§ (1) Any Legacy or Succession Duty which under the Stamp Act, 1815, or the Succession Duty Act, 1853, or any other Act, is payable at the rate of three percent, shall be payable at the rate of five per cent., and any Legacy or Succession Duty which under the said Acts is payable at the rate of five per cent. or six per cent. shall be payable at the rate of ten per cent. on the amount of value of the legacy or succession.
§ (2) The Legacy and Succession Duty payable at the rate of one per cent. on the amount or value of any legacy or succession under the Stamp Act, 1815, and the Succession Duty Act, 1853, or any other Act, shall be levied and paid notwith 1890 standing any repeal effected by or anything contained in the principal Act or any other Act, and the duty shall also be levied and paid in cases where the person taking the legacy or succession is the husband or wife of the testator, intestate, or predecessor, as in cases where the person taking the legacy or succession is a lineal ancestor or descendant of the testator, intestate, or predecessor:
§ Provided that the duty shall not be levied—
- (a) Where the principal value of the property passing on the death of the deceased and chargeable with Estate Duty (other than property in which the deceased never had an interest) does not exceed fifteen thousand pounds, whatever may be the value of the legacy or succession; or
- (b) Where the amount or value of the legacy or succession, together with any other legacies or successions derived by the same person from the testator, intestate, or predecessor does not exceed one thousand pounds, whatever may be the principal value of the property so passing and chargeable; or
- (c) Where the person taking the legacy or succession is the widow or a child under the age of twenty-one years of the testator, intestate or predecessor, and the amount or value of the legacy or succession, together with any other legacies or successions derived by the same person from the testator, intestate, or predecessor does not exceed two thousand pounds, whatever may be the principal value of the property so passing and chargeable.
§ (3) In this Section, the expression "deceased" means in the case of a legacy the testator (including a person making a donation mortis causa) or intestate, and in the case of a succession arising through devolution by law, the person on whose death the succession arises, and in the case of a succession arising under a disposition, the person1 on whose death the first succession thereunder arises; and the expression "legacy" includes residue and share of residue.
§ (4) This Section shall 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 thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, and in the case of a succession 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.
§ Mr. G. A. GIBBSmoved, in Sub-section (1). to leave out the words "Any Legacy or Succession Duty which under the Stamp Act, 1815, or the Succession Duty Act, 1853, or any other Act, is payable at the rate of three per cent., shall be payable at the rate of five per cent."
This proposal of the Government is to raise the sum paid by a brother, or sister, or children to 5 per cent. Suppose a man had a large family of sons, and he either made or succeeded to a fortune. At his death he leaves it to his eldest son, and 1892 the largest portion would have to pay 1 per cent. If the eldest son dies, at the present moment the second son would pay 3 per cent. You propose to raise that to 5 per cent. It seems to me that when the relationship is as close as this, it is very hard that the second son should have to pay more than his eldest brother did when he succeeded his father. The rate in. this sort of case ought to be as low as possible. After all, the brother is in direct succession, and there is a very great difference between him and a cousin. There is, as the Committee will see, no question here of him only having a remote chance of succeeding, or of the property coming to him when he does not expect it. The eldest brother may be an invalid, who can. never marry, and it may be only a question of time when he will die. It may be uncertain also whether he predeceases his father or not. If he does not he might very likely only live a short time afterwards, but if he should survive his father for a short period his unfortunate brother will have to pay 5 per cent. It seems to me, therefore, that by this Clause you are penalising families who by reason of their state of health are less able than others to keep up the family fortunes. For many reasons I think this is a case where the rate should certainly be left at 3 per cent.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEOf course, the hon. Gentleman has a perfect right to challenge this alteration specifically now we have come to it in the Bill, but I may point out that we considered this as part of the whole proposals when we had our very exhaustive discussion on these duties earlier in the sitting. I do not think, and I believe the Committee will agree with me, that the case put by the hon. Gentleman is really a harsh one. Take the case of a bequest by a father, first to-one son and then to a second son. In that case the relationship refers not to the brother, but back to the predecessor in the title. The suggestion put forward by the hon. Member (Mr. Gibbs) was that instead of paying 3 per cent. he would pay 5 per cent.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThe point was not that at all. The case my hon. Friend put was one where a father left the property to one son, and that son passed it on to the other son.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe case put was that of a brother who was an invalid and would not last long. Let us, however, 1893 take this case which I will put to the Committee. The predecessor in title leaves the whole of the property to one brother. There is no immediate anticipation that the second brother will ever come into the property, and no arrangements have been made of any sort or kind. The hon. Member says, "Here comes the second brother, the unfortunate brother." This unfortunate brother had no right to expect it, he did not expect it, his parent had never thought that he would get it—this unfortunate brother comes to be owner of the property. What happens? Supposing it is a property of £100,000. It is given first of all to the first brother entirely. The first brother meets with an accident and is without any issue. Then comes the second brother and—poor, wretched creature—he inherits £100,000. This unfortunate brother has got to pay 5 per cent. But the unfortunate brother receives 95 per cent. That is the extent of his misfortune—he gets £95,000 which he never expected. Of this £100,000 he gets £95,000. At the present moment he would pay £3,000. Under this Bill he would contribute another £2,000 to the needs of the State for the £95,000 which he gets. I do not think the hon. Member, made out a very good case in this particular. I do not think it is a hardship in the slightest degree, and I do not think the individual who gets such a sum of money is very much to be commiserated with.
§ 2.0 A.M.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI really think that method of argument has been used too much, and it is not argument worthy of the House of Commons at all. Where a property is handed on from brother to brother 5 per cent. every time is an extremely heavy duty when added to the Estate Duty already imposed. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the other side of the case in regard to a settlement? I mean the case where a man leaves a property to his brother, settled with remainder to his brother's son and remainder to the latter's unborn children. Has he considered the fact that the 5 per cent. duty, and in a further part of the Clause the 10 per cent. duty in another relationship, would be payable on every one of those deaths, three or four times over in the one settlement, although the son succeeded the father and the grandfather? You have there the case of a man who leaves a property to his brother. The brother pays 5 per cent. The brother's son succeeds him, and he pays 1894 5 per cent. His son succeeds him, and he has again got to pay 5 per cent. I think that suits hon Gentleman below the Gangway, but the fact of their cheering it should certainly not commend it to the right hon. Gentleman. If those are the principles upon which these duties are to be increased and are to be imposed, of course we understand them, and the country will understand them. If that is to be the issue we are perfectly prepared for it. That it is a crime to own property, that the owner of property is to be harried and penalised—that is what it comes to when these duties are accumulated to such a point. An unfortunate individual, who happens to fall under the high scale of both duties, although he may succeed his own father, being a man who has been brought up on a landed property, and his grandfather before him, and perhaps hardly knows that his grandfather's brother was the original settlor—that man is saddled with an extra duty over and above the duty which is already imposed, and which is heavy enough, and in addition to the Estate Duty. I say that the existing 3 per cent. duty in a case of brother succeeding, or of several brothers succeeding, is amply sufficient when taken with the great increase of the Estate Duty which we have already been discussing. You are destroying the value of a settlement in this way. You have just accepted a further duty of 2 per cent. on a settlement. We have had arguments used time and again from the other side of the House that property put into settlement is escaping duty, that you are not getting an equivalent for the escape of duty. Here you have a proposal which is going to render the lives in that settlement, every life in that settlement, liable to a duty which cannot be escaped because Succession Duty falls on succession. All I can say is, looking at this change, not only that there will be very little advantage in putting property into settlement at all, but the advantage of putting property into settlement will be almost entirely destroyed. Is that the object of the right hon. Gentleman? Here we have it from below the Gangway that their object is to destroy settlement; that, I take it, is the meaning of the cheers. If they do not mean that, what do they mean? They must mean that and can mean nothing else. If the object is to destroy settlement I can understand the duty, only let the right hon. Gentleman 1895 say so and not pretend that this duty is a reasonable duty, because it is not a reasonable duty. It is a very unfair increase, and I for one desire most earnestly to protest against it.
§ Mr. CAVEmoved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "and any Legacy or Succession Duty which, under the said Acts, is payable at the rate of five per cent.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'five' ["five per cent."], stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 52.
1895| Division No. 646.] | AYES. | [1.50 a.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Agnew, George William | Helme, Norval Watson | Radford, G. H. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Higham, John Sharp | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Holt, Richard Dunning | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Hooper, A. G. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Herniman, Emslie John | Robinson, S. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Brace, William | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh) | Lambert, George | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Lamont, Norman | Seely, Colonel |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Levy, Sir Maurice | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Byles, William Pollard | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Lupton, Arnold | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Clough, William | Maclean, Donald | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Clynes, J. R. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Summerbell, T. |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Maddison, Frederick | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Mallet, Charles E. | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Marnham, F. J. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Massie, J. | Verney, F. W. |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Erskine, David C. | Middlebrook, William | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Essex, R. W | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Esslemont, George Birnle | Morrell, Philip | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Morse, L. L. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Nuttall, Harry | Wiles, Thomas |
| Fullerton, Hugh | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Glover, Thomas | Parker, James (Halifax) | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Partington, Oswald | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) | Winfrey, R. |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Pointer, J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Faber, George Denison (York) | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Forster, Henry William | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Foster, P. S. | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gordon, J. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds.) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicke | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Stanier, Beville |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hill, Sir Clement | Starkey, John R. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hills, J. W. | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cave, George | Hunt, Rowland | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Joynson-Hicks, William | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Craig, Charles Curtls (Antrim, S.) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Moore, William | G. A. Gibbs and Lord Ronaldshay. |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morpeth, Viscount |
§ or six per cent. shall be payable at the rate of ten per cent. on."
§ This is the second branch of the Subsection which raises the Legacy or Succes- 1897 sion Duty on bequests to cousins and certain other relatives from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. In other words, it puts an uncle or a cousin on the same footing as a stranger. I take the view that property ought to be left to relatives in a proper case, and that where a cousin, for instance, is the nearest relative, as may often happen, he is the proper person to succeed to the property, and the law has always recognised that the property should be left to relatives rather than to strangers. For that reason the duty hitherto has been put at 5 per cent. in the case of a cousin, at 6 per cent. in the case of a cousin further removed, and at 10 per cent. in the case of a stranger. This Clause puts all on the same footing. Blood is thicker than water, and we all recognise it. It is a mistake to put everyone on the same footing as a stranger. For this reason I propose this Amendment, and although I do not discuss it at length, I think we ought to make our protest.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI will not suggest that a cousin is not a proper person to whom to leave property. That is not the question at all. The question is whether it is fair where a cousin comes into property he should make this contribution to the State. I can well understand that a stranger may have a better claim than a cousin upon the bounty of the owner of property. A cousin, after all, is not like a lineal descendant with a certain claim upon the estate, perhaps no claim except that of a remote kinship. In many a case a stranger may have a much more considerable claim—the claim of a close, intimate friendship—and I do not think it is at all unfair in cases of this kind that the contribution which has been exacted up to the present from these relatives should be doubled when the State is in need of money. That is the ground on which we decided to raise this contribution.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI really do not think that the right hon. Gentleman, if he gives a little consideration, would say, especially in the case of settled property, that where a family has for many generations held property, and a generation or two is skipped and the property comes to a first cousin, that it is not a comparatively near relationship. What happens in such a case? A property has passed from generation to generation in the same family, and has always been entailed upon the same name, and it happens on one occasion that it goes in the ordinary course of succession to a first cousin of the 1898 last owner. The latter settles the property naturally in the ordinary course of events on his first cousin of the same name, and he becomes the head of the family. He takes the property, and is succeeded again by his son and by his grandson. But what follows? There would be three 10 per cent. duties to pay on that landed property—duty to pay on the succession of each of these men; 10 per. cent, to pay on each life interest. [Hon. MEMBERS: "NO no."] Well, if I am wrong, I shall be glad to hear so from the right hon. Gentleman. I take the family property of a man who was last in the settlement. The property has come to him in the ordinary way with full power of disposal. That property is naturally passed on by him, as in duty bound, to "the next head of the family, who happens to be his first cousin; he settles it upon him with remainder to his children and to their unborn children. That property on the settlor will pay 10 per cent. It will again pay 10 per cent. on his successor succeeding, and again 10 per cent. when his grandson succeeds. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that, on their relationship to the original settler?
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYThree times in a century.
§ Mr. PRETYMANNo; it may be in very much less time than a century. The cousin may be a middle-aged man or past middle age. His son succeeds him, and his son succeeds him. That does not take a century; only 40 years, perhaps. I say that that is an enormous duty to impose upon the head of a family succeeding as first cousin, and I think there should be some differentiation in a case of that kind compared with a case in which the person succeeding is a complete stranger in blood. I admit there are often ties of kindness and familiarity which will justify a man leaving a legacy to a person who is a stranger in blood rather than to a man who is his first cousin. But the right hon. Gentleman must not confine himself to that particular case. I do put it to him that there is ground for special consideration in the case of landed property descending in the way I have described. As the Government propose to legislate, real hardship and real injustice is involved.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson)I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been misinformed as to the effect of the duty. It is a mistake to say that in the case of Legacy Duty—
§ Mr. PRETYMANNot Legacy Duty.
§ Sir W. ROBSONOr Succession Duty that there is no provision made by statute for the succession of interests in the way the hon. Member has described analogous to the 2 per cent. Settlement Estate Duty. Under the original Legacy Duty Act of 1796, which was incorporated in other statutes, it was set forth that where a legacy is given to persons in succession, liable to the same rate, then the duty is to be paid once for all on the capital, and that franks all others in the same interest. The provision is incorporated for the purpose of Succession Duty in Section 32 of the Act of 1853. That covers the case of personalty. Now as to the case of realty.
§ Every successor there pays on the actuarial value of his life interest.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI said so.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that he pays on the whole estate on the termination of the life interest. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] That probably was a misapprehension on my part and on the part of the House. But what I have pointed to will greatly lessen the hardship which the hon. and gallant Member has described.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 48.
1901| Division No. 647.] | AYES. | [2.10 a.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Helme, Norval Watson | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Agnew, George William | Higham, John Sharp | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Holt, Richard Durning | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Hooper, A. G. | Robinson, S. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Horniman, Emslie John | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Beauchamp, E. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Black, Arthur W. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Brace, William | Lambert, George | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Lamont, Norman | Seely, Colonel |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Lupton, Arnold | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Maclean, Donald | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Clough, William | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Summerbell, T. |
| Clynes, J. R. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Maddison, Frederick | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Marnham, F. J. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Massie, J. | Verney, F. W. |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Masterman, C. F. G. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Middlebrook, William | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Erskine, David C. | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Essex, R. W. | Morrell, Philip | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Morse, L. L. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Nuttall, Harry | Wiles, Thomas |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Parker, James (Halifax) | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Glover, Thomas | Partington, Oswald | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Winfrey, R. |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Pointer, J. | |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Radford, G. H. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Courthope, G. Loyd | Hay, Hon. Claude George |
| Balcarres, Lord | Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Hill, Sir Clement |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Hills, J. W. |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Dalrymple, Viscount | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Barrle, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Hunt, Rowland |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Forster, Henry William | Joynson-Hicks, William |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Foster, P. S. | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Gordon, J. | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds) | Moore, William |
| Morpeth, Viscount | Salter, Arthur Clavell | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Stanier, Beville | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Pretyman, E. G. | Starkey, John R. | |
| Roberts S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Ronaldshay, Earl of | Valentia, Viscount | Cave and Mr. Bridgeman. |
Mr. G. D. FABERmoved in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "levied and paid notwithstanding any repeal effected by or anything contained in the principal Act or any other Act, and the duty shall also be levied."
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGENow that we have got to Sub-section (2) I move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday).
§ Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 20th August, adjourned the House without Question put.
§ Adjourned at Twenty minutes sifter Two a.m. (Tuesday, 14th September).