SETTLEMENT ESTATE DUTY.

HC Deb 14 May 1914 vol 62 cc1447-57

Resolution reported,

6. "That, in the case of persons dying after the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, the relief from the payment of Death Duties given in respect of settled property when Estate Duty has already been paid in respect of the property since the date of the settlement, and the similar relief given under Section twenty-one of The Finance Act, 1894, where the duties mentioned in that Sub-section have been paid or are payable and under Sub-section (16) of Section twenty-three of the same Act in the case of entailed estates in Scotland shall cease; and Settlement Estate Duty shall no longer be charged."

Resolution read a second time.

Mr. BUTCHER

I beg to move after the word "That" ["That, in the case of persons dying"] to insert the words "except where the only life interest in the property after the death of the deceased is that of the wife or husband of the deceased."

The reason I move this Amendment is in the first place that the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, embodied in the Resolution, violates what was really the fundamental principle of Sir William Harcourt's Budget of 1894. Let me read the passage in which Sir William Harcourt proposed to deal with this subject. It is felt that it would not be fair to require a full payment on each devolution"— That is in the case of settled property— within the scope of the settlement where the beneficiary takes only a limited interest and thus treat a man with only a life interest on the same footing as one who had the absolute disposal of the estate. And for that reason he made this provision, that only one Estate Duty should be paid during the continuance of the settlement, but that to compensate the Exchequer, a small additional duty, namely, a Settlement Estate Duty should be paid. That was the principle laid down by Sir William Harcourt, and I beg the House to remember this was not a matter of detail in taxation, but was laid down by Sir William Harcourt as a principle. Let the House mark how the present Chancellor of the Exchequer departs from that, and justifies that departure. He said in his Budget speech this year:— Enjoyment of property is enjoyment for life and therefore there is no real ground to distinguish between settled property and property that is not settled. Was ever such an extraordinary proposition uttered I will not say by a Chancellor of the Exchequer but by the most ignorant layman who ever took upon himself to talk about property at all. The merest tyro of finance knows that there is all the difference in the world between receiving an income from property and being entitled to take the capital, and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer says there is no real ground for distinction between settled property and property which is not settled. That is the argument by which he defends the present proposal and, as that argument is obviously unsound, his defence of the proposal falls to the ground. But that is not all, because on the strength of the principle laid down by Sir William Harcourt, and the assurance he gave that settled estates would only be subject to one Estate Duty, an enormous number of estates were settled, and many were settled which would otherwise never have been settled. What is the result of that? In the first place it was a disadvantage to the settlor who, instead of having the right to sell and dispose of his property, was tied up to a life interest and treated on that footing. Not only was this to the disadvantage of the settlors, but it was to the advantage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he got very large sums of money into the coffers of the Exchequer in the shape of Settlement Stamp Duties. Therefore, I think I am quite right in saying that owing to the principle laid down by Sir William Harcourt a large number of estates were settled to the disadvantage of the settlors and to the advantage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Let me point out two special and exceedingly hard cases which have arisen. The first is where a man leaves property to his wife for life and then to his children. Under the existing law when a settlement by a will of that character is made only one Estate Duty is payable, namely, when the husband dies who leaves the property. Not only is there only one Estate Duty payable, but no settlement Estate Duty is payable at all. The property goes to the children on the death of the wife, and there is only one Estate Duty payable on that property. What does the Chancellor of the Exchequer now do? He says that in a case of that kind he will double the Estate Duties by making the Estate Duty payable on the death of the testator, and payable again on the death of the wife, so that before the children get anything two sets of Estate Duty have to be paid. No one will say that that is reasonable, and indeed the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day indicated that he was prepared to consider that point, and I am now giving the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of carrying out his promise. Take the case of the ordinary marriage settlement, whether of money or of land, in which successive life estates are given to the husband and wife, and then subject to those life estates the property is given to the children. Under the existing law in a settlement of that sort only one Estate Duty is payable, and no Settlement Estate Duty at all. Under the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer you have first an Estate Duty payable on the death of the husband or the wife, whoever dies first, and a second Estate Duty payable on the death of the survivor of the husband or wife, so that before the children get it in that case again two sets of Estate Duty are payable. I do put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that is an exceedingly unfair thing to do. It is especially unfair where the settlement has been made before the present proposed alteration, but I say also that it is unreasonable in the case of future settlements which may be made hereafter. Therefore, the Amendment which I propose is for the purpose of preventing this alteration of the law in cases where the only life interests in the settlement are those of husband and wife. My Amendment is limited to those cases. I ask the House to say that the existing law is fair and that it remains as fair now as when Sir William Harcourt said it was reasonable and proper in 1894.

Mr. S. ROBERTS

I beg to second the Amendment.

I have not been able to understand up to now the reason the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing to make this alteration. Sir William Harcourt in the year 1894 brought in a graduated scale of Death Duties. Prior to that there was a fixed Probate Duty of three per cent. Sir William Harcourt saw, when he was graduating the Duties, that it would not be fair to treat life interest in the same way. My hon. Friend has quoted the words of Sir William Harcourt in his Budget speech. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. Since Sir William Harcourt's time the present Government have graduated the scale further, very largely in the year 1909, and again in the present Budget. Therefore, I say there is all the more reason a fortiori for preserving the privileges of the people beneficiary entitled. Further than that I say that on the grounds of public policy and justice, it is not good policy to discourage settlements, and this is a discouragement of settlements. When a man has a certain property to leave to his wife and family, and when that family consists of young children, it is not good policy to leave that property absolutely to those children. A settlement either by will or possibly by a marriage settlement is good public policy, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this provision is taking away a privilege and, to a certain extent, an inducement to a man to leave his property in that way. Whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer may decide to do, I would prefer that he should leave the Estate Duty as it is. He raised it himself from one to two per cent., and why cannot he leave it as it is?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I spoke at some length on this question of the Settlement Estate Duty, and I do not now propose to repeat my answer, but I will deal with the specific case mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher). I do not take the general view stated by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. S. Roberts). Indeed, I take a totally different view of the ordinary sort of settlement. I do not think the law should go out of its way to encourage such settlements. But that was not the point taken by the hon. and learned Member for York. His was a case where a man leaves his property to his wife for life and afterwards to the children.

Mr. BUTCHER

And where he settles it by marriage settlement.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

At any rate, where the property is left to the wife for life. If the Amendment does not mean that, I do not know what it means.

Mr. BUTCHER

It does mean that.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I propose to accept that on the understanding it docs meet the case where the property is left to the wife for life and after to the children.

Mr. BUTCHER

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that he does meet that particular case, but it was only one of the cases pointed out by me. But there is another case dealt with by the Amendment where a marriage settlement is made in which the only life interests are those of the husband and wife, and then there is a gift to the children. I think that is substantially the same case.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I agree that whereby the same disposition arranges after the decease of one or the other the property should pass to either before it passes to the children, it is a case on a totally different footing to the case put by the hon. Member for Sheffield. I agree that that is a case where the State should not put any discouragement; and if the Amendment really applies to that I will accept it. I think the Bill has been drafted in that form already.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. CASSEL

I want to point out that one consideration has been overlooked in making this provision retrospective. Life assurance companies have very largely advanced money on reversions on the footing that the Death Duties shall not be paid where the Settlement Estate Duty has been paid. Money has been advanced and purchases of reversions have been carried through on the footing that the payment of the Settlement Estate Duty had freed the reversion from the payment of Death Duties. The result is that if an extra 10 or 15 per cent. is to be taken, the capital security which otherwise was a good security would become a bad security, and the profit which would have been made on the transaction becomes a loss. No doubt these companies do take into account and ought to take into account the fact that the rates of duty may be altered. But they do not take into account, and they ought not to be called upon to take into account such a risk when the money has been advanced on the understanding that no Death Duties at all will be payable. But although the money has been advanced or paid on that footing, the subject who has paid or advanced it may find he has made an actual loss or has got a bad security. In view of the fact that there have been large transactions by insurance companies in this country on these lines, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take this point into consideration before he introduces his Finance Bill.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

That is one of the points which I am considering at the present moment.

Captain CLIVE

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the financial effect of the Resolution will be. He told us in his Budget speech that it will produce £150,000 this year and £900,000 next year. Is that the net sum it will produce? When a proposal was made that existing settlements should not be affected the right hon. Gentleman said he could not possibly do that, because he would lose not only the £900,000, but also a sum of £800,000 through the ceasing of the making of fresh settlements.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

It will be about £700,000.

Captain CLIVE

Is that taking into consideration the concession the right hon. Gentleman has just made?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Yes.

Mr. WHELER

With reference to those who have already paid this duty, in cases where it has not been possible for them to pay it in one lump sum they have been paying in instalments, will the Government repay the interest which those who could not pay the full sum at once were charged by the Government?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I should not like to answer off-hand, but I will look into the matter and let the hon. Gentleman know.

12.0 M.

Mr. RADFORD

My anxiety has been greatly relieved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's acceptance of the Amendment, but I still have one remaining anxiety which I hope he will be able to remove. We are dealing with Settlement Estate Duty which was imposed by the Act of 1894 and increased by the right hon. Gentleman's later Act. Since 1894 a great many settlements have been executed on the faith of the text of the Act of 1894, which is still in force. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not do anything in the nature of ex post facto legislation. Sir William Harcourt said that Settlement Estate Duty was imposed for the purpose of freeing property comprised in the settlement during the whole period of the lives comprised in the settlement, and Sir William Harcourt stated that no further Settlement Estate Duty would be payable during the currency of the settlement. The matter does not rest merely on the words of Sir William Harcourt; it is embodied in the Act of Parliament, and the Finance Act, 1894, says in express terms that during the continuance of the settlement Settlement Estate Duty shall not be payable more than once. It seems to me that if we are going to say, now, notwithstanding the fact that Settlement Estate Duty has been paid and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got the money in his pocket, that he will exact Estate Duty again and again as the successive lives fall in, he is doing something which is open to grave objection. I hope that is not the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope that his real meaning is that this abolition of the Settlement Estate Duty and the imposition in its place of Estate Duty, from generation to generation, as it accrues, is only intended to apply to wills and settlements which come into operation after the commencement of this Act. If that is not his intention, at any rate there surely is an injustice in exacting from a man two per cent. on the representation that the next succession to his estate will be free of duty and then passing an Act and saying to that man, who has paid his money which the State has acquired, that notwithstanding the assurance contained in the Act of Parliament, we are going to demand money of him again.

The least the Chancellor of the Exchequer could do, if he intends to apply this Act to settlements which were made before the Act comes into operation, is to give credit to a man who has paid Settlement Estate Duty for the amount which he has paid against the next payment of Estate Duty. In the Finance Act of 1894, Sir William Harcourt had a somewhat similar proposition to deal with, because in that case, where he first imposed Settlement Estate Duty, he had to deal with what he recognised as the legitimate grievance of persons who had already settled their property and paid ad valorem duty in respect of those settlements. The Act of 1894 provided that where a man, in consequence of the provisions of that Act, was called upon to pay Estate Duty he might take credit on account of that payment for the amount previously paid by way of ad valorem duty on a settlement. I hope we may receive some assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to this, or at any rate, that he will give what attention is due to the considerations I have laid before him.

Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS

The Amendment that my hon. and learned Friend has proposed and which I understand is accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has cut down very largely the effect of this Clause. But even if one case

remains within it, I would appeal to the Chancellor not to commit a breach of faith in keeping in even that one case. The taxpayer has paid to the Government two per cent. on the faith of words which are in the Statute, that, during the continuance of the settlement. Settlement Estate Duty shall not be payable more than once. After having received the two per cent. in consideration of the contract, the Government is going to alter the contract. That seems to me to be a gross breach of faith and even if it only affects half-a-dozen cases—it would affect a great many more—the Government ought to be ashamed to take money under these conditions.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, as amended."

The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 134.

Division No. 107.]	AYES.	[12.5 a.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Lardner, James C. R.
Adamson, William	Essex, Sir Richard Walter	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)	Falconer, James	Levy, Sir Maurice
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Farrell, James Patrick	Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert
Arnold, Sydney	Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles	Lundon, Thomas
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Ffrench, Peter	Lynch, Arthur Alfred
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)	Field, William	Macdanold, J. Ramsay (Leicester)
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Flavin, Michaei Joseph	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)	Gelder, Sir W. A.	Maclean, Donald
Bentham, G. J.	George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Gill, A. H.	MacNeil, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)
Black, Arthur W.	Gladstone, W. G. C.	Macpherson, James Ian
Boland, John Plus	Glanvilie, Harold James	MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Booth, Frederick Handel	Goldstone, Frank	M'Ghee, Richard
Bowerman, Charles W.	Greig, Colonel J. W.	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Griffith, Ellis Jones	M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	Marshall, Arthur Harold
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Gulland, John William	Meagher, Michael
Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Hackett, John	Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)
Bytes, Sir William Pollard	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)	Millar, James Duncan
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Molloy, Michael
Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)	Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Chancellor, Henry George	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Hayden, John Patrick	Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Clancy, John Joseph	Hayward, Evan	Mooney, Joseph J.
Clough, William	Hazleton Richard	Morgan, George Hay
Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)	Helme, Sir Norval Watson	Muldoon, John
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Henry, Sir Charles	Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)	Murphy, Martin J.
Cotton, William Francis	Higham, John Sharp	Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.
Crumley, Patrick	Hinds, John	Nolan, Joseph
Cullinan, John	Hodge, John	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)	Hogge, James Myles	Nuttall, Harry
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)	Hughes, Spencer Leigh	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	John, Edward Thomas	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)	O'Doherty, Philip
Dawes, James Arthur	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	O'Donnell, Thomas
Delany, William	Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)	O'Dowd, John
Devlin, Joseph	Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Dillon, John	Jones, William S. Glyn-(Stepney)	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Donelan, Captain A.	Jowett, F. W.	O'Malley, William
Doris, William	Joyce, Michael	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Duffy, William J.	Kelly, Edward	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Kenyon, Barnet	O'Shee, James John
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)	Kilbride, Denis	O'Sullivan, Timothy
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	King, Joseph	Outhwaite, R. L.
Elverston, Sir Harold	Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)	Parker, James (Halifax)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Parry, Thomas H.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Robinson, Sidney	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Pratt, J. W.	Roche, Augustine (Louth)	Watt, Henry A.
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Rowlands, James	Webb, H.
Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Primrose, Hon. Neil James	Scanlan, Thomas	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Pringle, William M. R.	Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.	Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Radford, George Heynes	Sheehy, David	Wilkie, Alexander
Raffan, Peter Wilson	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook	Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)
Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)	Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)	Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Reddy, Michael	Sutherland, John E.	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Redmond, William (Clare, E.)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Wing, Thomas Edward
Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)	Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)	Yeo, Alfred William
Rendall, Athelstan	Tennant, Harold John	Young, William (Perthshire, East)
Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)	Toulmin, Sir George
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Roberts, George H. (Norwich)	Verney, Sir Harry	Wm. Jones and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.
Roberts, Sir H. (Denbighs)	Walton, Sir Joseph
NOES.
Agnew, Sir George	Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.	Paget, Almeric Hugh
Amery, L. C. M. S.	Foster, Philip Staveley	Parkes, Ebenezer
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.	Gibbs, G. A.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Ashley, Wilfrid W.	Gilmour, Captain John	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Baird, John Lawrence	Glazebrook Captain Philip K.	Perkins, Walter F.
Baker, Sir Randolf (Dorset, N.)	Goldman, C. S.	Pirie, Duncan V.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Greene, Walter Raymond	Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)	Gretton, John	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Barnston, Harry	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)	Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Barrie, H. T.	Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Rawson, Colonel R. H.
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	Rees, Sir J. D.
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altringham)	Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence	Sanders, Robert Arthur
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)	Harris, Henry Percy	Sandys, G. J.
Bird, Alfred	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Boyton, James	Helmsley, Viscount	Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.
Bridgeman, William Clive	Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Bryce, J. Annan	Hill-Wood, Samuel	Spear, Sir John Ward
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Stanier, Beville
Butcher, John George	Holt, Richard Durning	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Campion, W. R.	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Starkey, John R.
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)	Talbot, Lord Edmund
Cassel, Felix	Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)	Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Horner, Andrew Long	Thynne, Lord Alexander
Cautley, H. S.	Hunt, Rowland	Touche, George Alexander
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)	Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)	Tryon, Captain George Clement
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.	Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr	Valentia, Viscount
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender	Kerry, Earl of	Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Watson, Hon. W.
Clyde, J. Avon	Kyffin-Taylor, G.	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)
Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole	Larmor, Sir J.	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Cory, Sir Clifford John	Lewisham, Viscount	Wills, Sir Gilbert
Courthope, George Loyd	Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)	Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)
Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)	Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull. W.)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.	Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian	Mackinder, H. J.	Wilson, Maj. Sir M. (Bethnal Green. S. W.)
Currie, George W.	Mason, James F. (Windsor)	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Dalrymple, Viscount	Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)	Worthington Evans, L.
De Forest, Baron	Mount, William Arthur	Yate, Colonel Charles Edward
Denison-Pender, J. C.	Neville, Reginald J. N.	Younger, Sir George
Dixon, C. H.	Newdegate, F. A.
Duke, Henry Edward	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)	Samuel Roberts and Mr. Wheler.
Faber, George Denison (Clapham)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Montagu.