therefore I mean it is purely a case of redressing anomalies. For my part, speaking here after careful consideration with my colleague, in any case of anomaly and unfairness, he will not find the Government deaf to an appeal in any case of that kind. I will leave that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech without further observation. I heartily agree with the observation made at the beginning of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that there will be real danger if any Chancellor of the Exchequer were to say to himself: "The poor are many, the rich are few; let us take the few because they have only a certain number of votes." I agree that it would be a serious danger. I think it would be disastrous if any Chancellor of the Exchequer deliberately set himself to choose the smallest number purely because they were powerless. But, as a matter of fact, I claim—I do not argue it now—that our financial proposals are fairly distributed between all classes, and no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that if there is any electoral weakness about the Budget it is not that it is a tax upon the rich, but that it is a tax deliberately chosen in order to try and distribute the burdens fairly over all classes—over our own supporters as well as the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman. These burdens are the real reason, electorally, of the weakness of the Budget. We have not been guilty—I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman has quite charged me with that—of having deliberately chosen the rich and let the poor off—I do not quite agree that the rich are powerless. The rich are quite as powerful now as ever they were; indeed, they are more powerful now than probably ever they were. They have got the Press at their command in a way they never had it before, and they are working it, not by appeals to the millions of the people who read their papers to protect the rich, but by appeals to them to protect their own tobacco, their own whisky, and their own beer. The rich are not so powerless as the right hon. Gentleman imagines. Let there be no delusion on the point. I do not think any Government will attack the rich; I do not think there is any fear of that. The rich will be powerful to the end of time. They have got command of the machinery, they have got political power, they command political organisation, and therefore I do not think there need be any fear that the rich will be gratuitously attacked by any Government that wishes immunity for itself.

I should like to take another observation of the right hon. Gentleman's. We have no reason to complain of the general tendency of criticism. I think it has been pretty fair and very temperate; I think a good deal of it is exceedingly useful, and it may be useful in mitigating what may appear at the present moment, to be the hardships of the existing system, although the criticisms are really not directed to my proposals, but rather to the machinery which has been existing years before I had anything whatever to do with it. In future arrangements no Chancellor of the Exchequer can possibly forecast or foresee the contingencies that will arise in working out any proposal he may submit, and it is only experience that can point out where his proposals break down and where the system ought to be eased. One complaint I am inclined to make, and that is that right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen have rather chosen extreme cases, and they proceed with them as if they were really fair and normal samples of the kind of cases which would arise under the proposal which I am putting before the House. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston talked about 25 per cent. on a £100,000 estate. Under no conditions could a charge of 25 per cent. be made. The only case in which you could run up to 25 per cent. is not in the ordinary normal case, but in those cases where either a stranger in blood or a person of remote kinship inherits an estate, and which is, therefore, in the nature of an actual windfall. Really, the man who inherits in those circumstances, who is not a lineal descendant—I mean a son or grandson—is not the man I think who ought to complain very much if the State does take a slice from him. There are very few Members of this House who would complain if they had such an opportunity of inheriting. The right hon. Gentleman has repeated his suggestion put in the course of the Debate that my proposals amounted to a 6s. 5d. income tax. I cannot make out where he can get that figure, even if he picked out an extreme case. Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee how very unfair it is to take that sort of case as a working sample of my proposals. What will be the total Estate Duty even when this increased scale is enforced? It will be about £25,000,000. What is the total income tax at 'the present moment'? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said it averaged 9½ d. in the pound, and that would produce £33,000,000. A 6s. 5d. scale would produce—I cannot work out the figures—somewhere about, I think, £160,000,000. I simply point out that fact in order to show that to take a case of the kind which is put forward is not really a fair criticism of my Budget proposal. ["That is one case."] I agree with the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton), and that is the very point I am emphasising. As I said, this 6s. 5d. case is not a fair sample to take of the working of my Budget. On the contrary, the tax of 9½ d. gives only £33,000,000, and £25,000,000 would represent a 6d. or 7d. income tax.

Most of the complaints up to the present time have been as to the working of this scale on agricultural land. I would point out to the Committee that agricultural land, after all, is a very small proportion of the total property which passes at death and which contributes to the Estate Duty. The total number of estates that pass in the course of the year is from £150,000,000 to £300,000,000, while agricultural property simply represents £7,000,000. Therefore, the Committee must not imagine, because agricultural property has bulked largely in this Debate, that the main portion of the burden falls on agricultural property. On the. contrary, the proportion of agricultural property is, comparatively speaking, very small. What does it contribute? It contributes in the course of the year something like £1,250,000 to Estate Duty out of the total of £17,000,000 or £18,000,000. Since the Estate Duty was imposed £2,000,000 has been taken off for burdens on agricultural land out of the proceeds of the Death Duties, so that on the whole agricultural land has done very well by the Death Duties. The right hon. Gentleman said that it is very difficult for the owner of agricultural land to realise part of his estate so as to enable him to pay the Death Duties. I can give him a fact which I think is a complete answer. The owners of agricultural estates are given, I think, eight years to pay the Death Duty. They can spread the instalments over eight years. Will it be believed that in the vast majority of cases they prefer to pay down? What is the interest? It is 3 per cent.—only 3 per cent.—so that agricultural land, if it had found it so difficult, would not have preferred to pay down rather than pay even the 3 per cent. That is the real answer to the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman. The difficulty is not so great. We have heard a good deal about the Death Duties being a discouragement to thrift. There is another side to the question. The Death Duties have encouraged thrift. Why? Every agricultural owner knows perfectly well that when the property passes he has a desire to keep the estate intact, and that is a view of the organisation of rural life which I do not criticise, and for which there is a good deal to be said. The agricultural owner wishes to leave the estate intact. I have nothing to do with that, or rather I should say the duties have nothing to do with that. What do they do 2 They either insure or set aside a certain sum, so that at death there may be money to meet these charges, and many men who have got property really make arrangements so that there shall be a certain part of the property which shall be available for the payment of the Death Duty. Now that is what I really call encouraging rather than discouraging thrift. It has undoubtedly been the effect in a good many cases.

The insurance is not so very heavy. There was a very able article in the "Daily Telegraph" a week or a fortnight ago pointing out what a very small sum was necessary in order to enable you to insure against Death Duty. It was written from the point of view of insurance I must say, and not from the point of view of criticising the Death Duties. That is one of the difficulties we have got to face. In one part of a paper we find an article pointing out the evil effects of the Budget, and then another article in the same paper saying they never had such a good time in the City. There is an article one day saying the Budget is going to crush the agricultural interest, and then another article written by an insurance expert showing how you can with the smallest possible premium provide against my Death Duties.

There is one thing that struck me in the course of this Debate. I was in the House in 1894, and there is a strange familiarity in all the arguments I have heard and all the profession of red ruin now and then. There were the same denunciations of the proposal at that time, and really I felt very despondent in listening to them now, and when I thought how very limited must be the source of political vituperation. In one of the speeches of the Debate of 1894 dealing with the scheme of Sir William Harcourt was the statement that that proposal was very ill-considered and hasty, the only difference being that the denunciation was after the Bill, and not, as is the case now, before the Bill has ever been seen by anyone who criticised it. I was reading in that Debate that it would spread desolation in the villages, and that country houses would be emptied. You might have imagined in reading the descriptions that you were reading the description of the effect of a German invasion. There were other arguments also very familiar. It was said that the increase of staff would be so enormous that nothing would be got out of the tax, and we had the familiar argument that Holland Park would be cut into building ground. The defence of Holland Park has now been transferred to that division of the Territorial forces which is attacking land values. We have not had either the increase of staff or Holland Park in this Debate, because they have both been transferred to the Land Value Department. The revenue was to be so uncertain that you could not depend on it, and there was one very ingenious argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) showing that if you wanted a torpedo boat you would have to wait until some person died before you could get it, and if he did not die you could not pay for the torpedo boat.

The right hon. Gentleman, in another very ingenious argument, as all his arguments are, spoke about a great Australian fortune with £250,000 in Australia and £5,000 here. The happy possessor of the fortune lived here, and before he got the £250,000 in Australia he would have to take probate out here, and before he got probate he would have to pay the whole of the £5,000 that was in this country. Therefore he would be unable to get to Australia. The right hon. Gentleman dwelt on this pathetic case. He pointed out that the man would have to send the probate to Australia; there might be difficulties which might take months, and in the meantime the man would be starving, and before it arrived he might be dead of starvation. There came the last and the most crushing argument when he said that the difficulties of administering at his death would be so great that you could not get it administered at all. He said he did not know how this difficulty would be got over, and so he went and consulted a solicitor—I think the best thing that he could have done. The solicitor gave him very good advice, as I would expect. The solicitor said: "There will be no difficulty, because after all the creditors will administer the estate," and the right hon. Gentleman said: "Supposing there are no creditors?" "Well, then," the solicitor said, "there will be the undertaker's charges." He wound up a very eloquent criticism of the Budget by saying:— I do think it is a serious consequence of the Budget if we are not only going to be buried by the undertaker, but if when we die our estates are going to he managed by the undertaker. I was rather interested to find how this was received, and I found to my amazement that all those terrible consequences were received with "Loud Opposition cheers" at the time. Well, all those difficulties have vanished, the Australian fortune has been recovered, and I have no doubt spent, and the undertaker, at any rate in this Debate, has been buried. Holland Park is still ready to be cut up, but only for land values, and then we have got the same spectacle as to the squire in the course of this Debate. All I say about it is this, that what happened then shows the danger of exaggerating the possible consequences of taxes of this kind. That is the only reason why I am referring to it. Any man who has in his mind any lingering doubt, or any apprehension as to what will happen, all he has got to do is to read those Debates of 1894. There is not a single prediction in the present Debates that was not made then. Why is the country in it in spite of all this?

We have heard about this being a method of taxing capital, and not merely of taxing capital, but of wasting capital. That is the great argument. An hon. Member, in the course of the Debate this afternoon, and an hon. Member who has a good deal of knowledge on the subject, said that since Sir Wm. Harcourt's scheme 25ft millions of capital had been squandered. I am not sure of the exact word, but what he meant was wiped out or extinguished—that is, that 250 millions of capital had been extinguished. On the authority of Sir Robert Giffen we have been adding at the rate of 250 millions per year to capital, so that if we have extinguished 250 millions it is a consolation to know that we have added three thousand five hundred millions during that time, and taking that estimate of Sir Robert Giffen of the addition of 250 millions per year to the capital of the country, what is my poor increase of Death Duties? It means an increase of 6d. in the pound taken out of the natural increase. I propose to take six millions out of what is the vast natural reserve which swells the amount of capital every year? Now, really, to talk as if you were gradually wasting away capital which you had laid by is absurd. What is the capital of this country. The capital of this country is fifteen thousand millions, and the six millions which I propose to put on represents a third of a farthing in the pound on that capital. At that rate it would take three thousand years to expend it, even assuming we were not adding to it, and if there is talk about dissolving capital it would take three thousand years before this island is dissolved. After all, there is a much greater waste of capital going on in foreign countries, where they are conducting their operations by borrowing.

The borrowing of 14 millions in one great country to meet annual expenditure—that is what I call wasting capital.

What happens in this country? At any rate in our proposal we are setting aside seven millions to pay off debts, and not only that but different outgoings that were formerly borrowed for we are paying out of annual expenditure. What is capital after all. The main part of capital depends upon the efficiency of the people who have got to handle it, and deal with it, and if you spend money on raising the general condition of the people, and raising their efficiency, you are increasing the value of capital. Every penny which is raised out of Death Duties or out of any other tax for the purpose of the social amelioration of the people is money which is spent on increasing the capital efficiency of the country. In every business the efficiency of the people who conduct, it is part of the goodwill and the capital, and very often the main part of it. For that reason when there are proposals of this kind, I say that an efficient people and a contented people give the best security to property.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 298; Noes, 122.

Division No. 120.] AYES. [7.15 p.m.
Acland, Francis Dyke Byles, William Pollard Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)
Agnew, George William Cameron, Robert Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)
Alden, Percy Chance, Frederick William Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Channing, Sir Francis Allston Erskine, David C.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Cheetham, John Frederick Evans, Sir S. T.
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Everett, R. Lacey
Astbury, John Meir Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Ferens, T. R.
Atherley-Jones, L. Clancy, John Joseph Ferguson, R. C. Munro
Ballour, Robert (Lanark) Cleland, J. W. Fiennes, Hon. Eustace
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Clough, William Fullerton, Hugh
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) Cobbold, Felix Thornley Furness, Sir Christopher
Barnes, G. N. Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) Gibb, James (Harrow)
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) Gill, A. H.
Beale, W. P. Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John
Beauchamp, E. Cowan, W. H. Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert Crean, Eugene Glendinning, R. G.
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) Crooks, William Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Bennett, E. N. Crosfield, A. H. Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)
Berridge, T. H. D. Curran, Peter Francis Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) Dalziel, Sir James Henry Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Halpin, J.
Black, Arthur W. Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)
Bowerman, C. W. Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)
Branch, James Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Brigg, John Delany, William Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)
Brocklehurst, W. B. Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) Harmsworth, R. L. (Caitnhess-sh.)
Brodie, H. C. Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) Hart-Davies, T.
Brooke, Stopford Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) Dobson, Thomas W. Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) Duckworth, Sir James Harwood, George
Bryce, J. Annan Duffy, William J. Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Haworth, Arthur A.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) Healy, Maurice (Cork)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) Hedges, A. Paget
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Middlebrook, William Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Henry, Charles S. Molteno, Percy Alport Scars, J. E.
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) Mond, A. Seaverns, J. H.
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Money, L. G. Chiozza Seddon, J.
Hlgham, John Sharp Montagu, Hon. E. S. Shackleton, David James
Hobart, Sir Robert Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Morrell, Philip Shipman, Dr. John G.
Hogan, Michael Morse, L. L. Silcock, Thomas Ball
Holt, Richard Durning Morton, Alpheus Cleophat Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Hooper, A. G. Murphy, John (Kerry, East) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leltrim, S.)
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.) Snowden, P.
Horniman, Emslie John Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Horridge, Thomas Gardner Murray, James (Aberdeen, E) Soares, Ernest J.
Hudson, Walter Myer, Horatio Spicer, Sir Albert
Hutton, Alfred Eddison Napier, T. B. Stanger, H. Y.
Idris, T. H. W. Nicholls, George Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) Steadman, W. C.
Jackson, R. S. Norman, Sir Henry Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Jardine, Sir J. Norton, Capt. Cecil William Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) Nussey, Thomas Willans Strachey, Sir Edward
Jones, Leif (Appleby) Nuttall, Harry Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Jowett, F. W. O'Doherty, Philip Summerbell, T.
Joyce, Michael O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) Sutherland, J. E.
Kearley, Sir Hudson E. O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Kekewich, Sir George Parker, James (Halifax) Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
Kilbride, Denis Partington, Oswald Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Laldlaw, Robert Pearce, William (Limehouse) Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Tomkinson, James
Lambert, George Pickersgill, Edward Hare Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Lamont, Norman Pointer, J. Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Lardner, James Carrlge Rushe Power, Patrick Joseph Verney, F. W.
Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Walsh, Stephen
Lchmann, R. C. Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Walters, John Tudor
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Walton, Joseph
Levy, Sir Maurice Priestley, W. E B. (Bradford, E.) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Lewis, John Herbert Pullar, Sir Robert Waring, Walter
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Radford, G. H. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Raphael, Herbert H. Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Lupton, Arnold Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) Waterlow, D. S.
Lyell, Charles Henry Reddy, M. Watt, Henry A.
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Rees, J. D. Weir, James Galloway
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Randall, Athelstan White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Mackarness, Frederic C. Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Maclean, Donald Richardson, A. White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Ridsdale, E. A. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Whitehead, Rowland
M'Callum, John M. Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
M'Kean, John Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) Wiles, Thomas
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Williams, A. Osmond (Merioneth)
M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Williamson, A.
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Robinson, S, Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
M'Micking, Major G. Robson, Sir William Snowdon Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Mallet, Charles E. Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Roche, Augustine (Cork) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Marnham, F. J. Roe, Sir Thomas Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Rose, Charles Day Young, Samuel
Massie, J. Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Masterman, C. F. G. Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Meagher, Michael Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Joseph Pease and the Master of Ell-
Menzies, Walter Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) bank.
Micklem, Nathaniel Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) Burdett-Coutts, W. Craik, Sir Henry
Anson, Sir William Reynell Butcher, Samuel Henry Cross, Alexander
Anstruther-Gray, Major Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Dairymple, Viscount
Arkwright, John Stanhope Carllie, E. Hildred Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon
Ashley, W. W. Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers
Balcarres, Lord Cave, George Du Cros, Arthur
Baldwin, Stanley Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.) Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Faber, George Denison (York)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)
Banner, John S. Harmood Chaplain, Rt. Hon. Henry Fardell, Sir T. George
Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) Clive, Percy Archer Fell, Arthur
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Clyde, J. Avon Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Coates, Major E. F. (Lewishan) Fletcher, J. S.
Bignold, Sir Arthur Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. Forster, Henry William
Bridgeman, W. Clive Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Foster, P. S.
Bull, Sir William James Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Gardner, Ernest
Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) Lows, Sir Francis William Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Gordon, J. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Goulding, Edward Alfred M'Calmont, Colonel James Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Gretton, John Magnus, Sir Philip Stanler, Beville
Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) Marks, H. H. (Kent) Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds) Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Starkey, John R.
Hamilton, Marquess of Mildmay, Francis Bingham Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Harris, Frederick Leverton Moore, William Stone, Sir Benjamin
Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Morpeth, Viscount Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Hay, Hon. Claude George Morrison-Bell, Captain Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)
Helmsley, Viscount Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert Oddy, John James Thornton, Percy M.
Hill, Sir Clement O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Tuke, Sir John Batty
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Houston, Robert Paterson Parkes, Ebenezer Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Joynson-Hicks, William Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Peel, Hon. W. R. W. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Kerry, Earl of Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Keswick, William Randies, Sir John Scurrah Winterton, Earl
King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Renwick, George Wolff. Gustav Wilhelm
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Lane-Fox, G. R. Ronaldshay, Earl of Younger, George
Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwlch) Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir
Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) Salter, Arthur Clavell A. Acland-Hood and Viscount
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Scott, Sir s. (Marylebone, W.) Valentia.

Motion made and Question put: "That in the case of persons dying on or after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, settlement Estate Duty shall be charged at a rate double that at which it is now chargeable, and that for the purpose of any claim to relief from Estate Duty under sub-section (2) of section five or sub-section (1) of section twenty-one of The Finance Act, 1894, in the case of persons dying on or after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, payment of or liability to duty

(whether the payment is made or the liability attached before, on, or after that date) in respect of settled property on the death of a person (other than the settlor), who was at the time of his death or had been at any time during the continuance of the settlement competent to dispose of the settled property, shall not be deemed to be a payment of or liability to duty in respect of settled property."—[Mr. Lloyd- George.]

The Committee divided: Ayes, 300; Noes, 123.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Masterman, C. F. G. Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Meager, Michael Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Harwood, George Menzies, Walter Sears, J. E.
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Micklem, Nathaniel Seaverns, J. H.
Haworth, Arthur A. Middlebrook, William Seddon, J.
Hedges, A. Paget Molteno, Percy Alport Shackleton, David James
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Mond, A. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Henry, Charles S. Money, L. G. Chiozza Shipman, Dr. John G.
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Hon. S.) Montagu, Hon. E. S. Silcock, Thomas Ball
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Higham, John Sharp Morse, L. L. Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Hobart, Sir Robert Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Snowden, P.
Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Murphy, John (Kerry, East) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Hogan, Michael Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.) Soares, Ernest J.
Holt, Richard Durning. Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) Spicer, Sir Albert
Hooper, A. G. Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) Stanger, H. Y.
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Myer, Horatio Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Horniman, Emslie John Napier, T. B. Steadman, W. C.
Horridge, Thomas Gardner Nicholls, George Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Hudson, Walter Norman, Sir Henry Strachey, Sir Edward
Hutton, Alfred Eddison Norton, Captain Cecil William Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Idris, T. H. W. Nussey, Thomas Wllians Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Nuttall, Harry Summerbell, T.
Jackson, R. S. O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) Sutherland, J. E.
Jardine, Sir J. O'Doherty, Philip Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
Jones, Leif (Appleby) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Jones. William (Carnarvonshire) Parker, James (Halifax) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Jowett, F. W. Partington, Oswald Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Joyce, Michael Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Kearley, Sir Hudson E. Pearce, William (Limehouse) Tomkinson, James
Kekewich, Sir George Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Kilbride, Denis Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Pickersgill, Edward Hare Verney, F. W.
Laidlaw, Robert Pointer, J. Walsh, Stephen
Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Walters, John Tudor
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Power, Patrick Joseph Walton, Joseph
Lambert, George Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Lamont, Norman Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Waring, Walter
Lardner, James Carrlge Rushe Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Lehmann, R. C. Pullar, Sir Robert Waterlow, D. S.
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) Radford, G. H. Watt, Henry A.
Levy, Sir Maurice Raphael, Herbert H. Weir, James Galloway
Lewis, John Herbert Rea, Russell (Gloucester) White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Reddy, M. White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Lupton, Arnold Rees, J. D. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Rendall, Athelstan Whitehead, Rowland
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Richardson, A. Wiles, Thomas
Mackarness, Frederic C. Ridsdale, E. A. Wilkie, Alexander
Maclean, Donald Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Williams, A. Osmond (Merioneth)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Williamson, A.
MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
M'Callum, John M. Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Robinson, S. Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Robson, Sir William Snowdon Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Wood, T. M'Klnnon
M'Micking, Major G. Roche, Augustine (Cork) Young, Samuel
Mallet, Charles E. Roe, Sir Thomas
Markham, Arthur Basil Rose, Charles Day
Marks, G. Croydon (Launcesten) Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Marnham, F. J. Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Joseph Pease and the Master of Ell-
Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) bank.
Massle, J. Samuel, s. M. (Whitechapel)
Division No. 121.] AYES. [7.27 p.m.
Acland, Francis Dyke Burns, Rt. Hon. John Dobson, Thomas w.
Agnew, George William Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Duckworth, Sir James
Ainsworth, John Stirling Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles Duffy, William J.
Alden, Percy Byles, William Pollard Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)
Allen, A. Acland (Chrlstchurch) Cameron, Robert Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Cawley, Sir Frederick Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Chance, Frederick William Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Astbury, John Meir Channing, Sir Francis Allston Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)
Atherley-Jones, L. Cheetham, John Frederick Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Ersklne, David C.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Evans, Sir S. T.
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) Clancy. John Joseph Everett, R. Lacey
Barnes, G. N. Cleland, J. W. Ferens, T. R.
Barran, Sir John Nicholson Clough. William Ferguson, R. C. Munro
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Cobbold, Felix Thornley Fiennes, Hon. Eustace
Beale, W. P. Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) Fullerton, Hugh
Beauchamp, E. Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grlnstead) Furness. Sir Christopher
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Gibb, James (Harrow)
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Gill, A. H.
Bennett, E. N. Cowan, W. H. Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John
Berridge, T. H. D. Crooks, William Glen-Coats. Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) Crosfield, A. H. Glendinning, R. G.
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Crossley, William J. Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Curran, Peter Francis Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)
Black, Arthur W. Dalziel, Sir James Henry Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Bowerman, C. W. Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Branch, James Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Brigg, John Davies, M Vaughan- (Cardigan) Halpin, J.
Brocklehurst, W. B. Davles, Timothy (Fulham) Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)
Brodie, H. C. Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)
Brooke, Stopford Delany, William Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh) DeVvar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)
Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) Harmsworth. R. L. (Caithness-sh.)
Bryce, J. Annan Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Hart-Davies, T.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. Bull, Sir William James Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Burdett-Coutts, W. Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)
Anstruther-Gray, Major Butcher, Samuel Henry Craik, Sir Henry
Arkwright, John Stanhope Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Cross, Alexander
Ashley, W. W. Carlile, E. Hildred Dalrymple, Viscount
Baldwin, Stanley Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) Cave, George Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Du Cros, Arthur
Banner, John S. Harmood- Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)
Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Faber, George Denison (York)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Clive, Percy Archer Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Clyde, J. Avon Farcell, Sir T. George
Bignold, Sir Arthur Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) Fell, Arthur
Bridgeman, W. Clive Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey
Fletcher, J. S. Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) Salter, Arthur Clavell
Foster, P. S. Lonsdale, John Brownlee Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Gardner, Ernest Lowe, Sir Francis William Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)
Gordon, J. M'Arthur, Charles Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Goulding, Edward Alfred M'Calmont, Colonel James Stanier, Beville
Gretton, John Magnus, Sir Philip Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) Marks, H. H. (Kent) Starkey, John R.
Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds) Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Hamilton, Marquess of Mildmay, Francis Bingham Stone, Sir Benjamin
Harris, Frederick Leverton Moore, William Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Morpeth, Viscount Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)
Hay, Hon. Claude George Morrison-Bell, Captain Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Helmsley, Viscount Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Thornton, Percy M.
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert Oddy, John James Tuke, Sir John Batty
Hill, Sir Clement O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Valentia, Viscount
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Houston, Robert Paterson Parkes, Ebenezer Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Hunt, Rowland Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent. Mid)
Joynson-Hicks, William Peel, Hon. W. Robert Wellesley Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Kerry, Earl of Randies, Sir John Scurrah Winterton, Earl
Keswick, William Ratcliff, Major R. F. Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Renwick, George Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) Younger, George
Lane-Fox, G. R. Ronaldshay, Earl of
Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Rutherford, John (Lancashire) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) H. W. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

Motion made and Question put: "That after the 30th day of April, 1909—

1. Any Legacy or Succession Duty now payable at the rate of three per cent. shall be payable at the rate of five per cent., and any Legacy or Succession Duty now payable at the rate of five per cent. or six per cent. shall be payable at the rate of 10 per cent.;

2. Legacy and Succession Duty, payable at the rate of one per cent. under the Stamp Act, 1815, and the Succession Duty Act, 1853, respectively, or any other Act, shall be charged, notwithstanding any repeal effected by or anything contained in any other Act, and the duty shall be charged in the case

of husbands or wives as in the case of lineal ancestors or descendants;

the Resolution to take effect in the case of Legacy Duty only where the testator by whose will the legacy is given, or the intestate on whose death the Legacy Duty is payable, dies on or after the 30th day of April, 1909, and in the case of a Succession Duty arising through devolution by law only where the succession arises on or after that date, and in the case of a succession arising under a disposition, only if the first succession under the disposition arises on or after that date."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 300; Noes, 127.

Flennes, Hon. Eustace M'Callum, John M. Rose, Charles Day
Fullerton, Hugh M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Gibb, James (Harrow) M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Gill, A. H. M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John M'Micking, Major G. Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) Mallet, Charles E. Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Glendinning, R. G. Markham, Arthur Basil Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) Marnham, F. J. Sears, J. E.
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Seaverns, J. H.
Grey. Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Massie, J. Seddon, J.
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Masterman, C. F. G. Shackleton, David James
Halpin, J. Meagher, Michael Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) Menzies, Walter Shipman, Dr. John G.
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Micklem, Nathaniel Silcock, Thomas Bail
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Middlebrook, William Simon, John Alisebrook
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) Molteno, Percy Aiport Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) Mond, A. Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Hart-Davies, T. Money, L. G. Chiozza Snowden, P.
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Montagu, Hon. E. S. Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Harvey. W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Scares, Ernest J.
Harwood, George Morse, L. L. Splcer, Sir Albert
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Stanger, H. V.
Haworth, Arthur A. Murphy, John (Kerry, East) Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Hedges, A. Paget Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.) Steadman, W. C.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Henry, Charles S. Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) Stewart-Smith, D (Kendal)
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Myer, Horatio Strachey, Sir Edward
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Napier, T. B. Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Higham, John Sharp Nicholls, George Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Hobart, Sir Robert Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) Summerbell, T.
Hogan, Michael Norman, Sir Henry Sutherland, J. E.
Holt, Richard Durning Norton, Captain Cecil William Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Hooper, A. G. Nussey, Thomas Willans Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
Hope. John Deans (Fife, West) Nuttall, Harry Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Horniman, Emslie John O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Horridge, Thomas Gardner O'Doherty, Philip Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Hudson, Walter O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Tomkinson, James
Hutton, Alfred Eddison Parker, James (Halifax) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Idris, T. H. W. Partington, Oswald Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Isaacs. Rufus Daniel Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Verney, F. W.
Jackson, R. S. Pearce, William (Limehouse) Walsh, Stephen
Jardine, Sir J. Phillpps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) Walters, John Tudor
Jones, Leif (Appleby) Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Walton, Joseph
Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) Pickersgill, Edward Hare Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Jones. William (Carnarvonshire) Pointer, J. Waring, Walter
Jowett, F. W. Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Joyce, Michael Power, Patrick Joseph Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Kekewich, Sir George Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Kilbride. Denis Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Waterlow, D. S.
King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Watt, Henry A.
Laldlaw, Robert Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Weir, James Galloway
Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) Pullar, Sir Robert White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Lamb. Ernest H. (Rochester) Radford, G. H. White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Lambert, George Raphael, Herbert H. White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Lamont. Norman Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Whitehead, Rowland
Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Law. Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Reddy, M. Wiles, Thomas
Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis Rees, J. D. Wilkie, Alexander
Lehmann, R. C. Rendall, Athelstan Williams, A. Osmond (Merloneth)
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) Williamson, A.
Levy, Sir Maurice Richardson, A. Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Lewis, John Herbert Ridsdale, E. A. Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Wilson, P. W (St. Pancras, S.)
Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Lupton, Arnold Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Young, Samuel
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Robinson, S.
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Mackarness. Frederic C. Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Maclean, Donald Roche, Augustine (Cork) Joseph Pease and the Master of
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Rog, Sir Thomes Elibank.
MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) Rogers, F. E. (Newman)
Division No. 122.] AYES. [7.39 p.m.
Acland, Francis Dyke Brigg, John Crosfield, A. H.
Agnew, George William Brocklehurst, W. B. Crossley, William J.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Brodie, H. C. Curran, Peter Francis
Alden, Percy Brooke, Stopford Dalziel, Sir James Henry
Allen A. Acland (Christchurch) Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh) Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Bryce, J. Annan Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Burns, Rt. Hon. John Davies, Timothy (Fulham)
Astbury, John Meir Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S)
Atherley-Jones, L. Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles Delany, William
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Byles, William Pollard Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Cameron, Robert Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Barnes, G. N. Cawley, Sir Frederick Dobson, Thomas W.
Barran, Sir John Nicholson Chance, Frederick William Duckworth, Sir James
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Channing, Sir Francis Allston Duffy, William J.
Beale, W. P. Cheetham, John Frederick Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)
Beauchamp, E. Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) Cleland, J. W. Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)
Bennett, E. N. Clough, William Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Berridge, T. H. D. Cobbold, Felix Thornley Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St Pancras, W.) Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) Erskine, David C.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Evans, Sir S. T.
Black, Arthur W. Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Everett, R. Lacey
Bowerman, C. W. Cowan, W. H. Ferens, T. R.
Branch, James Crooks, William Ferguson, R. C. Munro
Anson, Sir William Reynell Banbury, Sir Frederick George Bull, Sir William James
Anstruther-Gray, Major Banner, John S. Harmonc Burdett-Coutts, W.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester) Butcher, Samuel Henry
Ashley, W. W. Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.
Balcarres, Lord Beckett, Hon. Gervase Carille, E. Hildred
Baldwin, Stanley Bignold, Sir Arthur Carson. Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) Bridgeman, W. Clive Castlereagh, Viscount
Cave, George Helmsley, Viscount Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Hill, Sir Clement Renwick, George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Houston, Robert Paterson Ronaldshay, Earl of
Clive, Percy Archer Hunt, Rowland Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Clyde, J. A. Joynson-Hicks, William Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Salter, Arthur Clavell
Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. Kerry, Earl of Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Keswick, William Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Craik. Sir Henry Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Cross, Alexander Lane-Fox, G. R. Stanler, Seville
Dalrymple, Viscount Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Starkey, John R.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Long, Col. Charles W. Evesham) Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Du Cros, Arthur Lonsdale, John Brownlee Stone, Sir Benjamin
Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) Lowe, Sir Francis William Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Faber, George Denison (York) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) M'Arthur, Charles Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Fardell, Sir T. George M'Calmont, Col. James Thornton, Percy M.
Fell, Arthur Magnus, Sir Philip Tuke, Sir John Batty
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Marks, H. H. (Kent) Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Fletcher, J. S. Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Forster, Henry William Mildmay, Francis Bingham Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Foster, P. S. Moore, William Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Gardner, Ernest Morpeth, Viscount Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) Morrison-Bell, Captain Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Gordon, J. Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) Winterton, Earl
Goulding, Edward Alfred Oddy, John James Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Gretton, John O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Younger, George
Guinness, W. E (Bury St. Edmunds) Parkes, Ebenezer
Hamilton, Marquess of Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Harris, Frederick Leverton Peel, Hon. W. R. W. A. Acland-Hood ant Viscount
Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Valentia.
Hay, Hon. Claude George Randies, Sir John Scurrah

Question put: "That in the case of persons dying on or after 30th April, 1909, five years shall be substituted for 12 months as the period preceding the death of the deceased before which a disposition purporting to operate as an immediate gift inter vivos, or a surrender, assurance, divesting, or disposition, must have been

made or effected in order that the property taken under the disposition, or affected by the surrender, assurance, divesting, or disposition, may not be included as property passing on the death of the deceased."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 124.

Greenwood, Hamar (York) Marnham, F. J. Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Massle, J. Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Halpin, J. Masterman, C. F. G. Sears, J. E.
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) Meagher, Michael Seaverns, J. H.
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Menzies, Walter Seddon, J,
Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Micklem, Nathaniel Shackleton, David James
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) Middlebrook, William Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) Molteno, Percy Aiport Shipman, Dr. John G.
Hart-Davies, T. Mond, A. Silcock, Thomas Ball
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Money, L. G. Chiozza Simon, John Alisebrook
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Montagu, Hon. E. S. Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Harwood, George Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Snowden, P.
Haworth, Arthur A. Morse, L. L. Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Hedges, A. Paget Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Soares, Ernest J.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Murphy, John (Kerry, East) Spicer, Sir Albert
Henry, Charles S. Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.) Stanger, H. Y.
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) Stanley; Albert (Staffs., N.W.)
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) Steadman, W. C.
Higham, John Sharp Myer, Horatio Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Hobart, Sir Robert Napier, T. B. Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Hogan, Michael Nicholls, George Strachey, Sir Edward
Holt, Richard Durning Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Hooper, A. G. Norman, Sir Henry Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Norton, Capt. Cecil William Summerbell, T.
Horniman, Emslie John Nuttall, Harry Sutherland, J. E.
Horridge, Thomas Gardner O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey O'Doherty, Philip Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
Hudson, Walter O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Idris, T. H. W. O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Parker, James (Halifax) Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Jackson, R. S. Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Jardine, Sir J. Pearce, William (Limehouse) Tomkinson, James
Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Philippe, Owen C. (Pembroke) Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Jowett, F. W. Pickersgill, Edward Hare Verney, F. W.
Joyce, Michael Pointer, J. Walsh, Stephen
Kekewich, Sir George Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Walters, John Tudor
King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Power, Patrick Joseph Walton, Joseph
Laidlaw, Robert Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Waring, Walter
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Lambert, George Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Lamont, Norman Pullar, Sir Robert Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Raphael, Herbert H. Waterlow, D. S.
Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Watt, Henry A.
Lehmann, R. C. Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) Weir, James Galloway
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) Reddy, M. White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Levy, Sir Maurice Rees, J. D. White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Lewis, John Herbert Rendall, Athelstan White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) Whitehead, Rowland
Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Richardson, A. Whitley. John Henry (Halifax)
Lupton, Arnold Ridsdale, E. A. Wiles, Thomas
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Wilkie, Alexander
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Williams, A. Osmond (Merloneth)
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Williamson, A.
Mackarness, Frederic C. Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Maclean, Donald Robinson, S. Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Robson, Sir William Snowdon Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
M'Callum, John M. Roche, Augustine (Cork) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Roe, Sir Thomas Young, Samuel
M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Rogers, F. E. Newman
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Rose, Charles Day
M'Micking, Major G. Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Mallet, Charles E. Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Joseph Pease and the Master of
Markham, Arthur Basil Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Elibank.
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Samuel, S. M. (Whltechapel)
Division No. 123.] AYES. [7.50 p.m.
Acland, Francis Dyke Brooke, Stopford Davies, Timothy (Fulham)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Alden, Percy Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) Delany, William
Allen, A, Acland (Christchurch) Bryce, J. Annan Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Burns, Rt. Hon. John Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles Dobson, Thomas W.
Astbury, John Meir Byles, William Pollard Duckworth, Sir James
Atherley-Jones, L. Cameron, Robert Duffy, William J.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Chance, Frederick William Duncan, J. Hastings' (York, Otley)
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)
Barnes, G. N. Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)
Barran, Sir John Nicholson Clancy, John Joseph Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Cleland, J. W. Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)
Beale, W. P. Clough, William Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward
Beauchamp, E. Cobbold, Felix Thornley Erskine, David C.
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) Evans, Sir S. T.
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grlnstead) Ferens, T. R.
Bennett, E. N. Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Ferguson, R. C. Munro
Berrldge, T. H. D. Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Fiennes, Hon. Eustace
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) Cowan, W. H. Fullerton, Hugh
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Gibb, James (Harrow)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Crooks, William Gill. A. H.
Black, Arthur W. Crosfield, A. H. Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John
Boland. John Crossley, William J. Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)
Bower man, C. W. Curran, Peter Francis Glendinning, R. G.
Branch, James Dalziel, Sir James Henry Glover, Thomas
Brian, John Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Brocklehurst, W. B. Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)
Brodle, H. C. Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. Bridgeman, W. Clive Clyde, J. Avon
Anson, Sir William Reynell Bull, Sir William James Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)
Anstruther-Gray, Major Burdett-Coutts, W. Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Butcher, Samuel Henry Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)
Ashley. W. W. Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)
Baldwin, Stanley Carllie, E. Hildred Craik, Sir Henry
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.) Carson, Rt. Hon Sir Edward H. Cross, Alexander
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Castlereagh, Viscount Dairymple, Viscount
Banner, John S. Harmood Cave, George Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon
Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Du Cros, Arthur
Beckett, Hen. Gervase Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Everett, R. Lacey
Faber, George Denlson (York) Lane-Fox, G. R. Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Faber, Cant. W. V. (Hants, W.) Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Salter, Arthur Clavell
Fell, Arthur Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Fletcher, J. S. Lonsdale, John Brownlee Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Gardner, Ernest M'Arthur, Charles Stanler, Seville
Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) M'Calmont, Colonel James Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Gordon, J. Magnus, Sir Philip Starkey, John R.
Goulding, Edward Alfred Marks, H. H. (Kent) Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Gretton, John Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Stone, Sir Benjamin
Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds) Moore, William Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)
Hamilton, Marquess of Morpeth, Viscount Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Harris, Frederick Leverton Morrison-Bell, Captain Thornton, Percy M.
Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) Tuke, Sir John Batty
Hay, Hon. Claude George Oddy, John James Valentia, Viscount
Helmsley, Viscount O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Hill, Sir Clement Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Peel. Hon. W. Robert Wellesley Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Houston, Robert Paterson Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Hunt, Rowland Radford, G. H. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Joynson-Hicks, William Randies, Sir John Scurrah Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Ratcliffe, Major R. F. Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Kerry, Earl of Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Younger, George
Keswick, William Renwlck, George
King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Rutherford, John (Lancashire) H. W. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

Motion made and Question proposed: "That in the case of persons dying on or after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine,—

(1) no reduction shall be made in the estimate of the principal value of any property under sub-section (5) of section seven of the Finance Act, 1894, on account of the estimate being made on the assumption that the whole of the

property is to be placed on the market at one and the same time;

(2) the limitation on the estimate of the principal value of agricultural property under the same sub-section shall cease."

—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer.]

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 292; Noes, 122.

Henry, Charles S. Montagu, Hon. E. S. Seddon, J.
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Shackleton, David James
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Morse, L. L. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Higham, John Sharp Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Shipman, Dr. John G.
Hobart, Sir Robert Murphy, John (Kerry, East) Silcock, Thomas Ball
Hogan, Michael Murphy, J. N. (Kilkenny, S.) Simon, John Aliesbrook
Hon, Richard Durning Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Hooper, A. G. Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) Snowden, P.
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Napier, T. B. Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Horridge, Thomas Gardner Nicholls, George Soares, Ernest J.
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) Spicer, Sir Albert
Hudson, Walter Norman, Sir Henry Stanger, H. Y.
Idris, T. H. W. Norton, Captain Cecil William Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Isaacs, Ruins Daniel Nussey, Thomas Wilians Steadman, W. C.
Jackson, R. S. Nuttall, Harry Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Jardine, Sir J. O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendai)
Jones, Leif (Appleby) O'Doherty, Philip Strachey, Sir Edward
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) Straus. B. S. (Mile End)
Jowett, F. W. O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Joyce, Michael Parker, James (Halifax) Summerbell, T.
Kekewich, Sir George Partington, Oswald Sutherland, J E.
King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Laidlaw, Robert Pearce, William (Limehouse) Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Lambert, George Pickersyill, Edward Hare Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Lamont, Norman Pointer, J. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Tomkinson, James
Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Lehmann, R. C. Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Verney, F. W.
Levy, Sir Maurice Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Walsh, Stephen
Lewis, John Herbert Pullar, Sir Robert Walters, John Tudor
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Radford, G. H. Walton, Joseph
Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Raphael, Herbert H. Ward, John (Stoke-upon Trent)
Lupton, Arnold Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Waring, Walter
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Reddy, M. Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burgis) Rees, J. D. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Mackarness, Frederic C. Rendali, Athelstan Waterlow, D. S
Maclean, Donald Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) Watt, Henry A.
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Richardson, A. Weir, James Galloway
MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) Ridsdale, E. A. White, Sir George (Norfolk)
M'Callum, John M. Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Whitehead, Rowland
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
M'Micking, Major G. Robinson, S. Wiles, Thomas
Mallet, Charles E. Robson, Sir William Snowdon Wilkie, Alexander
Markham, Arthur Basil Roch, Waiter F. (Pembroke) Williams, A. Osmond (Merioneth)
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Roche, Augustine (Cork) Williamson, A.
Marnham, F. J. Roe, Sir Thomas Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Rogers, F. E. Newman Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Hassle, J. Rose, Charles Day Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Masterman. C. F. G Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Meagher, Michael Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Menzies, Walter Samuel, Rt Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Young, Samuel
Micklem, Nathaniel Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Middlebrook, William Scarisbrick, T. T. L. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Moiteno, Percy Alport Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) Joseph Pease and the Master of
Mond, A. Sears, J. E. Elibank.
Morey, L. G. Chiozza Seaverns, J. H.
Division No. 124.] AYES. [8.0 p.m.
Acland, Francis Dyke Buxton, Rt Hon. Sydney Charles Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)
Agnew, George William Byles, William Pollard Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Ainsworth. John Stirling Cameron, Robert Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)
Alden, Percy Cawley, Sir Frederick Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Chance, Frederick W. Erskine, David C.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Cheetham, John Frederick Evans, Sir S. T.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Ferens, T. R.
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Clancy, John Joseph Ferguson, R. C. Munro
Astbury, John Meir Cleland, J. W. Fiennes, Hon. Eustace
Atherley-Jones, L. Clough, William Fullerton, Hugh
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Cobbold. Felix Thornley Gibb, James (Harrow)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) Gill, A. H.
Barlow. Sir John E. (Somerset) Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) Ginnell, L.
Barnes, G. N. Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John
Barran, Sir John Nicholson Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Cowan, W. H. Glendinning, R. G.
Beale, W. P. Craig. Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Glover, Thomas
Beauchamp, E. Crooks, William Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert Crosfield, A. H. Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) Crossley, William J. Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Bennett, E. N. Curran, Peter Francis Greenwood, Hamar (York)
Berridge, T. H. D. Dalziel, Sir James Henry Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Davies, Ellis William (Elfion) Halpin, J.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Harcourt, Pt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)
Black, Arthur W. Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)
Boland, John Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Bowerman, C. W. Delany, William Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)
Branch, James Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) '
Brigg, John Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) Hart-Davies, T.
Brocklehurst. W. B. Dilke, Rt Hon. Sir Charles Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Brodle, H. C. Dobson, Thomas W. Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh) Duckworth, Sir James Harwood, George
Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) Duffy, William J. Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Bryce, J. Annan Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Haworth, Arthur A.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Duncan, J. Hastinns (York. Otley) Hedges, A. Paget
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex, F. Carllie, E. Hildred Duncan, Robe't (Lanark, Govan)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. Everett, R. Lacey
Anstruther-Gray. Major Castlereagh, Viscount Faber, George Denison (York)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Cave, George Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)
Ashley. W. W Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Fell, Arthur
Balcarres, Lord Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey
Baldwin, Stanley Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) Fletcher, J. S.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.) Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Forster, Henry William
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Clyde, J. Avon Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)
Banner, John S. Harmood- Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) Gardner, Ernest
Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)
Barrle, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Gordon, J.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Goulding, Edward Alfred
Bignold, Sir Arthur Craik, Sir Henry Gretton, John
Bridgeman, W. Clive Cross, Alexander Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)
Bull, Sir William James Dairymple, Viscount Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Dixon-Hartland. Sir Fred. Dixon Harris, Frederick Leverton
Butcher, Samuel Henry Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Harrison-Broadley, H. B.
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Du Cros, Arthur Hay, Hon. Claude George

Question put, and agreed to.

Helmsley, Viscount Mildmay, Francis Bingham Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert Moore, William Stanier, Beville
Hill, Sir Clement Morpeth, Viscount Starkey, John R.
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Morrison-Bell, Captain Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Houston, Robert Paterson Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Hunt, Rowland Oddy, John James Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)
Joynson-Hicks, William O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Thornton, Percy M.
Kerry, Earl of Parkes, Ebenezer Tuke, Sir John Batty
Keswick, William Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) Vaientla, Viscount
King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Peel, Hon. W. Robert Wellesley Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Lane-Fox, G. R Randies, Sir John Scurrah Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Ratcliffe, Major R. F. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) Renwick, George Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Eccleshall) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
M'Arthur, Charles Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Younger, George
M'Calmont, Colonel James Salter, Arthur Clavell
Magnus, Sir Philip Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E.
Marks, H. H. (Kent) Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. Taibot and the Marquess of Hamil-
Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) ton.
Forward to