§ (1) In the case of any person dying on or after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, the proviso to Subsection (5) of Section seven of the principal Act (which relates to the estimation of the principal value of property for the purposes of Estate Duty) shall cease to have effect.
§ (2) In estimating the principal value of any property under Sub-section (5) of Section seven of the principal Act, in the case of any person dying on or after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, the Commissioners shall fix the price of the property according to the market price at the time of the death of the deceased, and shall not make any reduction in the estimate on account of the estimate being made on the assumption that the whole property is to be placed on the market at one and the same time.1143
§ (3) An appeal shall not lie under Section ten of the principal Act, where the question in dispute is a question of the value of any real (including leasehold) property, but if any person is aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioners as to the value of any such property, he may appeal against the decision in manner prescribed by Part I. of this Act, and the provisions as to appeals under that part of this Act shall apply accordingly.
§ Mr. HILLS moved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "cease to have effect" and to insert instead thereof the words "have effect as if the words 'be ascertained by reference to' were inserted therein in the place of the words 'not exceed twenty-five times.'"
§ Section 7 of the Act of 1894 gives a special exemption to agricultural land, and states that the value of such land is not to exceed 25 times the annual value, with certain deductions. But Clause 61 in this Bill has removed that exemption, so when this Bill passes no number of years' purchase can be taken as the multiplier of the usual value of such land to find the capital value. If my Amendment is passed, the limit of 25 years is still moved out, and the basis of valuation is levied upon the annual value. Though you can take any number of years' purchase and find the annual value of agricultural property, you must proceed upon the basis of annual value, and surely it is a very reasonable thing to do. The scheme of the Act of 1894 proceeds upon the basis of annual value, and applies a certain multiplier to the annual value to find the capital value, and even though you have moved out the 25 years' limit, you do not intend to change the basis of valuation. Unless some such words as mine are moved into the Bill, it might be that the whole scheme of valuation under the Act is different from the Act of 1894. Since 1894 all valuers of farm property have gone upon the scheme of working out the annual value first, and then applying the multiplier of a certain number of years to find the capital value, and it is the only reasonable way of getting the value, and if you move out this proviso and do not insert the words which are in my Amendment, you change the scheme of valuation. It is reasonable in any case, but I wish to press it for this further reason. In Committee, the Government were expressly asked if they intended to change the scheme, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said No, the basis of valuation was still to remain the annual value. I 1144 think he will agre that some words of this sort are required to fulfil that promise. Without them we have no certainty that the basis will still be annual value.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
The hon. Member who moved the Amendment stated that his proposal would mean the elimination of the 25 years multiple. If that is so—and I agree with him that it would do so—there would be no multiple by which you could arrive at the value of the property. Therefore, the result of putting in these words would be that you would have no method of ascertaining the value of the property. Though he proposes the removal of the present 25 years multiple, he substitutes nothing for it. For that reason we cannot accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. CAVE
I think the answer of the right hon. Gentleman is not sufficient. The point is this: In the Committee stage the question was asked, "Do you mean to alter the basis of assessment except by striking out the 25 years?" and the answer was, "No, we mean to keep the same method of assessment—that is by taking the annual value as defined in the Finance Act of 1894." In that way you would arrive at the capital value by multiplying the annual value by a certain number of years' purchase. It is quite true that my hon. Friend does not propose any new multiple. He takes it that the valuer will fix that, having regard to the nature of the property. His point is that if we are to have any adherence at all to the answers given in Committee, this matter must be dealt with in one way or another. The Bill, as it stands, throws over the method of assessment laid down in, I think, Section 7 of the Finance Act of 1894. That Section provides that you should take not more than 25 years' purchase with certain deductions, and 5 per cent. for expenses. If you do not accept this Amendment, or something like it, you throw over the whole of that provision, and leave the valuer to put his valuation on the property as in the case of other property which is not agricultural. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I know that some hon. Members care nothing for agriculture, but the Government profess to care for it, and to be desirous of treating agricultural property fairly, and not increasing the burdens upon it. Unless you accept the Amendment you are increasing the burdens on agricultural property, and you are not giving effect to the pledges which were given in Committee.
§ Mr. HALDANE
The Bill, as it stands, strikes out the proviso in Section 7, Subsection (5), of the Finance Act, 1894. That proviso derived its force from the reference to the limitation to 25 times the value. That has gone. If you want some general words, such as suggested, to be ascertained by references without any period of years, what you get is a very general kind of rule, something wholly different for ascertaining the value. It has been thought much fairer to adopt the course in the Bill, remembering the concessions about ascertaining the value of property under Schedule A, which is directly germane to what we have here, and the other concessions which we make, and it would be very retrograde to lay down a kind of rule such as is suggested and to suggest a proviso which is useless, and would add nothing practically to the law as it stands with the absence of the 25 times proviso.
§ Viscount HELMSLEY
Are we to understand the right hon. Gentleman asks us to believe that striking out this proviso is a concession to agriculture? My recollection is that in Committee the Government gave some pledge to alter the Bill with regard to striking out the 25 times limit, and I am disappointed that they have not seen their way to carry out that pledge. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman what he meant by his reference to the valuation of Schedule A? I do not see that the difference, which has been made in collecting the Income Tax under Schedule A, has anything to do with the valuation of agricultural estates for the purpose of Death Duties. On what basis will the valuations proceed when they do value agricultural estates?
§ Mr. HALDANE
Under the law as it stood the poorest classes of property used to pay up to the hilt, and the better and richer classes of property, which fetched 30 years' purchase in the market, would pay only 25 years. The plan we now adopt will put all property on the same basis as to its market value.
§ Mr. M. HICKS BEACH
The question of the basis of valuation was debated in the early hours of the morning in Committee, and to the best of my recollection, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that though he was doing away with the 25 years' limit he was not doing away with the basis of valuation under Schedule A, under which certain deductions are allowed from the gross income before the 1146 assessment is arrived at. The assessment of agricultural property for Death Duties in the past has been based on a number of years' purchase not to exceed 25. Now the Government have done away with the 25 years. They promised, in Committee, that they were not going to do away with the exemptions that are allowed under Schedule A. So far as I understand to-night, the Government have not only done away with the 25 years' limit, but they have also done away with the allowance abatement in Schedule A, and by so doing they will materially raise the gross assessment of agricultural property for the purposes of Estate Duty. That is the impression forced upon me in the course of this short debate. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer clears up this point he will be doing a service to my hon. Friend and to the country at large, which is interested in the assessment of agricultural property.
Mr. G. D. FABER
Hitherto it has been understood that the valuation of agricultural properties has been rather lenient. The major premiss in taking the value of agricultural land is to take the annual value under Schedule A with certain deductions, and it was rather a lenient major premiss. Are you going to alter that major premiss in order to get at the market value? That may be a more stringent market value than we have been accustomed to in the case of agricultural property in the past. If that is your wish there is no more to be said. Let Members opposite who are interested in agricultural property, and there are, I believe, a great many of them, understand quite clearly the road down which they are marching. If we have an answer to that, at any rate we shall not approach the division under a misconception.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
At the present moment agricultural property is not treated equally. One class of agricultural property is probably over-valued, and another class is valued too low, though better able to bear the burden. Property worth 25 to 35 years' purchase gets off very lightly, and another class of property that cannot be sold at 20 years' purchase is rated up to the last penny. That is very unequal valuation. All we say is that agricultural property should pay on the real market value, whatever it is. When you come to deductions, they are bound to enter into the market value, and the valuation will be on a more equal basis than we have hitherto had. We have made a concession of £500,000, and 1147 we are quite willing to carry out the concession to the limit of our means. On this particular point we recognise that there are elements that ought to be taken into consideration, and they have always to be taken into account exactly as under Schedule A.
Sir JOHN BRUNNER
I have made it apparent that my sympathies are rot entirely with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cave). I have heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there are two classes of agricultural land—one worth a few years' purchase and the other worth 30 or 35 years' purchase. I
§ have been against putting the value of agricultural land at 25 years' purchase ever since it was proposed by Sir William Harcourt, and for the reason that there is a considerable amount of agricultural and which is worth not 25 or 30 or 35 years' purchase, but is worth 200 and 300 years' purchase; and that land has been exempted ever since 1894, and as I have been against it all that time the hon. and learned Gentleman will not be surprised that I do not sympathise with him to-night.
§ Question put, "That the words 'cease to have effect' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 46.1149
|Division No. 857.]||AYES.||[12.0 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)|
|Agnew, George William||Hall, Frederick||Pollard, Dr. G. H.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)||Radford, G. H.|
|Barker, Sir John||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Haworth, Arthur A.||Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)|
|Bennett, E. N.||Hedges, A. Paget||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Helme, Norval Watson||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Henry, Charles S.||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Hobart, Sir Robert||Robinson, S.|
|Brace, William||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)||Hodge, John||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)||Holland, Sir William Henry||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Holt, Richard Durning||Rowlands, J.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hooper, A. G.||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Byles, William Pollard||Horniman, Emslie John||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Clough, William||Hyde, Clarendon G.||Seely, Colonel|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Illingworth, Percy H.||Shackleton, David James|
|Collins, Sir Win. J. (St. Pancras, W.)||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Keating, Matthew||Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Lambert, George||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Lamont, Norman||Summerbell, T.|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Crossley, William J.||Lehmann, R. C.||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Levy, Sir Maurice||Toulmin, George|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lewis, John Herbert||Verney, F. W.|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Villiers, Ernest Amherst|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)||Lupton, Arnold||Walsh, Stephen|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Lynch, H. B.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Essex, R. W.||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Evans, Sir Samuel T.||M'Micking, Major G.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Marnham, F. J.||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Falconer, J.||Middlebrook, William||Williamson, Sir A.|
|Ferens, T. R.||Mond, A.||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Glendinning, R. G.||Nuttall, Harry|
|Glover, Thomas||Parker, James (Halifax)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Carlile, E. Mildred||Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cave, George||Faber, George Denison (York)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.)||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Fell, Arthur|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Clive, Percy Archer||Fletcher, J. S.|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)||Forster, Henry William|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Craik, Sir Henry||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)|
|Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Starkey, John R.|
|Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Ratcliff, Major R. F.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Helmsley, Viscount||Renwick, George||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Hill, Sir Clement||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Kimber, Sir Henry||Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hills and Mr. Hicks Beach.|
|Lane-Fox, G. R||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Stanier, Beville|
§ Mr. WALTER GUINNESS moved, in Sub-section (2) to leave out the word "market" ["according to the market price at the time"] and after the word "price" ["market price"] to insert the word "obtainable."
§ The Clause as it stands lays down that in fixing the price of the property for the purposes of the Death Duties the Commissioners are to take the market price. So far as I can understand, in the case of stocks and shares the market price will be held to be the quotation in the official list of the Stock Exchange the day after death. As the House no doubt is aware the procedure is to take the official price and assess the value of the property at 25 per cent. up from the lower-price. That system is fair enough where there is a free market. It is all right, say, in the case of sales of Canadian Pacifies, where there are, it may be, many hundreds of transactions in a single day. But where there are no dealings in the stock, and no market at all, it is, I think, very probable that trouble and injustice may result. Where there is no market for stock the price published in the official list is quite unreliable. It is the practice where the stock is practically unsaleable to retain, as the official quotation, a price based on the last quotation for business. Take the case of brewery debentures. In a great many instances at the present time there is no market whatever for them. Particular stock may not have been sold for many weeks. The Stock Exchange quotation is fixed on the basis of the last bargain, and it is probably quite impossible to sell even £25 worth of the stock at a price within the limits shown in the Stock Exchange list.
§ Apparently this is not an imaginary difficulty, because in the Committee stage a case was brought forward in which the Inland Revenue Commissioners had, since the introduction of the Finance Bill, refused to accept a certificate that the official quotation was not realisable, and they stated, although they did not intend to traverse the accuracy of that statement, that they had had instructions to be guided 1150 only by the official market price as published in the list. We understood in the Committee stage that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not hold that that was fair and reasonable procedure. He assured us that he was only anxious to take as the value what property would fetch if sold. Unfortunately this matter came on at 4 o'clock in the morning—it was discussed very hastily, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer consented to drop the word "normal" and to leave it at "market price." I do not think that that meets the case at all. If you leave "market price" you will be bound by the official quotation of the Stock Exchange. I hope that the sober reasonableness which the right hon. Gentleman then showed will prevail now, and that he will be quite ready to modify these words. I think we can take as a guide Section 7, Sub-section (5), of the Act of 1894. It says: "The probable value of any property shall be estimated to be the price which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, such property would fetch if sold in the open market at the time of death." This is obviously a far more favourable system than that proposed in this Bill There is no question of taking the official quotation if that quotation cannot be upheld in the open market. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should drop the word "market" and substitute for it the words the "price obtainable," and so prevent a grievance from arising.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I have pleasure in seconding the Amendment, especially as I understand there is some doubt about the legal meaning of the word "market." I say, speaking as a City man—I am, unfortunately, not a lawyer—there can be no doubt whatever that market price means the price you can get. Market price in the City would not be taken to be the official quotation. I have had TO make valuations many and many a time where there has been a nominal quotation, and when I found I could not deal with the price I tried to ascertain what I could get if I had to sell, and I certified that that was the market price. I think there 1151 would be no doubt in the City that that was the market price. If there is any legal doubt, I certainly think it ought to be cleared up in order that the intention of the Government should be made clear. I am sure the Government do not wish to encourage fees to lawyers any more than we do on this side of the House.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
The best answer to the Mover of the Amendment was that given by the Seconder. I think it is a complete answer. That is the view taken by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and at is their practice. The very instance put by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) in Committee. I ventured to express surprise at it at the time. I inquired into the matter and I find it was taken under a complete misapprehension, and that the duties were returned. I should think there could not be the slightest doubt about the matter, but if the word "obtainable" was introduced a considerable element of doubt would arise. Take the case of brewery shares put by the hon. Member. A man might not be able to sell them at the time and therefore they would represent no value at the moment, but clearly that would not be the case. The mere fact that there may be no quotation for the moment does not prove they are of no value. The word "obtainable," if put in, might introduce doubt of that kind, and therefore it is far better to take the city interpretation of the words "market price." That is the view taken by the Commissioners at the present moment.
§ Mr. E. A. RIDSDALE
I had occasion recently to have some experience of the practice of Somerset House in this matter, and the point of view they took was that a proportion of the official list should be taken as the marked price. I was immensely surprised to find this was their custom, because I had the estate with which I was dealing valued by experts belonging to the Stock Exchange, and a set of prices were made out for Somerset House as market prices and these prices were altered, as far as I can see, without rhyme or reason, so they must go in some way by the prices in the official list and make alterations in respect of them.
§ Mr. HILLS
I can confirm what the last speaker has said. In cases of shares quoted in the official list the Commissioners 1152 insist upon the prices in this list being treated as the value of the shares. In certain cases you can induce them to say that the value in the list is not an excessive one, and in those cases they will accept a reduction. The practice is that when a security is quoted only the official list is taken. You may get a certificate of high standing, but it is not regarded if the quotation in the official list is different. All this Amendment says is that the basis of value should be the price obtainable. It puts a security on the same level as the property was put by the Act of 1894, and that is surely a fair way. I do not think the Government intend to assess taxation upon an artificial value. If you say they are to pay the probable price they can obtain in the market you may not get the full value. I think the Government can very reasonably accept this Amendment. I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the practice is that only the official list is regarded, and the prices there are not always what can be obtained in the open market. All we want to do is to secure that the stock shall pay on the cash value.
§ Mr. CLAUDE HAY
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the case to which allusion has been made was one in regard to which a misconception had arisen. I notice that in the Committee stage there was put before the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee a letter, in which it was pointed out that the action of the Commissioners in the case which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to-night was action taken directly in accordance with the instructions of the Commissioners after the passing of the Finance Bill. What I want to ask is whether any different instructions have been given to the Commissioners so that the misconception which arose then cannot recur. Perhaps no instructions whatsoever have been given, and there may be merely an understanding of an indefinite character on which the Commissioners act. If so the difficulties of which my hon. Friend has spoken might arise again.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
It was purely a mistake in interpretation, and it will not be necessary to issue any fresh instructions at all.
§ Question put, "That the word 'market' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 11; Noes, 35.1153
|Division No. 858.]||AYES.||[12.25 a.m.|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Glover, Thomas||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)|
|Agnew, George William||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Hall, Frederick||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Radford, G. H.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Richards, Thomas W. (Monmouth)|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Bennett, E. N.||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)||Robinson, S.|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Haworth, Arthur A.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Hedges, A. Paget||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Brace, William||Helme, Norval Watson||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Henry, Charles S.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Hobart, Sir Robert||Seely, Colonel|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Shackleton, David James|
|Byles, William Pollard||Hooper, A. G.||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Horniman, Emslie John||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Clough, William||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)||Illingworth, Percy H.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Summerbell, T.|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S||Keating, M.||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Lambert, George||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Lament, Norman||Toulmin, George|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Verney, F. W.|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lehmann, R. C.||Villiers, Ernest Amherst|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks., Otley)||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Walsh, Stephen|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)||Levy, Sir Maurice||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Essex, R. W.||Lupton, Arnold||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Esslemont, George Birnle||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Williamson, Sir A.|
|Evans, Sir S. T.||M'Micking, Major G.||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Marnham, F. J.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Falconer, J.||Middlebrook, William||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Ferens, T. R.||Mond, A.|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Nuttall, Harry|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)||Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Stanier, Seville|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Starkey, John R.|
|Barrie, K. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Helmsley, Viscount||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Hill, Sir Clement||Valentia, Viscount|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Walrend, Hon. Lionel|
|Cave, George||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott||Ratcliff, Major R. F.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Walter Guinness and Mr. Hills.|
|Forster, Henry William||Renwick, George|
|Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Ridsdale, E. A.|
§ Amendment made: At the end of Subsection (2) to insert the words, "Provided that where it is proved to the Commissioners that the value of the property has been depreciated by reason of the death of the deceased, the Commissioners in fixing the price shall take such depreciation into account."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
§ Mr. CAVE
The effect of this Amendment is to abolish the appeal to the Court and to substitute an appeal to the Referee. It is proposed to extend it to all cases to which the Finance Act, 1894, applied. I should like to know what are those cases?
§ Mr. HALDANE
The purport of the Amendment is to meet the deduction under the Licensing Act, 1904, of Estate Duty for the purpose of valuation.
§ Mr. CAVE
Is it intended by the Amendment to abolish the appeal to the Court under that Act? I certainly should not have expected such a thing to be done by a side wind as to alter the whole basis of the ascertainment of value. I thought there must he some mistake or that I had misread the Amendment. The matter is one of extreme seriousness, and my friends who take a special interest in these Licensing Clauses are not here. The Finance Act of 1894 gives an appeal to the Court against the ascertainment of value by Commissioners, and the Licensing Act of 1904 says, in ascertaining compensation 1155 value you are to have similar appeals as under the Act of 1894. Now it is proposed to do away with that appeal to the Court under the Act of 1894, and I do not complain of that, but it will also do away with appeal to the Court under the Compensation Act of 1904. The Secretary of State for War announced that the Amendment would do away with the appeal to the Court.
§ Mr. HALDANE
I said the purport of the Amendment was to meet the case of deduction under the Act of 1894 of the Estate Duty. There is an appeal from the Referee to the Court in all cases.
§ Mr. HALDANE
It is an appeal to the High Court from the Referee. The Licensing Act of 1904 adopted the principle of
§ Mr. CAVE moved in the proposed Amendment to leave out the word "applied" ["enacted or as applied"] and to insert instead thereof the word "amended."
§ You are not putting this in, in order to give the same right of appeal but in order to take away the existing right of appeal to the Court, and I feel very strongly about it. I strongly object to your altering the right of appeal under the Licensing Act of 1904.
§ Mr. HILLS seconded the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the word 'applied' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 102; Noes, 30.1155
|Division No. 859.]||AYES.||[12.40 a.m.|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Hall, Frederick||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Agnew, George William||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Radford, G. H.|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)||Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Haworth, Arthur A.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Hedges, A. Paget||Robinson, S|
|Bennett, E. N.||Helme, Norval Watson||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Henry, Charles S.||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Hobart, Sir Robert||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Brace, William||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Hooper, A. G.||Seely, Colonel|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Horniman, Emslie John||Shackleton, David James|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Clough, William||Illingworth, Percy H.||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Keating, Matthew||Summerbell, T.|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Lambert, George||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Lamont, Norman||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)||Lehmann, R. C.||Toulmin, George|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Verney, F. W.|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Levy, Sir Maurice||Villiers, Ernest Amherst|
|Evans, Sir S. T.||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Walsh. Stephen|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Lupton, Arnold||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Falconer, J.||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Williamson, Sir A.|
|Ferens, T. R.||Marnham, F. J.||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Middlebrook, William||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Mond, A.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John||Murray, Capt. Hon A. C. (Kincard.)|
|Glover, Thomas||Nuttall, Harry||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)||Stanier, Beville|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Valentia, Viscount|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Helmsley, Viscount||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hill, Sir Clement||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)||Lane-Fox, G. R.|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Cave and Mr. Hills.|
|Forster, Henry William||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
§ Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.