rose and said that he was desirous of moving sundry Amendments.

^* : The hon. Member is out of Order. This Bill has already been read a third time. The Bill now before the House is the Newcastle and Gateshead Water Bill.

rose to move the following Notice:—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to deal with the appointment, control, and dismissal of district surveyors, fees and salaries of district surveyors, and generally the powers and duties of district surveyors, and any Amendments thereon submitted to the Committee."

He noticed that the Chairman of the Committee on the Bill had just come into the House. He (Sir C. Dilke) was not responsible for the exact terms of the Amendment, and he must say that for his own part he should not have imagined that there was any Instruction necessary. He supposed that his object could be accomplished without any Instruction.

^* said, he understood that this Instruction was moved because he had ruled certain Amendments out of Order. He did not think, however, that this Motion would enable them to deal with the question which they desired to raise. It seemed to him that any matter of the sort would be entirely without the scope of the Instruction.

I understand that the Chairman of the Committee stated that there was nothing in the Notice governing the case of district surveyors.

said, he could not consent to be held too closely to the shorthand note of what he said; he could only be held to the actual decision he gave on the Amendment, the effect of which was that it would be to practically merge and abolish the office of district surveyor.

^* : Then I am to understand that that Amendment, which is an arrangement between the promoters of the other Amendment and the County Council, will be in Order?

The Instruction is couched in rather unusual language, and I am scarcely able to appreciate its full scope and meaning; but if it is intended to empower the Committee to deal with the appointment, control, and dismissal of district surveyors, the Committee has that power already, and has determined to deal with the question. Therefore, the Instruction will be unnecessary, and it is out of Order on that ground.

^* : As I have already said, I am not responsible for the form in which the Instruction is put on the Paper; but I am glad to hear what the Speaker has said, because it shows that the object I have in view has been accomplished without moving the Instruction Under those circumstances, I am glad to be ruled out of Order, and will not proceed further in the matter.

said, that on Friday night the hon. Member for the Kingston Division of Surrey inquired as to the effect of Clause 16 on grants from Imperial funds towards local taxation. So far as the amount of the grant was concerned, no doubt it would be the same in the future. But the point was as to from what fund the subventions were to be paid in the future, for it made all the difference whether they were to be paid by personalty or by realty. If any portion came from realty it would practically be no subvention from Imperial funds. What had been the history of these grants from Imperial funds in aid of local taxation? The grants were originally made because local rates were levied on realty; it was on that account the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the year 1888, gave one-half the proceeds of Probate Duty: in relief, of local taxation as a subvention; to be paid by personalty. Thus for all Imperial purposes one-half the Probate Duty disappeared from Imperial taxation, and it was evidently the intention of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer that these subventions from Imperial funds in aid of local taxation should be paid by personalty. But the late Chancellor of the Exchequer went further, and said that by the increase of Succession Duty equal taxes would be levied on all kinds of property for Imperial purposes, and that the contribution from Probate Duty would be an additional tax upon personalty with the sole object of relieving local taxation. Personalty and realty were intended by the right hon. Gentleman to contribute in equal and fair proportion towards Imperial purposes, and an additional £1,000,000 raised on personalty in order to provide the subvention in aid of local taxation. But under the Bill personalty, instead of paying £1,000,000, would only pay £750,000, so that realty would be contributing £250,000. Previously personalty paid the whole £1,000,000. To this extent, therefore, personalty was eased. Surely that was not the intention of the right hon. Gentleman? Personalty ought to continue to pay as much in the future as it had in the past, and they ought not now to propose simply to relieve realty at its own expense, and to let personalty off to the extent of £250,000.

said, he did not think, the clause was open to the objection raised by the hon. Member. He could best illustrate the case by suggesting that there were three contributory streams which ultimately became one stream. They took from the main stream the same amount as at present was obtained from the contributory, or in other words the probate stream, and he thought they had acted for the best.

said, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had accurately followed out his simile. The Government had not taken from the main stream, but were drawing from a private brook belonging exclusively; to the millowner—or the owner of realty. The fact was, that in the future the grants in aid of local taxation which had hitherto been paid by personalty alone would under this clause have to be contributed to by realty.

^* thought the complaints of the hon. Member for Preston were perfectly well founded, and that real property would gradually acquire a burden from which it was free at the present time. Could not the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer make it clear by the Bill that these grants in aid of local taxation should in the future as in the past be deemed to be paid out of funds contributed by personalty?

, while holding that these grants were dangerous in principle and led to extravagance in local administration, agreed with the hon. Member for Preston that they were running the risk under this clause of converting into a mixed fund money which had hitherto been contributed by one class of property alone.

said, the point really was whether justice was being done to the land and real property in this matter? He greatly feared that the illustration given by the right hon. Gentleman as to different streams was one which really darkened counsel, and misled the judgment. There might have been some force in the metaphor if the stream had not already belonged to the recipient of the fund. It had been proved by his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) that, supposing the amount received by the landed interest was £1,000,000, under the arrangement made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) the subvention would be now reduced to £750,000. Therefore, the subvention was being reduced to the extent of £250,000, and, pro tanto , one more burden was being placed upon the already overburdened interest of real property. To this extent real property was being subjected to an additional tax.

said, he wished to state very shortly his objection to the clause. As he understood the grant of the Probate Duty in aid of local taxation, it was a grant of an additional tax after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fairly distributed the Imperial taxes between realty and personalty. He (Mr. Hanbury) would assume that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to-day doing exactly the same thing as the late Chancellor had done. The right hon. Gentleman had, according to his view, apportioned the Imperial taxes fairly between realty and personalty, but he had levied a tax which was to go in aid of local taxation, and, instead of levying the tax upon personalty alone, he was levying it upon a fund which was contributed to in certain proportions by realty and personalty alike.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 17.

moved to leave out the words "a deceased" before "person" in line 28, and to insert the word "any." He said, "the death of a deceased person" appeared to be a very strange phrase. He did not believe that the Bill was intended to apply to what theologians called the second death. He thought what was meant was the death not of a dead person, but of a living person. The Amendment was intended to prevent rather an outrage upon the English language.

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 28, to leave out the words "a deceased," and insert the word "any."—( Mr. Grant Lawson .)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

It seems to me that the Amendment is unnecessary.

said, the language used in the clause was somewhat tautological, and was certainly bad English as it stood.

Question put, and agreed to.

^* moved to insert, after "respect" in line 28, the words "of any property bequeated as a free gift to the Nation, or in respect." He said, he thought this proposal supplied an omission in the Bill, and he trusted the Government would accept it. As the measure now stood, anyone leaving, a picture to the National Gallery of the value of £10,000 must provide for the payment of the graduated Death Duty, which might amount to a maximum of £800. This was likely to discourage anyone likely to make a bequest. There might be an extreme case; of a man who enjoyed an income which would terminate with his life employing all his surplus funds in collecting works of art to leave as a complete collection to the nation. Unless some such Amendment as this were adopted the nation would lose a bequest made by such a man because there would be no funds wherewith to pay the Death Duties. This would be worse than looking a gift horse in the mouth. It would be taking the gift horse and insisting that the donor should also make a present of the saddle or bridle. The Government had waived the Probate Duty on two or three bequests on former occasions, and it would be well to make the exemption general.

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 28, after the word "respect," to insert the words "of any property bequeathed as a free gift to the Nation, or in respect."—( Sir S. Montagu .)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

I thoroughly accept the principle of this Amendment. In point of fact, I had considered this matter with Mr. Tate in connection with his magnificent gifts to the country. He requested that it should be arranged that no Death Duties should be charged on his pictures. My hon. Friend is quite right in saying that there have been previous instances in which the duty has been waived. There was the case of Mr. Wynne Ellis, who died in 1875 and bequeathed to the National Gallery a number of pictures. Then there was the case of Mr. Henderson, who died in 1878 and left various curiosities to the British Museum and a collection of water colours to the National Gallery. In these cases the duty was paid, but was returned. There was also the case of Mr. Octavius Morgan in 1878. I would, however, suggest to my hon. Friend that this is not exactly the place in which to insert this provision. It should come earlier in the Bill. We will take care that it shall be put in. The Amendment will need some little alteration also. It must be made to relate not to property bequeathed, but to property accepted by the nation. Sometimes people have a higher idea of the value of their works of art than is entertained by others.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the case of bequests to local Museums? The principle is to a certain extent the same as in the case of bequests to the nation.

was understood to say that he would consider that case.

I would suggest that bequests to Municipalities should be exempted in the same way.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept that suggestion. I do not see why Municipalities should be benefited at the expense of the taxpayers.

said, he hoped that Members would not impose too much upon the good nature of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He could quite understand the reason why the nation should not exact the duty in the case of a gift to itself, but to say that Local Bodies to which sums of money were left should have their gifts exempted from taxation appeared to him to be going too far. He was afraid that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopted the suggestions of the right hon. Members for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and Ormskirk (Mr. Forwood), he would be tempted to go still further, and it would be urged that no money left to a charity of any sort or kind should be subjected to taxation.

I am sorry to say that I think that is so now.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was in error over that point.

The right hon. Gentleman will remember the great contest with my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) when he endeavoured to tax charities.

said, that was in respect of income. If his recollection served him aright, he thought that, as far as Legacy Duty was concerned, charities had not only to pay at the same rate as ordinary persons who inherited property, but were placed under the extreme scale of 10 per cent., which was the highest known to the law. He would warn the Chancellor if the Exchequer that unless he adopted a firm attitude on this question he would find the appeals which were made to him would be carried to a dangerous extent.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take a wider view of the question than one of pounds, shillings, and pence. The principle which ought to be adopted was that bequests for public purposes should be encouraged. What, after all, was the distinction between a bequest to a Municipality and one to the nation? Gifts to a Municipality were really gifts to the whole nation. He thought that, so far from restricting the principle of recognising gifts for public purposes, it ought to be applied to the cases of Municipalities and County Councils, which were representatives of the community.

said that, after what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would withdraw the Amendment.

^* said, he entirely dissented from the doctrine of remission of taxation for any of the objects mentioned. Such a doctrine he regarded as a very dangerous one. If a man wanted his pictures to go to the nation and did not wish to pay duty upon the gifts, he could easily give them during his lifetime. If gifts of pictures and works of art were to be exempted from the duty, why should not also public parks when given to a particular district be exempted?

I entirely agree with what has been so well said by the hon. Baronet who has just sat down, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will leave this matter in its present condition.

I entirely disagree with what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) and the hon. Gentleman who preceded him. I must warn the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if there were any attempt to grant a special exemption in the case of property left to the nation while refusing to grant it to property left to Municipalities, the representatives of Municipalities on both sides of this House would have a great deal to say to it. I think the principle is exactly the same in either of these two cases. It is really no good saying that the remedy is that these gifts should be made during the lifetime of the giver. It is not the person whom we want to punish; we are really punishing ourselves. Is it better that the nation should remit one-tenth of the value of the property or lose the property altogether? The point is that we want to tempt and induce and stimulate people to make these gifts to the representatives of the community, and if they are prevented from making them by the severity with which they are treated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that would not be an economical proceeding for the nation to adopt. I think the right hon. Gentleman should at least be aware that on that point there is a very strong feeling indeed, and 1 am sure that he will get into difficulty at a later stage if the concession he has so gracefully made should not be extended to the representatives of the Municipalities.

said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the same measure ought to be meted out to Municipalities as was meted out to the nation itself. In fact, he agreed with those who held the doctrine that all property ought to be equally dealt with. He did not hesitate to say that, in too many instances, these bequests to public objects had not been due to feelings which would receive the greatest amount of sympathy from the public. He remembered the late Prime Minister once saying that the great mass of these bequests were made out of spite, and, for his own part, he could not refrain from cordially agreeing with him.

Some bequests are made from motives of ostentation.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer very properly added "and for motives of ostentation." The late Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had very happily hit off the exact state of affairs. The man who left his money in the ordinary natural course to those who might legitimately look forward to succeeding him at his death should not be treated differently to the man who left his money to some public or quasi -public purpose—it might be, for the purpose of punishing his relatives. If the Metropolis were to be treated exceptionally in the matter of national objects jealousy would arise. Difficulty would, arise unless they stuck to the one rule, that all property should be treated alike.

said, the view of the right hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. J. Lowther) was a sound one. The proposal was made that property left to the nation should be exempt from taxation. That was objected to on the ground that such property would generally be in London. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) said that if they made this exemption in the case of property given to the nation they should do exactly the same thing in the case of property presented to the Municipalities. But they would not be able to stop there. Why should not the villages surrounding Birmingham also have this exemption? If exemption were given it should be applicable in all cases.

said, it was very refreshing to hear gentlemen speaking in defence of the Revenue. That was a state of things to which, so far, be had not been accustomed during the progress of the Bill. But there was great divergence of opinion between hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House—such a divergence that they might almost leave the artillerymen to fire their cannon into one another's mouths. He admitted that there would be danger in the extension of the principle of exemption in reference to gifts to national collections, and he would consider how far they should impose a limit. It was said of a great nation of old that it was distinguished for the magnificence of its public buildings and the modesty of its private houses. In that spirit they should deal with gifts made for the use of the public.

^* , said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would continue in a yielding mood and listen to the suggestions made from various quarters of the House. These gifts to the public were of the greatest value. In the borough which he represented there was a Free Library which had been furnished on bequest with books to the value of £20,000, to the great benefit of Wigan and the surrounding districts of Lancashire. He protested against the assertion that these gifts were made from motives of ostentation. He did not say that there was no case where that element came in, but he did say that in the main these gifts arose from a desire to serve the community. The community ought to be grateful, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to encourage such gifts in every way.

^* said, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or, in his absence, the Solicitor General, that the principle of exemptions of this kind already existed. All books, prints, pictures, statues, gems, coins, medals, specimens of natural history, and all other articles of the kind given to any Body Corporate or Society or endowed school, to be kept and preserved, were already exempt under the Legacy Duty Act. Therefore, the principle of exemption had already been accepted. There were other exemptions—a wife or a husband and members of the Royal Family. The subject of exemptions should be dealt with on principle. Exemptions should be dealt with in a clause by themselves, to be moved, like a thousand other clauses, on Report. He understood the Solicitor General or his lieutenant, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[ laughter ]—to say that that was a course that was going to be followed—because the question of exemptions had been raised before. All he desired was that the exemptions should be considered altogether. There were important exemptions in the present law. If they were going to continue them, well and good. If they were going to get rid of some of them he should say, "Get rid of the others too." These exemptions should be considered all together, and on some principle—if the Government were capable of entertaining such a thing as principle.

said, he did not think the proposal before the Committee went far enough. As he understood it, it dealt only with the question of Estate Duty, and did not touch a case that was once of particular interest to himself, where a person gave property in his lifetime, and quite unexpectedly died within a year. The property was given to a Museum which bad no funds, and the Exchequer exacted from the estate a duty just as though the property had been left by will. There was no human being generous enough to pay the duty, so the Museum went to him, and he, though he had been deprived of that particular amount of property, paid the duty to enable the Museum to get that which had been given to it. The case would be provided for if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would deal with the question of exemption in a clause which would put upon a proper basis not only bequests or donations where the person died within 12 months, but which would also include Municipalities—if they were to be particularly considered—and also country Museums, which were much more deserving of bequests. But there was another matter which he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer would at the same time have to deal with. If he did not misunderstand the law as it stood, bequests to Irish charities were already exempted. The 55th Geo. III., he was told, gave a particular benefit to Irish charities, which had not yet been extended to English charities. He had not the slightest doubt that, with a view of justice to Ireland, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would desire to put England and Scotland, and particularly Wales, on the same basis with Ireland in respect of exemptions from duty as to bequests made to these charities, and in order to do this it would be absolutely necessary not only to pass this Amendment, but to deal with other questions which might arise in regard to anyone of the Three Kingdoms.

said, he wished to point out that this was not a matter of interest only to the Metropolis, and to the big Municipalities, but also to the rural districts and villages, and although it was quite possible that such words as those of the Amendment were desirable he could give instances of similar bequests in small villages, which were much more important to those villages than any gift to the nation would be. Therefore, while thoroughly in favour of any gifts to the nation and to Municipalities, he wanted to put in a word for the villages and the Parochial Authorities who were called upon to manage them. There were cases within his own knowledge of recreation grounds secured for villages and for rural districts, and he thought that anything meted out to the bigger Municipalities should be given in equal measure to the smaller bodies.

, who was indistinctly heard, said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had looked at this matter in so conciliatory a spirit, and had shown himself so anxious to meet the wishes of the Committee, that he might venture to throw out a suggestion of his own. The greatest perplexity which the right hon. Gentleman would have to meet was the drawing of a distinction between one kind of charitable bequest and another. The right hon. Gentleman was prepared to exempt charities to the nation—he was somewhat doubtful whether he ought to exempt charities to Municipalities, and probably he would altogether refuse to exempt charities to the smaller parishes—at all events, from the point of view of the Exchequer, that would be the most doubtful case. But what he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) felt most in regard to large bequests to charities for public purposes was, not that the bequest was taxed, but that it was part of the aggregated property upon which the successor of the deceased was taxed. His right hon. Friend just now quoted the late Prime Minister as saying that these bequests were examples of organised spite. Well, he himself would not like to further the designs of spiteful individuals. In the case of a man who had a sense of the worth of public objects to which he left money, surely it was very wrong to put upon him, and still more to put upon his heirs, the heavy pecuniary loss which would arise from aggregating the property with the rest of the property left.

I must consider this with the other question. I feel rather in the position of the fisherman who opened a vessel and the spirit came out of it and its head was lost in the skies. Every moment the extent of the concession asked for grows. It appears to be infinite.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved, in page 11, line 28, after "respect," insert—

"Of any Museum, or collection of works of art, which for a period of 12 months preceding the death of the deceased, has been open to the public for two days in each week, or in respect."

He said that there were some generous, and public-spirited persons who had formed Museums and thrown them open to the public, and a larger number who had valuable collections of pictures which the public were allowed to visit. It was hardly just that, under those circumstances, they should be called upon not only to pay Estate Duty, but that the value of the works of art should be added to the duty, A suggestion had been thrown out that the proposal of exemption should be confined to bequests to the nation. Of course, that would practically confine them to London, Edinburgh, and Dublin; but the Committee would agree that local Museums were of much importance, and that the collections in villages and small towns were particularly valuable. With regard to the two days a week, he would point out that those who had these collections kept them up entirely at their own expense, which entitled them to additional consideration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of defending the Revenue, but he was now speaking of defending the scientific and art riches of the country, which were quite as important as the Revenue. He might be told that if his proposal was acceded to persons would try to evade the Estate Duty by throwing open their collections, but he thought little weight attached to such an objection. In any case, he wished many more persons would open their collections to the public, and one of his objects in moving the Amendment was to encourage them to do so.

said, he thought this was part of the general question the Government would have to consider. He did not know whether his right hon. Friend meant to include private collections in private houses that were open to public view, of which there were many in the country. This, he feared, would open too wide a door. However, the whole subiect would have to be carefully considered.

^* said, that upon this occasion he felt the spirit of the tax collector rise within him. He did not think that any such exemption as this should be made. If works of utility were to be taxed under the new Estate Duty, so ought works of art, the greater part of which were the invention of bric-à-brac brokers and picture jobbers. Grosvenor House was often opened to the public. Madame Tussaud's was open to the public not only on two days but six days a week, and under this Amendment both the millionaire and the wax-works would be exempted. The Amendment ought not to be adopted, and he would stand by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in voting against it.

said, he was quite satisfied with the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would consider the question, and would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved, in page 11, line 28, to leave out from "settled," to "before," in line 29, and insert—

"By any disposition (whether a will or an instrument inter vivos ) taking effect."

He submitted that they ought to make it clear that if the disposition had taken effect before the commencement of this Act it ought to be exempted. He could not understand on what other principle the Government proposed to legislate. They had spread their net very wide with the view of getting as much money as possible, but he submitted that the principle of justice came in here, and it was not a right thing, when property had been settled with reference to the existing Death Duties, when the settlements had taken effect, or would take effect, before the passing of the Act, that such property should be subjected to the proposed Estate Duty.

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 28, after the word "settled," to leave, out to the word "before," in line 29, and insert the words—

"By any disposition (whether a will or an instrument inter vivos ) taking effect."—( Sir R. Webster .)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

^* , who was indistinctly heard, said, the Government were legislating for the present and not for the future. This was called ex post facto legislation. Why? Take the Succession Duty, which for the first time imposed a Death Duty on real estate. Did that exclude existing settlements? Of course not. And with regard to the Probate Duties, the line which had always been drawn was when application was made for probate. It might be years after the Act passed, although it was not likely to be, of course; yet that was the time. When payment was made it must be made according to the law of the land.

Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. R. T. REID, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 11, line 30, before "Act," insert "part of this."

moved, in page 11, line 30, to leave out from "Act," to "unless," in line 31, the words proposed to be left out being—

"In respect of which property Probate or Account Duty has been paid."

He submitted that it was not fair to restrict the cases of exemption to where the Probate or Account Duty had been paid. Circumstances might arise which would prevent the estate of a man who died before the Bill came into operation from being wound up for some time, and it would be unjust in such a case to bring the property within the provisions of the measure.

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 30, to leave out from the word "Act," to the word "unless," in line 31.—( Sir R. Webster .)

Question proposed, "That the words 'in respect of which' stand part of the Clause."

^* said, that the Government were merely following precedent in the matter, and a very convenient precedent. They did not want to have investigations from day to day in the office whether these duties should be payable or not. Each day when the accounts came in they would apply the law of the day. It always had been so.

said, there were a number of reasons which interfered with the payment of the duty within 24 hours. The payment of the Probate or of the Account Duty might have been deferred by arrangement with the Commissioners, or an outstanding debt might have prevented the estate from being wound up. The Attorney General appeared to know nothing about the winding-up of estates, and seemed to think that if a man died to-day his estate could be wound up to-morrow.

, who was indistinctly heard, said, there was a case not very long ago about paying duty upon the Hamilton Collection which was sold, and the question might have been raised. If the Amendment were not accepted the whole thing would be re-opened, and the duty paid on an entirely different scale.

^* said, there was no principle: of equity involved in this matter. It was a question of convenience. They had to tax the people as much as possible; they did not want to let off as many as possible. Every Amendment from the other side was to let off someone or other, but the duty of the Government was, he thought, to spread the net as widely as possible.

observed that if a settlement were in the course of being carried into effect, and, owing to some cause over which the beneficiaries had no control, had been delayed, it seemed perfectly monstrous that the whole settlement should be ripped up and treated on a wholly distinct and different basis. That was as near ex post facto legislation as it was possible to get. He agreed that, as a general principle, these matters were dealt with according to the law of the land existing at the time the transaction was brought into settlement; but the Attorney General had not replied to the argument as to the injustice and inconvenience of subjecting a settlement in the process of being carried into effect to wholly different treatment, as was proposed by the Government.

said, it had appeared in the course of this Debate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his official capacity could not afford to have any conscience, but he thought it had not at any time more clearly appeared than in the speech of the Attorney General. Surely there ought to be a limit to the unconscientiousness of even a Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Attorney General said what the Government wanted to do was to draw their net as widely as possible, so as to get everybody they could within it. But if a private person were engaged in making an arrangement of this kind it would be regarded as an unconscionable arrangement. What was the equity of the matter? Here were two persons who died at the same time, before the commencement of this Act, who had made similar wills. There was a difference in the time it took to wind up the two estates. The executor of one estate wound it up quickly, and he paid duty on a different and much lighter scale than the one who happened to be later. But what was the difference? In the eye of the law a debt which was due and payable was precisely the same as a debt which was paid. It was only a debt. There was an estate there of a much larger value than the amount of his debt, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was as certain of his money as if it had been paid. What reason was there, in equity of conscience, that because of a fluke of that sort as to the date of payment one should pay a heavier duty than the other? The Attorney General said that they could not inquire into all these things. But the date of death was the material fact, and that was always disclosed on applying for probate. Again, in many cases the Probate Duty was at first underestimated. The executor might, before the commencement of this Act, have paid Probate Duty, which turned out to be not the whole of the amount due, and he would then, as the proposal of the Government stood, have to pay not merely the Probate Duty remaining unpaid, but would have become liable to pay Estate Duty instead of Probate Duty. He submitted that the Government in this matter ought to make the true criterion the date on which the person died, and accept the Amendment.

said, if the Attorney General did not accept some Amendment of this kind he was practically taking away, at the end of the sub-section, the very thing he had granted at the beginning. Undoubtedly the intention of the Government was that this Estate Duty should not be payable in the case of any person who died before the commencement of this Act. That ought to extend to a man dying any day before the commencement of the Act. But if a man died the day before the commencement of the Act it would be utterly impossible for him to have paid these duties. They would be payable, but would not have been paid, and he would not benefit by the exemptions of the Act.

said, that without exemption there could be no Estate Duty, except in the case of the estate of a person who died after the commencement of the Act. What they were dealing with, however, was not the case put by the hon. Member for Preston, but with property settled by a person who died before the commencement of the Act, and what they did was to say that if they had settled the accounts in respect of a death before the commencement of the Act they would not re-open them.

^* said, the Attorney General kept consistently blind to their contention. They had pointed out that it might be impossible to have settled the account, but why should they deprive a man who intended to settle, but had not had time to do so, of the advantage intended to be conferred on him by the subsection? It was perfectly monstrous to say that the man who had had time to pay the duty should be exempt, whilst the man who had not yet had time should not have the same advantage.

^* pointed out that it might not be the fault of the man himself that the duty had not been paid, but the fault of the officials of Somerset House, who were very inquisitorial.

confessed that he felt a difficulty in the matter. Of course, the deceased person mentioned in the second line of the sub-section was a different person to the person who died before the commencement of the Act, mentioned lower down, and it was upon the death of the former that the question arose. Say a man made a will settling certain property, it rested with the executor of that man as to whether Probate Duty was properly paid or not. That might be a totally different person to the deceased person on whose death the question arose, and the amount of duty payable on the death of A B on his estate would depend upon the negligence or quickness of another person, who might have a spite against him and might, out of spite, delay the settlement. Surely the amount of duty payable on the death of a deceased person might be made referable to his conduct; the amount could not depend upon the negligence or celerity of the executor of the person who had made the will under which the settlement arose, and who could, out of spite, cause the estate of the deceased person to lose value by simply holding back and neglecting to pay this duty according to the Act. He did not think that the Exchequer had any great interest in these cases, and without damage the Government might accept the Amendment by agreeing to the words

"In respect of which these duties are to be paid or are payable,"

and then they would do full justice without any loss to the Exchequer.

^* said, they had been met in this, as in other cases, by the Government telling them they desired to spread their net as wide as possible. But surely they could spread it with some sense of fairness, equity, and justice. What they had done in this clause was to propose an exemption, and the Opposition desired to have that exemption placed on a reasonable footing. The Government said that where property was settled by the will of a person who died before the commencement of the Act the old Probate Duty scale should apply. If they stopped there that would be a reasonable and fair exemption; but they went a little further, and said that in order that these exemptions might apply the duty must have been actually paid. That was a purely arbitrary condition to put upon their exemptions, and made it a matter of pure chance whether the exemption should apply or not. The proper and reasonable condition to consider was whether the man had or had not died before the commencement of the Act? Once a will was made and the man had died they could not alter the will. The man would not know this large Estate Duty would have been payable, and he could not do what he otherwise would have done—namely, alter the will to meet the alteration of the duty, so that the condition to consider was the death of the person who died before the commencement of the Act. As the matter stood, it was a purely accidental matter whether or not the duty was paid. The difficulty would be entirely got over if the words suggested by his right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin, "paid and payable," were accepted. The alteration would improve the section, and remove an anomaly and an injustice.

said, the Government charged interest up to the date of the account, which was tantamount to holding that the thing ought to be paid at the date it was payable. It seemed absolutely unjust to charge interest for not having paid at the proper time, and, at the same time, to cut them out from the benefit of the exemption if the account had not been settled.

^* said, the hon. and learned Gentleman who had last spoken confused two different things. The Government left the Probate Duty alone, and all they had here was the Estate Duty, and where they charged interest by this Bill it was on the Estate Duty. If they had settled an account by reason of a death before the commencement of the Act they would not re-open it. That was all they said, and they never meant anything more. If it was an anomaly it had been done before again and again, and ought to be done.

I said not a word about the Succession Duty.

Neither did I.

I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. The first words he addressed to me were that I had spoken about the Succession Duty, which he said he did not touch, and that he left Probate Duty alone.

^* : I said most plainly the Estate Duty. That is what we charge. I said that where we charged interest we charged it on the Estate Duty by this Bill, and I went on to say that with regard to probate we left that according to the old law.

said, it made no difference whether the hon. and learned Gentleman said Estate or Succession Duty. In either case he entirely misunderstood the purport of his (Mr. Graham Murray's) observations. He was not speaking of what they did in this Bill, but to the point made over and over again by his hon. Friends behind that it ought to be made quite clear that the exemptions should apply when the Probate Daty was payable and not whether, by accident or not, it happened to be paid.

^* ventured to think the Attorney General was confusing physical and logical accidents when be said all things were accidents. The logical essence as distinguished from the accidental was the death on which the liability accrued. The very first words in Clause 1, "Every person dying after the commencement of this Act," were condemnatory of the attitude taken up by the Government on this Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 226; Noes 172.—(Division List, No. 125.)

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 30, to leave out the words "Probate or Account Duty," and insert the words

"Any duty mentioned in paragraphs one and two of the First Schedule to this Act."—( Mr. M. T. Reid. )

Question, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

^* said, he had an Amendment on the Paper with the object of including in the clause a case about which a good deal of doubt existed. That was, whether a man who succeeded to a legacy from an estate on which Probate Duty had been paid, such Probate Duty having been paid by the residuary legatee, would be held to have succeeded to a property in respect to which Probate or Account Duty had been paid, and therefore not liable to Estate Duty? He would like to hear the Attorney General on that question before he decided what action he would take in regard to his Amendment.

^* said, that legacies had nothing to do with this clause. Probate was paid on the whole estate, out of which the legacy would be paid. There was no manner of doubt that the legatee was protected against the Estate Duty.

^* said, the Solicitor General had disappointed him. The number of cross references which a person would have to make in order to arrive at an opinion with regard to the Bill was stupendous already; and now the Solicitor General proposed, by this Amendment, to add to them. It was cruel.

Question put, and agreed to.

moved, in page 11, line 31, after the word "paid," to insert the words

"And if no such duty has been paid in respect of the property, then Estate Duty shall not be paid in respect thereof at a higher rate than 3 per cent."

This Amendment was necessary owing to the defeat of the last Amendment he had moved. The object of it was to secure that if, owing to some accident or difficulty, Probate Duty or Account Duty had not been paid on the property, the Estate Duty should not exceed a higher rate than 3 per cent. Under the clause as it stood if an arrangement was made with Somerset House authorities that the payment of the Probate or Account Duty should be postponed, that accidental fact would render the estate liable to an increased duty of 5 or 6 per cent. Surely the proper position to take, if they did not exempt such properties altogether from the Estate Duty, Was to fix some percentage beyond which duty could not be paid. He hoped the Government would, at any rate, make that small concession.

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 31, after the word "paid," to insert the words—

"And if no such duty has been paid in respect of the property, then Estate Duty shall not be paid in respect thereof at a higher rate than 3 per cent."—( Sir R. Webster. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

^* said, the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to forget that the more people who were relieved from this duty the more pressure there would be upon those who were liable for it. By cutting down the incidence of taxation they created an inequality. He ventured to think that all the reasons which guided the House in refusing the other two Amendments ought to apply to this Amendment. He could not understand the logic of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They applied to have, first one class and then another, class—not necessarily meritorious people, not necessarily indigent people, but average people and average estates—exempted from the operation of the Act.

said, the more he looked at this clause the less he was able to understand it. He failed to see the logic of the clause, and failed to see how it would operate. He would like to ask the Attorney General, if the hon. and learned Member would not mind answering the question, whether it was meant in a case of personal property settled left by a person dying before the commencement of the Act, where the Probate Duty had not been paid, that the Estate Duty was to be exacted in substitution for the Probate Duty? He could not see the logic of making the Estate Duty payable out of the second estate, because the first had not paid Probate Duty. In such a case, if the second estate paid Estate Duty, it would be paid by the second testator in substitution for the Probate Duty which had not been paid by the first testator.

said, that all the Attorney General did was to sit on the pavement and chalk opposite himself, "I am literally starving." He simply said, "I want the money; I must have it, and I don't care whether it is got justly or unjustly." But the Opposition was bound to consider the equality and justice of the demand, and they proposed that if Estate Duty was to be levied in those cases as a substitution for previous duties which had not been paid, the Estate Duty should not exceed 3 per cent.

said, it would be desirable that, they should understand the clause before they proceeded to decide upon it. It was evident from the speeches which had been delivered that great doubt existed as to what the clause meant. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, the Attorney General, had contended himself, in his reply to his learned Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight, with urging that it was very absurd to excuse Mr. A and Mr. B from paying this Estate Duty because Messrs. C, D, E, and F would have to pay a heavier Estate Duty. That was true enough; but it did not answer the question which had been put to the Government, which was, whether Mr. A and Mr. B were, or were not, unjustly charged under the Bill? If his hon. and learned Friend was right in the interpretation of the clause, then the clause was quite indefensible. If his hon. and learned Friend was wrong, let his error be explained by the Government. But according to their understanding of the clause it would have this extraordinary effect: If a man died in February or January, before the Bill was brought in, or even completed in the minds of its authors, because the estate of that man would not be wound up at the time of the passing of the Act, for the reason, perhaps, that the executor had not been able to come to an agreement with Somerset House as to the amount of probate to be paid, therefore the property of that individual was not to be taxed under the old but under the new system. Two men might die on the same day of the same month leaving estates in a similar fashion. In one case, where the executor winds up the estate quickly, duty was paid under the old system; in the other case, where the executor winds up the estate slowly, duty was paid under the new system. If that were the meaning of the clause, he defied the Attorney General to say it was in conformity with justice, equality, or common sense. But it might not be the meaning of the clause; the Opposition might be in error; but, if so, let the Government tell them what the clause really did mean. They had come to the conclusion it was the monstrous absurdity which he had made clear to the House; and if they were right, it was more like piracy on the high seas than the finance of a civilised country.

said, he thought he understood the clause, but it was a Very difficult business; and if he were right his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had not exhausted its most absurd and most singular consequences. He would give the Committee one illustration. A man with two sons died at the beginning of the year. He left the second son a large sum of money for life with remainder to the children of the second son, and he made his eldest son his executor. The second son died after the commencement of the Act. The Estate Duty paid on the second sum so settled depended on whether the eldest brother had paid Probate Duty or not. He thought it was a curious provision, by which the Estate Duty on the estate of a man dying before the passing of the Act depended on the activity or negligence of a person interested in another estate, and who might have a personal interest in not paying it, because he could save his profit at the other. They should keep the liability of an estate at the point where the liability arose.

^* said, he had already explained the clause in the plainest language, which should have left no room for doubt in the minds of any hon. Members. It was not intended to interfere with settled accounts; and with regard to the case mentioned by his right hon. Friend with reference to residuary legatees, the result of such negligence should be visited upon himself, and not upon others. It was not the case that a residuary legatee would have to pay the whole amount. The Government were making a concession. Hon. Members might think it large or small, but it was a concession. Perhaps, if he had his own way in the matter, he would strike out the whole clause, and so there would be no concession at all. He did not see why the Government should at the instance of hon. Members opposite invent a case for letting people off under exemptions to which they had no more right than thousands of others, and go beyond the practical necessities of the case.

^* said, that he had listened with the greatest confusion of mind to the speech which the hon. and learned Attorney General had just made. He appeared to have informed the Committee that Estate Duty could be claimable in the case of a man who died before the Bill became law. It seemed that nothing but Probate Duty could ever be recovered, and no Estate Duty.

No, It may have been an omission on, my part, but I certainly intended to explain it.

^* asked, then what was the meaning of his hon. and learned Friend's speech? He could not see why anyone should be exempted because somebody else had been prompt in paying the Probate Duty. On all occasions they were met by the most painful confusion between the death of the person liable before the commencement of this Act and the decease when the Estate Duty arose. To take the illustration of the right hon. Gentleman. If a man died before the commencement of the Act, leaving a residuary legatee, and with respect to a certain portion of his property, say £10,000, settled that on his wife, afterwards to his eldest son, and then to children; whether the executor paid Probate Duty promptly or not, the Exchequer would never get more than Probate Duty. If Estate Duty was payable only on the death of persons who died after the commencement of this Act, no Estate Duty could ever be payable in respect of the death of that settlor. But then came this exemption, which had never so far been dealt with, and which surpassed for absurdity anything else to be met with in this Bill. If the settlor's executor bad paid Probate Duty, the wife might die, and, the son succeeding, there would be an exemption from the Estate Duty which would prima facie be payable. But, on the other hand, if the original settlor's executor bad delayed payment of the Estate Duty for a short time longer, no exemption would arise. He did not know why persons were to be exempted from payment of duty by the happening of the mere accident of diligence or delay in winding up a different estate.

^* said, he would not like the Committee to remain under a misapprehension. He was, no doubt, wrong in the interpretation he had put on the case referred to by his right hon. Friend. It seemed impossible to suppose that people would be so foolish as allow one man's liability to depend upon the diligence or even upon the honesty of another. People could hardly be so foolish, though they might be fraudulent. The executor would be appointed by the testator, and if he desired to provide against the occurrence of such a penalty one of the younger members of the family would be designated. But the younger branches would have their remedy without such an appointment. It came to this: that when the executor was left solely responsible for the management of the estate, he might manage well or ill, and his deligence or negligence would affect the incidence of the duty. He could see no absurdity in that. If the Committee were to attempt to provide minutely for all kinds of cases, not 20 clauses, nor 200, would deal with them.

said, that an impression prevailed that when Estate Duty was payable it became payable in substitution for Probate Duty which was not payable. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the simple question, whether that was so or not?

^* said, there was some truth in the suggestion that the Estate Duty was a substitute for the Probate Duty; but the Probate Duty was only payable on one class of property. He thought the Committee should abide by the terms of the scheme propounded by the Government. The concession made had been forced upon the Government by the state of things, but the supporters of the Amendment wanted to go further. There was absolutely no reason for this, and it would constitute a gift to personalty at the expense of realty.

referred again to the case he originally put to the Attorney General, in which £10,000 Consols had been left by the first testator, who had created a life interest for the benefit of the second testator. He desired to know whether he was right in concluding that, in a case where Probate Duty had been paid on the first death, the Estate Duty which would become payable on the second death was, or was not, in substitution for the Probate Duty? Some hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House thought that the Estate Duty in such a case was to be in substitution for the Probate Duty.

^* said, that there was no case in which Estate Duty and Probate Duty could be payable together under this Bill. That was perfectly obvious. The whole scheme of the measure prevented it.