^* said, that in moving the first of a series of new clauses of which he had given notice, he might point out that his object was the protection of the interests of the commoners of Cantref; although he might be told that those commoners were heard before the Police and Sani- tary Committee, his reply was that they were not fully heard. They had met with very harsh treatment at the hands of the Cardiff Corporation, who had alleged that, and acted as if the commoners had no rights at all. Everybody but these poor commoners had been protected. In the first place, the lord of the manor had been squared or settled with, and had no doubt got a good sum of money or other consideration for his rights; other large landowners like Lord Bute and Lord Windsor had had their interests protected, and so had such bodies as the Bute Dock Company, the Glamorgan Canal Company, and the Great Western Railway Company. But the poor commoners, many of whom were in such humble circumstances that they were not even able to sign their names, were left out in the cold. It was all very well to say that when the reservoir required by the Corporation had been built the land used for the railway would be available for the commoners, but everyone knew that such statements by counsel and witnesses before a Committee were worth nothing, and that to ensure protection a clause giving it should be embodied in the Bill itself. As long ago as December, 1893, the Cardiff Corporation took possession of the 10 acres of this common, although they had no right to do so; in fact, they stole, and their principal witnesses before the Committee admitted that they had taken the land and meant to keep it. One would have imagined that a Committee of the House of Commons would have refused to listen to people of that sort, and would have thrown out the Bill. Certainly the Chairman of the Committee did rebuke them by saying that he wondered they had come to Parliament at all; but the Bill was allowed to pass all the same. He noticed in a Paper circulated that morning that the Corporation promised, when the railway was made, to restore whatever was left of the four acres which they still retained of the 10 of which they originally put in the Bill, and if that were a truthful statement, he thought they would at once agree to the clause he was about to propose. He could not understand the ground on which they claimed a right to keep the land. They might say that the commoners would be paid for any privileges of which they were deprived, but he was instructed to say that they did not want compensation; all they desired was that as soon as the reservoir was built the land should be given up to them for grazing and other purposes. This was a case of land-grabbing by a wealthy Corporation, which had been able to square tilt lord of the manor. He begged to move the first of the new clauses standing in his name.

New Clause—

(For the protection of the commoners of the parish of Cantref.)

"The land, part of the common lands of the parish of Cantref, taken for the making of the railway between Nos. 1 and 2 Reservoirs, shall be only taken temporarily, and shall not be fenced; and as soon as No. 1 Reservoir is completed the railway shall be entirely removed, and the surface of the common lands restored as far as possible to its original condition."—( Mr. A. C. Morton .)

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

^* said, his task had been rendered rather difficult by the extraordinary manner in which the hon. Member had raised this question, and by his allegation that a Committee of that House had refused to protect the interests of commoners, while looking after those of everybody else. He had told them that Lord Tredegar had been squared and that the Marquess of Bute and other landowners had been settled with. Well, it was a fact that the Cardiff Corporation had settled with those gentlemen, and it was equally a fact that in the same way they sought to settle with the commoners. The hon. Member had virtuously professed to the House that the commoners did not require any compensation; but if they had not demanded an exorbitant and ridiculous sum in the first instance, this matter would never have come before the House. The four acres of land to which this Bill referred were situated between the two Corporation reservoirs. Much had been said about the Corporation having violently appropriated the land; but he remembered being at the opening of No. 1 Reservoir, and it was then thought by the authorities that that would be sufficient to meet the necessities of the town for some years. But the growth of Cardiff had since been so enormously rapid and the increase of population so large that a second reservoir had become necessary, and it was to facilitate its construction that the railroad was needed. Cantref Commons contained in all 2,615 acres, and all this fuss was being created over a strip of four acres. Originally it was proposed to take 10 acres, and for their grazing rights on that quantity the commoners asked £3,000. For the rights on four acres they demanded £750, and if this price was applied to the whole common it would give the value of those rights at the modest figure of £1,960,000.

But this bit of railway would cut the common in two.

^* denied that, and said the accepted demand of the commoners was that there should be no fence, while when the Corporation had no further use for the land they would take up the line. The Corporation felt that they ought for future purposes to retain possession of this land, but they were prepared to allow the commoners to have the fullest use of it. The commoners would suffer no real injury, and he therefore thought it was straining the sense and judgment and the procedure of the House to seek to interfere with a measure which had been so carefully considered and settled by a Committee. It was not likely that a body composed as the Committee was would have failed to protect the interest of the commoners. They had done all that was necessary, and he hoped the House would reject the hon. Member's proposal.

said, he happened to be Chairman of the Committee before whom the Bill was heard, and as the hon. Member had made various sweeping allegations as to the conduct of that Committee, he must ask leave to say a few words on the subject. The inquiry into the Bill was a. long and complicated one, and it was a fact that the Committee came to the conclusion that the Corporation of Cardiff had acted in a high-handed way at the commencement of its operations in this matter. They were on that account the more anxious to consider the case of the commoners, and to do all they could to meet it. That case occupied the attention of the Committee for several days, and eventually they inserted a proviso which he believed protected the commoners from every injury that could possibly be done to them under the Bill. Of course, as the Cardiff Water Supply was being taken from that source, it was out of the question to allow sheep washing or anything else likely to contaminate the water, but ample provision was made to compensate the commoners for the loss of drinking and washing places, and for any expense they might be put to in taking their sheep longer distances for washing purposes. The Committee gave full consideration to this Bill, and a more improper and more ridiculous opposition to a measure was never imposed upon the House. While the Bill was under consideration the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton) intimated to him his intention of raising the question before the House. He did not suppose the hon. Member intended by that to make the Committee more careful as to what they were doing, but he did say it was a poor reward to the Committee, who gave up so much time to the consideration of the Bill, if, after the Bill had been wholly and patiently considered, the circumstances were to be reviewed in this partial land one-sided way in this House, and the House was to be asked on evidence of that character to reverse the conclusions deliberately come to. He did not intend to take up the time of the House, but he ventured to express the hope that the House would arrive at such a decided decision on this particular clause that the hon. Member would not consider it worth while to take the matter further in respect to the other clauses.

^* : Under the circumstances, I ought not to allow this matter to pass without saying a word with regard to the Bill now before the House. I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that this is an appeal from the decision of the Committee of the House which has inquired into the whole matter, which has discussed it for a considerable number of days, and which has had before them all the necessary materials for coming to a decision; and having heard the evidence and discussed the matter; and having, as anyone may see who takes the trouble to look at the Bill, given ample compensation to every right the commoners possess, this appeal is now made to the House of Commons to reverse the decision of the Committee. It is to put, as I think the Chairman of the Committee is right in suggesting, a slight upon the Committee in respect of this particular matter, and I may say if the House allows appeals of this sort to be brought into the House from the decision of the Committees which are carefully selected, and who devote a great deal of time to the discussion of these Bills, it will be fatal to the good conduct of the Private Business of this House. I think it is time I should call the attention of the House to this matter of Private Bills, as several appeals have been made to the House from Committees lately. What is the object of the system of sending matters of inquiry to Private Bill Committees? It is because you cannot, on ex parte statements in this House, come to a sound and just conclusion with regard to many of these matters. To consider the matter properly you must examine witnesses so as to go into the questions in detail, and, therefore, so far as regards matters of this kind, they are usually delegated to the Committees, and I must say, upon the whole, the Committees of the House of Commons have done their work remarkably well. But I ought to add that this is an appeal from one of the strongest Committees of the House, the Police and Sanitary Committee, which has earned the gratitude of the House of Commons and of the country by the manner in which they have discharged their important and heavy duties. Under the circumstances, I hope the House will support the Committee. I am afraid that unless these Committees are supported you will not get Members of the House of Commons to undertake such duties, knowing that very probably the decision they come to will be appealed against.

^* , as a Member of the Police and Sanitary Committee, agreed with every word that had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who presided over that Committee as to the prejudice that was created in their minds by the manner of one of the witnesses who gave evidence. From what they then thought was the action of the Cardiff Corporation they met, it might almost be said, prejudiced against the Cardiff Corporation, and they listened with the greatest care and with a special desire to guard the rights of these commoners. He had been on the Committee for several years, and no such amount of time was ever before given to such an inquiry. He believed that the Committee gave the commoners all they were fairly entitled to, and that there was no ground for the suggestion made that these people had suffered or were likely to suffer a wrong under the Bill as passed by the Committee upstairs, and he hoped that the House would support the Committee in the view they had taken.

^* said, he wished to express the satisfaction with which he had beard the remarks that had fallen from the Chairman of Ways and Means. Latterly they had been brought down to the House time after time, at three o'clock, upon comparatively small questions relating to Private Bills, though, of course, they might be of considerable local interest and importance, where the decisions of Committees of this House had been called into question. He felt certain if this House attempted to review the working and labours of Committees they would get themselves into very great difficulty indeed. The House was a most improper tribunal to re-take evidence, as it were, on the ex parte statements of a Member like his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton), who no doubt in this case took up the case in the interests of the commoners, and brought it before the House after it had been thoroughly investigated before a Committee of the House. He would warn the House against reviewing these decisions except on far stronger evidence than that which had been brought before them. He thought they owed a debt of gratitude to the Chairman of Ways and Means for the manlier in which he had dealt with the question.

said, he was desirous of saying just a few words upon this matter with regard to the action of the House in reviewing the decisions of Select Committees. It appeared to him that if they had a power to review these decisions it was their duty to do so whenever a case was made out that showed the decision to have been a hasty or wrong decision. Unless it was clearly made out that the Committee had done wrong, they ought not to reverse the decision of the Committee; but if it was made out that the Committee had gone wrong, it was their duty to deal with the matter, and they should then be bold enough to reverse the decision of the Committee if they considered it advisable to do so. Of course, he knew there was very great difficulty in the matter. If the Opposition took head before it went to a Committee, it was always said, "Oh, let it go before the Committee and they will deal with the evidence," and then when it came back to the House it was always said, "The Committee has dealt with it, and as they have heard evidence and fully inquired into the case you must be wrong to interfere with what the Committee has done." By this process the House would strip itself of all power to deal with these matters which were the subject of private legislation. He thought the true view to take was that when a Committee had gone wrong the House should deal with the matter, but it should be fully made out that the Committee had gone wrong. He protested against its being assumed that it was a slight upon the Committee; on the contrary, he thought that every Member of the Committee would agree that if the Committee had gone wrong that their decision should be reversed. In regard to this particular case, he understood that, without having any actual right, the Cardiff Corporation had laid down these railways in defiance of the rights of the commoners, the law being that they had no right to lay them down without coming to terms with the commoners. The Chairman told them the Committee considered carefully this high-handed Act, and the difficulty was to consider what was the precise point they were disputing about, because on the one hand the hon. Member who spoke on behalf of the Corporation said they had no intention of keeping the railway on the land, and on the other his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton) told them all he desired was something that would bind the Corporation to take away the railway as soon as the work was completed. Under those circumstances, he should have thought the Corporation would have given the pledge asked for.

said, he distinctly stated that the Corporation had given the pledge asked for.

said, in that case there ought to be no difficulty in its being embodied in the Bill. If the Corporation had not been guilty of this highhanded proceeding they would be content with their undertaking, but, under the circumstances, he thought the House might venture to ask for more than the undertaking. For that reason he supported the hon. Member for Peterborough. Let him say that he quite understood the Chairman of the Committee when he said they had given great care to this matter, and at the same time he fully appreciated the meaning of the point the hon. Member used with regard to the arguments on behalf of the commoners being unintelligible and not put so clearly as those on behalf of Lord Bute.

said, he did not know whether the hon. Member referred to him, but he said nothing about the kind of arguments on behalf of Lord Bute, because they were not addressed to the Committee, being settled out of Court. What he said was that the views of the commoners were not put before them in a way that it was capable for them to understand them.

regretted that he had misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but he thought that Lord Bute's name was mentioned; he was much obliged for the correction, but he did not think it interfered with his argument, which was that the commoners being more or less uneducated people, they did not seem to have conducted their case with the same skill that it would have been conducted by people of greater influence.

pointed out that the commoners did not appear in person, but through a competent and able counsel.

said, that that being so there was no force in the statement of the hon. Gentleman, when he said the Committee did not understand the argument of the commoners.

said, he was sorry to interpose, but the hon. Member was misrepresenting what he said. What he stated was, that the Committee listened to the case of the commoners with the utmost patience, but that it was put before them in a manner that it was difficult to understand the immediate drift yet so anxious were they on behalf of the commoners that they allowed the arguments to be put before them at great length.

was glad to hear the explanation that the Committee did eventually understand the argument that was put forward. He thought this was one of those cases where they were able to form an opinion themselves, and, under the circumstances, he would ask the House to say that the railway ought to be taken away on the completion of the work.

^* said, it was not a question of removing the railway, but of putting the land back into its original condition.

said, that perhaps he might be allowed to observe there was nothing in the Bill about taking the railway away, if there had been they would have been satisfied.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 163.—(Division List, No. 143.)

^* said, that in moving the second Resolution standing in his name he should like to explain—[ Cries of "Agreed!"] If hon. Gentlemen would agree to the Resolution he would sit down. He would like to take this opportunity of saying that the reason that these small commoners were not se ably represented before the Committee was because they were poor men and unable to find hundreds and thousands of pounds to fee expensive counsel. He admitted they were not strongly represented before the Committee. The Chairman of the Committee had said he (Mr. Morton) was good enough to inform him that he intended to bring this matter before the House. That was true, but the hon. Gentleman should have told them what he also told the hon. Member. He asked the hon. Member to get the Committee to consider these proposals, and the hon. Member told him they would consider them.

said, he did not know what the hon. Member was referring to, but be made no promise of any sort or kind, and he never saw the Amendments in question until he saw them to-day. He did not know what on earth the hon. Member meant.

said, he maintained that the hon. Member promised the Committee would consider the Amendments if they were placed before the Committee, and that thereupon they were printed and taken to the Committee, but the Committee afterwards would not consider them. He was astonished to hear the Chairman of Committees upbraiding him (Mr. Morton) for attempting to present the poor commoners' case.

I understand the hon. Member is now moving Clause No. 2; he cannot go over the whole statement of what passed in Committee; he ought to limit his arguments to the particular clause he now moves.

^* said, he quite understood the Speaker's ruling, but he thought he might take the opportunity of answering the scolding they had got from the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Mellor).

^* : Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not in Order in discussing other matters.

said, the object of the clause was for the watering of flocks, herds, and stock. Under the Act of 1884 the Corporation, in respect of No. 2 reservoir, were bound to provide compensation water to the extent of of 3,000,000 gallons in every 24 hours—that was to say, they were to run that quantity down the stream; and as to No. 3 reservoir, they were bound to allow compensation water to the extent of 4,000,000 gallons in every 24 hours. When they were coming to Parliament for an easement they should allow some compensation water for the use of the flocks and herds of these commoners. The reply of the Corporation was that there would always be water running down. In the summer months there would be practically no water running between the two reservoirs. He thought that all those who were interested, whether as commoners or otherwise, had a right to compensation water. The Committee had not protected their interests at all, although Parliament, in the Act of 1884, did so to the extent he had mentioned.

New Clause—

(For the watering of flocks, herds, and stock.)

"2. The Corporation shall cause to flow at all times from No. 1 Reservoir along the natural channel of the River Taff, through the common lands, in a continuous flow, not less than five hundred thousand gallons of water in every day of twenty-four hours, for the watering of the flocks, herds, and stock grazing on such lands."—( Mr. A. C. Morton .)

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

said, the speech the House bad just heard had been made exactly 10 years too late, and it really had no relevance to the Bill. The moving of this new clause was an attempt to induce the House to go back upon the legislation of 1884. This was not a Bill for the creation of reservoirs, and it did not in any way interfere with the water of the river. The proposal made in the clause was urged upon the Committee over and over again. The hon. Member for North Birmingham (Mr. Kenrick) happened to be in the Chair on one occasion when the proposal was made, and he said—

"We have already said we cannot go into this question. The Committee cannot go behind the Act of 1884, and the powers given by that Act."

This was the keynote of the Committee's action, and it would have been quite ultra vires for them to have dealt with this question in the manner proposed. He trusted that the House would not accept the clause.

said, he wished to say a word in personal explanation after what the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton) had said. All he had told the hon. Member for Peterborough was that if any point in connection with the rights of the commoners should be raised on the clauses which had not been dealt with by the Committee on the Preamble the Committee would, of course, see that justice was done. The whole question was considered, and he believed the Committee had given a just decision with regard to it. He did not think that it would now be possible to go back upon the determination arrived at by the Committee.

May I say that all these Amendments were handed in to the Committee?

And considered.

Question put, and negatived.

said, he wished to move the clause he had placed on the Paper respecting sheep-washing, but he would not trouble the House to divide upon it. The Committee had not taken the same course as was taken by the Committee who sat upon the Birmingham Bill in 1892. He believed the commoners would have got on better with the Committee if the Chairman had been able to be present on every occasion, but Derby Day had intervened—

^* : I must ask the hon. Member whether lie is going to move this clause?

I am going to move it, Sir.

I understood the hon. Member to say that he was not.

I am going to move it, and if a Radical House like this—

^* : Order, order! The hon. Member will proceed.

said, lie was about to say if Derby Day had not intervened—

^* : Order, order! This is the second time I have called the hon. Member to Order.

I will say no more, but will move the clause.

New Clause—

(Sheep-washing.)

"3. If the Corporation interfere with the use of any sheep-washing place or places, either on any inclosed lands of the commoners or on the open common lands, the Corporation shall provide other suitable sheep-washing places as near as possible thereto, together with convenient access and egress to and from the same for the sheep, and proper resting and drying grounds and accommodation, and shall further pay annually to the commoners or commoner affected by such interference the amount of any increased charge or of any loss sustained in consequence of using a less convenient washing-place than that now enjoyed by them or him: Provided that in case any substituted washing-place may be reasonably considered by any commoner to be too inconvenient to make use of, on account of distance or other cause, the Corporation shall in such case make full and adequate compensation yearly to such commoner for the loss sustained by him."—( Mr. A. C. Morton .)

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

said, that as a Member of the Committee who was not present when the decision was given in the Cardiff Bill, but who had attended numerous other meetings of the Committee, he felt bound to state that the Chairman had been present day after clay and week after week ever since the Committee was appointed. He would go further, aad say that the rights of every individual, particularly if such individual were unable to put forward his own claim, were considered by the Committee in every possible way. No question of Party had arisen, and when the Committee was dividing there was a great deal of cross voting. The Chairman and the Members of the Committee certainly did justice to the Cardiff Bill, and lie felt bound to support their decision, although lie was not present when it was arrived at.

said, he was utterly at a loss to understand why the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton) had attacked the Chairman of the Committee. The Bill was most carefully considered in respect of every detail. It would have been impossible for any Committee to be presided over by a better Chairman, and political differences had been quite unknown on the Committee.

said, he was present at all the meetings of the Committee on the Cardiff Bill. He believed the Chairman was very seldom absent from the meetings, and when he was absent it was to attend the Committee on the Acceleration of Registration Bill.

^* : As a Member who was not on the Committee, I should like to protest against the way in which the House of Commons is constantly asked to revise the proceedings of Committees upstairs without having any evidence to go upon. It is a very bad innovation, which has grown up only during the last two or three years, and it will lead to very serious consequences if it is largely pursued. The object of the establishment of Private Bill Committees is that evidence can be properly heard which the House cannot hear. The House is, therefore, bound not to accept these very improper Motions.

Question put, and negatived.

said, he desired now to move a new clause respecting arbitration. He did not see why the Committee should not have adopted such a clause. By the Act of 1889 Parliament had provided a very useful measure of arbitration, and he asked that in case of any difference arising that Act should be made to apply. He thought he might fairly press this proposal, because the Bill already gave the County of Brecon exactly the clause which he wanted for the commoners, whilst it also gave the Great Western Railway Company an Arbitration Clause.

New Clause—

(Arbitration.)

"4. Any difference which may from time to time arise between the commoners of the parish of Cantref collectively, or any individual commoner, and the Corporation, as to the amount of compensation payable to such commoners or commoner in respect of the taking of any lands, temporarily or otherwise, over which they have the right of common, or in respect of any injurious affection of any other lands over which they have the right of common, by exercise of the powers conferred on the Corporation by this Act or the Act of 1884, or as to the carrying out of the duties imposed by this Act on the Corporation of providing sheep-washing places, and a continuous and sufficient flow of water for watering stock between Nos. 1 and 2 reservoirs, such differences shall be settled under the provisions of The Arbitration Act, 1889,' by a single arbitrator, to be appointed on the application of any party in difference by the Board of Agriculture"—( Mr. A. C. Morton .)

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.

^* said, lie had now to move his barbed wire clause. In a paper which had been sent round that morning, the promoters of the Bill said there were no fences, but it was stated on page 46 of their own Bill that there were fences in which they had to put gates. It was therefore evident that the paper circulated among Members was incorrect in this particular, as well as in others. The clause he proposed was accepted by the Corporation of Birmingham in 1892.

New Clause—

(Barbed Wire.)

"5. The Corporation shall not use any barbed wire in connection with the erection or maintenance of any fences or otherwise."—( Mr. A. C. Morton .)

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—( Dr. Farquharson .)

(Queen's Consent signified),—read the third time, and passed.

reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:—

I thank you sincerely for your loyal and dutiful Address.

I share the deep Sorrow and Indignation which you have expressed at the Assassination of the President of the French Republic.

I shall take care to convey to the French Government the Abhorrence, which, in common with, Myself you feel at this detestable Crime, and the Sympathy which it has called forth for the Family of the late President, and also for the Government and People of France.

reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:—

I thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address on the occasion of the Birth if the Prince, My Great Grandson.

It affords Me much Satisfaction to receive this Assurance of your Attachment to My Person and Family.

moved, in page 11, after Clause 16, to insert the following clause—

(Exception as to property in British Possessions.)

(1)"Where the Commissioners are satisfied that in a British possession to which this section applies duty is payable by reason of a death in respect of any property situate in such possession and passing on such death, they shall allow a sum equal to the amount of that duty to be deducted from the Estate Duty payable in respect of that property on the same death.(2) Nothing in this Act shall be held to create a charge for Estate Duty on any property situate in a British possession while so situate, or to authorise the Commissioners to take any proceedings in a British possession for the recovery of any Estate Duty. (3) Her Majesty the Queen may, by Order in Council, apply this section to any British possession where Her Majesty is satisfied that by the law of such possession either no duty is chargeable in respect of property situate in the United Kingdom when passing on death, or that the law of such possession as respects any duty so chargeable is to the like effect as the foregoing provisions of this section. (4) Her Majesty in Council may revoke any such Order, where it appears that the law of the British possession has been so altered that it would not authorise the making of an Order under this section."

He said, he hoped that upon this subject there might be a pretty general agreement, because this clause was really, as regarded the colonies at least—he was not speaking now of foreign countries—a compound of Amendments standing on the Paper in the names of gentlemen of great authority on this subject sitting on the other side of the House. It practically embodied the Amendments on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight, and, except that it did not deal with foreign countries, it embraced, he thought, all the principles contended for by the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool, whose zealous interest in the colonies in this matter was well known. The Amendment introduced I the principle of reciprocity. The hon. Member for Kirkdale desired by his Amendment that there should be an equivalent exemption given on the part of the colonies. That the Government had endeavoured to introduce by the machinery of Orders in Council, which was the ordinary machinery in these cases, and he believed was especially agreeable to the colonies as marking their direct relation to the Crown. Then it was desired that there should be a special declaration that we did not here pretend to charge property situated in the colonies or in British possessions. That was the statement which was contained in the Amendment of the Member for Kirkdale, and they had practically incorporated it in the clause. The real truth was that it was so in the Bill, but there was a desire that it should be made clear beyond all doubt that the Government did not profess to charge property in the colonies or to exercise any supervision over it. As regarded personal property—real property, of course, was out of the question—whether it be in foreign countries or in the colonies, Legacy Duty now was recovered, not as against the property, but as against the executor here in respect of the assets which were at his hand. That being so, he hoped that the Government had practically satisfied, as regarded the colonies, the views expressed by the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight and the hon. Member for Kirkdale. But he observed that the hon. Member for Lynn Regis (Mr. Gibson Bowles) proposed also to introduce foreign countries. To that the Government would not accede. They were extremely willing to give the colonies their preference in this matter, and no doubt it was a very solid preference; but they could not give them a solid preference to the degree which would enable them to have advantages as against England altogether. They did give them this advantage: that they made it impossible in their case that double duty should be charged, and to that extent they were placed in a preferential position as compared with foreign countries. He did not know whether it had entered into the mind of anyone that this was an infringement or evasion of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause. The colonies were not excluded from preferential treatment in consequence of this clause. He need only give one instance. In the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1885 a distinction was made in respect to foreign securities, and at this moment a stamp of 10s. was charged on the Government securities of foreign countries, while only 2s. 6d. was charged on colonial securities. He did not mean to say that the Colonial Authorities would not have been better satisfied if they charged nothing at all, but they had endeavoured to meet the practical argument that under the Bill colonial property would be charged a double duty. This clause secured that if the colonial duty was equal to the duty charged here, then the duty would not be charged here, and the property would not bear a double duty. They must deal with the matter in this way, otherwise it was obvious that a man, a month before his death, might draw a cheque and transfer all his personal property to colonial banks and escape the duty altogether. There could not be a more easy means of evasion. But if a man found that the duty was au equivalent duty there was no temptation to evade it in that way. That showed the necessity for some arrangement of this character. He thought it was a fair arrangement, and hoped it would commend itself to the House.

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

^* said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had at last given them what was his opinion as to dealing with certain objections to certain clauses in this Estate Act. He would begin by differing from the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon a point of principle. The right hon. Gentleman told them the object of the Government by this new clause was to give a preference to the colonists. He (Sir G. Baden-Powell) did not wish for any differential treatment, but he wished to explain the rights of the colonies in this matter. He had made extensive inquiries not only from the Representatives of the Colonial Governments, but also from representative colonists in England, and he was convinced that if the clause was put forward as meeting the rights of the colonies it would stir up serious dissatisfaction in the immediate future. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had burked discussion on this subject on several occasions by telling the House that conferences and negotiations were in progress with the Representatives of the colonies.

said, he had received two letters from the hon. Member asking him whether it was desirable that the discussion should be deferred until the negotiations with the Colonial Representatives were closed.

^* said, that referred to quite another matter and not to the question now raised, which he had had upon the Paper ever since the Bill had been introduced. All he wished to point out was that they had never been able to discuss the matter in the House—

I made a statement in this House as to what I was going to do, and the hon. Member wrote to me a letter of extreme approval, and said that what I had done had been received with great satisfaction throughout the colonies.

said, that what he referred to was the fact that the matter had never been discussed, and even now he had no idea what the terms of the Amendment were until he saw it on the Paper on Saturday morning, and he was very much surprised to notice that it did not carry out what he understood to be the conditions laid down by the Representatives of our colonies, and they knew by the Paper for which he moved, and which was laid on the Table of the House, that it did not carry out the expressed wishes of the Agents General. With reference to the wording of the clause, the second two lines of the second clause carried out what he thought the whole clause ought to be—

"Nothing in this Act shall be held to create a charge for Estate Duty on any property situate in a British possession."

If that was the whole clause it would be a perfect clause, but then these two lines flatly contradicted the first part of the clause. The second part of the clause was absolutely in the terms of his own Amendment which he had on another page. The third paragraph, which stated that Her Majesty might by Order in Council apply this section to any British possession on property "while so situate," he did not quite understand. The fourth paragraph, in which Her Majesty in Council might revoke any such Order in Council in any colony under the conditions there set forth, was unnecessary, and in any case he thought the Order would not be possible. He had carefully considered the working of this clause, and he thought these objections certainly militated against its practical usefulness. The clause as it stood was really contrary to the principle which ought to underlie any clause dealing with taxation in our colonies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer apparently did not yet appreciate what the difficulties were of attempting to levy any such tax, and he would briefly run over one or two practical objections to this tax before he came, very shortly, to describe the constitutional position. The first practical point was this. He did not see how by this Act the right hon. Gentleman could in any way bring any revenue into the Exchequer, and if they did not gain any money by this agitation, and causing this friction through the colonies, surely it would be wise now to drop any such action. He knew it was of enormous value to the Exchequer to follow up the principle of broadening the basis of taxation; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could by any such means increase his basis of taxation, so that it should cover the whole world, he quite agreed that the right hon. Gentleman would achieve an enormous advantage to future Chancellors of the Exchequer as well as to himself. But the Government had conceded in this Amendment a very important point but one which he did not think needed conceding—namely, that they could not pay twice over the same Queen's taxes on the same property. That, he understood, had been illegal all along, and he happened to know at least one case where taxes were charged twice on the same property in Australia. The case was given against the man who had been forced to pay, but on appeal home it was shown to be illegal to pay the Queen's taxes twice on any property; therefore, he did not think any trouble need be taken in regard to this fact of property being taxed twice over because it was distinctly illegal to so tax it. But in conceding the remission of duty that had been already paid it meant that in all our colonies steps had been or would soon be taken to place the duties there on an exact equivalent to this duty at home. In the Provinces of Canada which had the right of imposing direct taxes, the lower duties did exist because of the unpopularity of increasing in amount this Death Duty. If the financial Officers and Ministers of these Provinces could go to their Representative Legislatures and say, "It is no longer a question of imposing duty or increasing duty, you will have to pay this high duty now, because of what the Imperial Parliament has done, but you had better pay it to ns than to the Chancellor of the Exchequer," then these Legislatures would allow these duties to be raised exactly to the amount charged in London, and in that case the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have created all this machinery and also have caused all this great friction in our colonies, and yet not one penny would come to the Exchequer. There were other difficulties in connection with such action. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had already alluded to gentlemen being able to place money in a colonial bank and so escape the duty. It was quite possible that gentlemen might do so now provided that money did not have to pay Legacy or Succession Duty. But there was great difficulty in regard to executors. An executor must either be domiciled in this country or in one of the colonies. If he was domiciled in a colony, there was no Court in this country which had jurisdiction over him in getting any return of accounts and any payment. That was a very easy way of avoidance of this tax. Then, again, the valuation of properties in the colonies would be a source of difficulty and expense. There were other difficulties in the way of collecting such a duty, such, for instance, as the ease with which domicile could be changed in the British Empire. He believed that already one or two wealthy residents in this country had even expressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer their intention of changing their domicile if this Bill became law. He was alluding to these difficulties to show that in the opinion of experts any clause which tried to levy Estate Duty in our colonies would not result in gain to the Exchequer, and he did not see why this House, composed as it was of practical men, should attempt to impose on our colonies any scheme of taxation which would not result in any gain to the Exchequer. He wished now to allude to what he would venture to call the rights of our colonies. This House, without doubt, had conceded to our self-governing colonies independent legislative and executive sovereignty so far as matters of taxation were concerned. He thought there was no one who could doubt that had been done, and he thought it would also be conceded when they had delegated the power which they had the right to exercise or to delegate, they could not both delegate and exercise the power. Without doubt they had done this, and he might bring forward one instance which, he thought, must have escaped the observation of the authorities who had drafted this Bill. It was an instance of legislation by the Imperial Parliament. In the Imperial Act, by which they enabled the Provinces of North America to federate into one dominion in 1867, the Dominion Government by the Imperial Act was expressly forbidden levying any direct taxes, and that prerogative of taxation and of legislative and executive sovereignty was expressly reserved to the Provincial Governments. How, therefore, this Parliament was to take the double step of not only levying direct taxes in the Canadian Dominion, but levying them in spite of this particular clause and gift of power to the Provincial Governments he could not see.

We do not exercise power in the colonies any more than in France. France is independent, and we do not tax property in France. Canada cannot be more independent than France is, so far as legislation is concerned.

said, he was not now dealing with foreign countries, but his point was that they had delegated the full right of taxation, and now they were about to levy taxes on property in Canada. He knew the right hon. Gentleman did not wish him to say he ever even suggested such a thing as that the colonies ought by this means to contribute to the Imperial expenditure. But the answers of the right hon. Gentleman led a great many hon. Members and the public to think that he did entertain such a view. As regarded Canada, he thought it would be quite sufficient for any gentleman who understood this matter when he said that for many years past Canada had been paying more than the fixed sum of 1,000,000 dollars for the purpose of defending the territories of the Empire subject to the Canadian Government. He knew also that the colonies not only had this delegation of the powers of self-taxation, but they exercised it, and if they added up what was raised by self-taxation in various parts of the Empire they would find it came to the very respectable total of £50,000,000 sterling, so that they were not dealing with a mere legal or legislative fiction, but with a great and important fact. He would like to observe with regard to this duty that whether they remitted anything or not they were certainly extending the duty to property situated in the colonies. It had been said that they were only doing what was done now; that was to say, the Legacy and Succession Duties now applied in the colonies. But all that was arranged in the last century, long before the grant of self-government and self-taxation to our colonies, and the burden had fallen so lightly on them that the action of the Home Government had not been contested. But though that might give the right of user, it did not make it right in principle, and this attempt to largely increase the duties payable on legacies and succession had aroused the colonies to the idea that even that taxation ought to have been remitted and made good. It had been shown by some writers, notably by Professor Dicey, in regard to aggregation and graduation, and in the fact that this Bill made Legacy and Succession Probate Duties, they did, as a matter of fact, largely increase the taxation of property in the colonies which would otherwise have escaped. There was one greats point in regard to this which he thought was conclusive, and that was that in levying taxes on property situated in the colonies, and especially such heavy duties as were proposed under this Bill, they did, as a matter of fact, diminish, even if they did not destroy, the capacity of that particular property to yield taxation to the Queen, and in that case they certainly interfered in a very serious and material manner with the right and power of the colonies to raise their revenue from their property in the way which best suited them. He had now gone through some of the objections, and he hoped in the concluding remarks he should make that the right hon. Gentleman would see that there was very good reason, if it were possible, to insert as a new clause to deal with the taxation of the colonies the first two lines of Sub-section (2). He had in his hand a great many letters. He was not going to read them, but he should like to quote one written by a very distinguished colonist, and a man who was intensely loyal, as all colonists were. He said—

"It would be possible, perhaps, to levy these taxes on colonial property, but it would certainly lead to the independence of the colonies."

The colonial men in England, men who understood colonial affairs and politics, had sent a memorial to the right hon. Gentleman in which the results were summed up in words to the effect that the proposal to include for Estate Duty personal property situated outside the United Kingdom would lead to the gravest inconvenience, and injustice would be thereby caused to great numbers of Her Majesty's subjects. The Royal Colonial Institute used those words, but there were even graver words used by the responsible representatives in this country of the Colonial Governments, and who were dead against a clause of this kind. They regarded it as contrary to their rights, as unjust, and totally inadequate to meet the representations which they had made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

That Memorial was written long before this clause was drafted.

said, that was the very reason why he wished to read it. The right hon. Gentleman, in his conference with the Representatives of Colonial Governments and in his remarks in introducing the clause that day, led them to understand that the clause, if it did not, really ought to satisfy Colonial Governments. But here were the recorded views of these Governments. They said—

"The proposal to levy the Estate Duties on property located in the colonies will be regarded there as a tax, not on British subjects, but on colonial property, and consequently as a serious interference with a field of taxation which they regard as constitutionally their own."

And then they used these words, which alone should be sufficient to make any right hon. Gentleman in that House anxious to see that the clause should be in harmony with the representations made on behalf of these great colonies—

"Our Governments take exception to property in the colonies being charged with these Death Duties, and feel entitled to ask on what principle of constitutional right this is sought to be done. We belong to the Empire, and inasmuch as the Imperial Parliament has granted to us responsible and Parliamentary Government, with the right to impose taxation on our people to meet the requirements of State, how can the exercise of the proposed interference by the Imperial Parliament be possible without first suspending our respective Constitutions?"

He said that these words, penned by the responsible Representatives of 10,000,000 of Her Majesty's subjects, ought to and must receive full and adequate consideration in the House of Commons. At this moment, when the Chancellor of tile Exchequer had proposed for the first time to levy duties on foreign and colonial property, there was a Conference at Ottawa of Colonial Representatives for the purpose of considering how best to consolidate the Empire, and some words were used by the distinguished Prime Minister of Canada, which the House would do well to bear in mind at this juncture. He had said—

"Colonial Conferences had previously met on the American Continent to discuss plans for separation. This one was to plight anew our faith in one another, never yet tarnished, and our affection for the mother-land.'"

At this moment they ought, in any taxation which in any way affected the colonies, to pay the greatest heed to the representations and voices of these 10,000,000 of our fellow-subjects; and although he himself felt that this matter ought never to have been introduced into this Bill, he could not help thinking that now it had been introduced they should come out of it in a perfectly easy and simple way if, instead of adopting the clause as it stood, they inserted only these words from the second sub-section—

"Nothing in this Act shall be held to create a charge for Estate Duty on any property situate in a British possession to which has been granted the right of levying taxes for the requirements of the State."

He appealed to the Committee, and especially to those Members of all political Parties who had formed themselves into what was known as the Colonial Party, not to pass this clause as it stood, but to pass it in such a form as should uphold the acknowledged rights of our colonies in the matter of self-taxation, and above all things to carry out the expressed wishes of the authorised Representatives of these colonies.

said, that the hon. Member stated that to tax the colonies would be au invasion of the rights of the colonies, and yet the hon. Member himself had au Amendment on the Paper for the very purpose of levying taxation upon the colonies. It was to be found on the Paper long after the Memorial to which the hon. Member had made reference.

said, that when it was reached he had intended to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

said, the Amendment had been upon the Paper as the view of the hon. Member who said he represented what was called the Colonial Party in this House, and he (Sir W. Harcourt) had paid great consideration to that Amendment in the light of the knowledge of the relation in which the hon. Member stood to the colonies and to the Colonial Party. Let the Committee see what it was the hon. Member had himself proposed. He said it was unconstitutional—

I have never proposed that Amendment, and did not intend to.

said, that at any rate it had been on the Paper in the hon. Member's name to this very day, and he supposed there was a time when he thought it was perfectly constitutional to do what he proposed to do in his Amendment. That Amendment had been on the Paper for weeks, and he had never removed it since he was acquainted with the Memorial of the colonists. Here was the hon. Member's view as expressed in his Amendment:—

"From the full Estate Duty payable under this Act, the Commissioners shall allow to be deducted such sum or sums as shall be shown to their satisfaction to have been lawfully paid as Death Duties on property situate in foreign countries, or in any colony or dependency of the British Empire, to the government of the country in which such property is situate, and in which equivalent exemption is granted in respect of Death Duties payable there on property situate in the United Kingdom."

Therefore, the hon. Member claimed the right to place the taxation on the property in foreign countries and in the colonies, subject only to the deduction of the amount of the tax being levied in that country in which the property is situate and in which equivalent exemption is granted in respect of Death Duties payable there on property situate in the United Kingdom. That clause is identical in principle with the first clause of the Amendment he (Sir W. Harcourt) had proposed, and for the hon. Member at this time of day to turn round and say it was unconstitutional and an invasion of the rights of the colonies was one of the most remarkable things he had ever witnessed even in that House. Then the hon. Member said that the rights of the colonies should be safeguarded by a declaration, and he made the following declaration:—

"Nothing in this Act shall be held to apply to property situate in any British colony to which has been granted responsible Parliamentary government, inclusive of the right to levy taxes for all purposes of State."

As regarded the colonies, the proposal of the hon. Member was, and had been up to the moment when he rose to speak, identical with the proposals of the Government. There could not be any doubt about that. Put the hon. Member's two clauses together and they were practically identical with the proposals of the Government. The hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight, he supposed, might be said to represent the legal views on the constitutional question on the other side of the House, and what did that hon. Member say in the Amendment he had put down—

"The amount of duties lawfully payable on the death of the deceased in any British colony or dependency in respect of property therein situate which is liable to Estate Duty under this Act shall be deducted from the amount of Estate Duty payable in respect of such property."

Then again the proposal was identical with that in the clause of the Government, and therefore they had the conjoint authority of the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight and the hon. Member for West Derby for treating this matter in exactly the way they proposed to treat it. The hon. Member opposite said the Go- vernment had no right to exercise legislative or taxing authority in Canada. Of course not, and they did not pretend to do anything of the kind. Neither had the Government the right to tax people in France. The Government had no intention of taxing a foreign country or people, nor of taxing the property of such country or people. The proposal of the Government was to tax the executor or representative here of a domiciled Englishman. If the mere transfer of property to a colony for a day was to exclude it from taxation, that would be to defeat the tax altogether. Some representatives of the colonies were not at all sorry that the rich absentee colonist should be taxed, and it was only the representative of the absentee colonist that the Bill would touch. The cases in which the tax would be collected would not be numerous; and although the colonists would doubtless prefer that no charge should be made, such total exemption would be putting a tremendous premium on colonial investments. The hon. Member should repudiate his own thunder. It was a little disappointing to the Government that, having arrived at the same conclusion as was expressed in the Amendment of the hon. Member and the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight, they should be now met with opposition on the part of the hon. Member.

I think it is extremely desirable that we should discuss this very important question without any reference to the wording of any particular Amendments and without any reference to Party, or to the particular side of the House on which we sit, because we stand in the presence of claims from the colonies on the one hand, and of certain demands that are to be met on the other. We must all be anxious that the colonies should have extended to them every indulgence and consideration, but I cannot agree with the colonists that their rights have been invaded by the proposals of the Government. This seems to me to be a question of expediency. There were many reasons why the original proposals of the Government should be opposed; but I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this is not a proposal to tax colonial property or to interfere with colonial rights. On a former occasion I expressed a doubt whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wise in taking the step which the right hon. Gentleman proposed, either with regard to foreign countries or the colonies, but when the colonists or their representatives say that this is an attempt to tax colonial property against their constitutional rights, they put forward a claim that cannot be fairly urged on this House. At the same time, I think it was unfortunate that when the right hon. Gentleman originally proposed to tax property situated in the colonies, the right hon. Gentleman himself should have urged, as one of the reasons why the proposal was justifiable, that the colonies did not contribute to Imperial Revenue.

was understood to say that he was afraid lie had expressed himself badly, and that his words had been misunderstood. It had not been his intention to state that as his ground for taxing the colonies.

I have no wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman or to put words into his mouth which would give the slightest offence, if spoken, to our colonial fellow-subjects. I am, however, afraid that the misinterpretation which has been put upon the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has aroused some feeling on the part of the colonists, and stimulated them to put forward the statement of their rights which they have put forward. I should hope that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted, this is not at all a colonial question, but merely a question of taxing English property in the colonies; and, as the rights of the colonists are not invaded by the proposition in the view of the great majority of the House, under these circumstances, I think that the Committee may refrain from any further argument which would in any way relate to constitutional questions with the colonies. I put forward this view at the present stage believing that we all must be most anxious not to increase any passing ill-feeling or irritation which may exist in the minds of the colonists on this subject. Therefore, what we ought to do is to argue the matter simply on the ground of expediency. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not hope to get much out of the tax, but thinks it neces- sary to avoid evasion. I, however, fail to see any more likelihood of evasion in the future than in the past, unless it be under the system of aggregation and graduation which has been adopted. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has shown a desire to meet the wishes of the Colonial Representatives. I do not desire to press the right hon. Gentleman, but I would remind him that he has not told the Committee to what extent he has succeeded in satisfying them. Colonists, I know from experience, are not always reasonable. The degree to which the colonists are satisfied with the proposals of the Government would, however, if stated, doubtless be a guide in forming an opinion as to the extent to which the proposals before the Committee should be pushed. If the Government can assure us that they have given not entire, but fair, satisfaction to the colonists in this matter, and after the concessions which have been made, I myself would be prepared to abstain from any further action in the matter.

said, he thought it was unfortunate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have given his answer on such au important subject before he had heard all the arguments that might be advanced in its favour. The right hon. Gentleman had said he understood his new clause was accepted as a sufficient compromise by persons in the House who were authorised to speak for the colonists. He knew of no one who could speak with more authority for the colonists than the colonists themselves through their elected Representatives; and it was useless for gentlemen who went round the world in 40 days, or who spent a certain time in the other hemisphere, to think they could tell the Committee what the colonists said on this subject. What was the case for the tax? The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated it on the 31st of May, when he said—

"This is a proper tax to impose on property in foreign countries, and in the colonies. The colonies put a tax on our own commodities; and therefore, we are right to put this tax on them."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, failed to tell the House that this was an entirely new tax of a new kind. Hitherto they had followed property domiciled in this country when it was abroad to the extent of levying Legacy Duty, or in the case of settled personalty, Succession Duty. The true rule was the rule they had gone by in the past—namely, that they never attempted to levy any tax whatever upon any property whatever, except it was, either actually or constructively, within the United Kingdom. If a man were domiciled in the United Kingdom his personal property was constructively here; if his personalty were actually here, it was actually here, and it should be either actually or constructively here, to be taxed. Now a different rule was to be put in operation. Wherever the property of a man domiciled here was situated the Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed to levy a tax upon it. The right hon. Gentleman had talked of persons in the House who were authorised to speak for the colonists. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the objections of the colonists themselves to the tax. They declared, first of all, that Parliament had no constitutional right to impose this tax; that it would cause irritation, and seriously interfere with the field of taxation they regard constitutionally as their own; that it would seriously impede the free exchange of capital between the Mother Country and the colonies; and, finally, they submitted that if this duty was to be an enforced contribution from the colonists for the Navy, the colonists should have been in the first instance invited to contribute. He believed that if that invitation were given the colonists would not have refused to accede to it. Not one of the objections which he had quoted was met by the new clause of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

That Memorial was written long before this clause was put down.

said, the declaration of the colonists was dated the 12th of June; it was seriously made, officially communicated to the House, and placed on the Table of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward his clause to meet those objections, and told the Committee that there were persons in authority in the House who accepted it as sufficient. But what did the colonists themselves say? Had the right hon. Gentleman received any communication from the colonists since he bad put his clause on the Paper, saying it had satisfied their objections? If not, then no one in the House was competent to say that the clause satisfied the colonists either completely or comparatively. It was impossible to read the declaration of the colonists without being struck by the close similarity it bore to another declaration made by colonists on an historical occasion. Lord Greville tried to induce the colonists of North America to submit to taxation by his Stamp Act, and said it was only a little one.

He claimed the right to tax the colonists.

said, no doubt; but, as in this case, it was a Stamp Act imposing a Stamp Duty on certain documents in the colonies; and the contention was that it was a small matter, and only brought in £100,000. The tax was then altered into another tax of a different nature—a Customs Duty, which would bring in about £40,000, and it was still further reduced to a Tea Duty, which would probably have brought in £20,000; but it was enough to light a flame through the colonies. The objections of the colonists to that tax were identically the same as they were now. They said it was unconstitutional. That was denied. They said, "If you had asked us we would have made a contribution, but we will not submit to be taxed by the English Parliament." Then, as now, the objections of the colonists were denied; and he regretted that there were now no Chatham, or Burke, or Fox to enforce the objections.

Were those American colonists domiciled in this country?

said, he really did not know what the hon. Gentleman meant. He now came to the Amendment. It practically gave up aggregation. It admitted that they could not completely aggregate a property. It insisted rather on a new and separate aggregation being instituted. There was, first of all, the aggregation of the whole property, and then the aggregation of that part of it situated in the colonies; or having aggregated the whole property, they proposed to impose half the duty on half the property. That seemed to him to make the thing an absurdity. He observed also that the clause was based on reciprocity. That was to say, that on the one hand from duty levied here on property in Victoria they were to deduct the duty levied on the same property in Victoria; and, on the other hand, from duty levied in Victoria on property in Great Britain the duty levied on that property in Great Britain was to be deducted. But he did not see how that could be worked. The maximum duty in Victoria was 10 per cent.; here, under the Bill, it was 8 per cent., so that they would have to deduct 10 per cent. from 8 per cent. He would take the concrete case of a property worth £150,000. The duty here on that property would be 6 per cent., or £9,000; and in Victoria it would be 10 per cent., or £15,000. They would, therefore, under the clause, have to deduct £15,000 from £9,000, and how they were going to do it he failed to see. But the difficulty did not end there. The clause proposed that in consideration for deducting the duty levied here on property in Victoria, they were to deduct the duty levied in Victoria on property in the United Kingdom. But Victoria had never framed such a tax as a duty imposed on property in the United Kingdom. They were better informed in Victoria of the true principles of taxation than the modern professors of taxation in the United Kingdom. The clause, therefore, came to this: that because they gave up £9,000 they charged on property in Victoria, Victoria was to give up £9,000 she did not charge on property in the United Kingdom. But, probably, Victoria would not be long until she did make such a charge. Was it not manifest that Victoria would be forced, for the protection of her revenue, to levy on property in the United Kingdom passing at the death of a person domiciled in Victoria a duty equal to that levied in the United Kingdom on property in Victoria? Nay, she might do more. She might put on property in the United Kingdom a duty which would leave her something after the deduction provided by the clause was made. That would be a remarkable result of th3 Finance Bill. First of all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get nothing out of the duty levied on property in the colonies; but he would have provoked, and justly provoked, the colonies to levy an entirely new duty on property situated in this country. Coming to a more serious matter with regard to the clause, they had to consider the differentiation now proposed to be set up between British possessions and other foreign countries. He used the word "other" advisedly. God forbid that he should look on the colonies as foreign countries! but legally they were treated as such in all matters relating to domicile and taxation. This was shown by well-known decisions affecting India, Demerara, Sydney, and Jersey. The colonies in matters of legacy were as much foreign as Bordeaux and Paris. This being so, the Government were giving by this clause to one set of foreign countries what they withheld from others. In the case of Victoria they gave up £9,000 of duty out of £100,000, which they did not give up in France. This was an important matter, when they remembered that, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, foreign property that would come under the Bill, as compared with colonial property, was as two to one; so that it was proposed to favour one-third, and to give no favour to the other two-thirds. He would cite three Favoured-Nation Clauses which seemed to him to prohibit that. Take the cases of France, Germany, and Russia. In the Treaty with France of February 28, 1882, were contained the words—

"Each of the high contracting parties engages to give the other immediately and unconditionally the benefit of every favour, immunity, or privilege in matters of commerce or industry which have been, or may be conceded by one of the high contracting parties to any third nation"—

Hear, hear!

said, the right hon. Gentleman cheered the word "nation," but that word was not generally adopted in clauses of this kind, and it had not the restricted meaning the right hon. Gentleman would put upon it. The clause said—

"any third nation whatsoever, whether within or beyond Europe."

Furthermore, it said—

"And likewise in all matters relating to the exercise of commerce and industry, and in respect to residence, whether temporary or permanent, the exercise of any calling or profession, the payment of taxes or other imposition, and the enjoyment of all legal rights and privileges, including the acquiring, holding, and power of disposing of property British subjects in France and in Algeria, and French in the United Kingdom, shall enjoy the treatment of the Most-Favoured Nation."

How was it with Germany? Practically the same thing, except that for the word "nation" the word "country" was used in the Treaty of May 30, 1865. Her Majesty's Government clearly, so far as Germany was concerned, in letting, say, Victoria off £9,000 in the case of £100,000, was making a great differentiation in favour of a "country." Take the Favoured-Nation Clause with Russia. There the word used was "foreigners." The clause of the Treaty of January 12, 1859, said—

"The subjects of either of the two contracting parties in the dominions and possessions of the other shall be at full liberty to acquire, possess, and dispose of every description of property which the laws of the country may permit any foreigners of whatsoever nation, to acquire and possess. They may acquire and dispose of the same whether by purchase, sale, donation, exchange, marriage, testament, succession ab intestato , or in any other manner under the same conditions as are established by the laws of the country for all foreigners."

He maintained that the Government were setting up a differential treatment of the colonies, which, in the eye of the law, were foreign countries, and which, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer bad himself pointed out, imposed taxes on our commodities and treated us as foreigners. The Most-Favoured Nation Clauses precluded the Chancellor of the Exchequer from making any such differential treatment towards our colonists or the inhabitants of British possessions as was suggested in this clause—differential treatment which was denied to France, Germany, and Russia. Had the Government made any inquiry of the Governments of those countries as to whether they would regard it as an infraction of Treaties or not, or had they treated this matter as they did the strip of Congo territory the other day, when, having made their arrangements, they found out afterwards that the foreign nations would not agree to them, and then the Government had to back out? Were they sure that they would not have to give up this clause also? The matter was a serious one. He had shown that the Amendment was an inadequate alleviation, an ill-advised attempt to impose taxes beyond the scope of any which had hitherto been imposed or attempted to be imposed by this country. And what were they going to get by their policy? They would get absolutely nothing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, "If you give me the power I. will collect the duty," but he had already told them that in the case of property situated abroad where there was a foreign executor the British Exchequer might give up all hope of getting a farthing of duty. That concluded the whole question. It was quite certain that as soon as persons possessed of foreign property got wind of this taxation they would appoint foreign executors. The right hon. Gentleman expected to get the duty out of English executors, but it seemed to him (Mr. Gibson Bowles) that directly the effect of the Bill became known the Chancellor of the Exchequer might whistle for his duty. He would get nothing; or if he did receive duty it would be an extremely small amount, due to the carelessness of some solicitor or testator. Was it worth while, then, for the sake of a small gain to the Exchequer or no gain at all, to challenge the discontent of the colonies and raise serious questions with foreign nations? Would it not be better for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give up this claim at once and restrict his sphere of taxation to property actually or constructively situated in the United Kingdom, and to come back to the original principles of taxation? He regretted very much that they would have to discuss these Death Duties at any length in the House. His opinion was that they could only be successfully levied when they were kept secret—secret from everybody but the interested parties who had to pay them. Hitherto the public had been scarcely aware that Death Duties existed, but now that attention had been drawn to them people would cast about for a means to avoid them. Was it worth while, for the sake of a gain which would be so trifling, to imperil both the affection of the colonies and the friendship of foreign countries?

was understood to say he had supposed that the hon. Member for Lynn Regis, from his Amendment on the Paper, adopted the principle of the clause, and that his only desire was to extend it to foreign countries. But what the hon. Member asked the Committee to do was not merely not to impose the new Death Duty, but to abandon the Death Duties which now existed. He (Sir W. Harcourt) was grateful to the right hon. Member for St. George's for the extremely moderate manner in which he had dealt with the question, showing how we were infringing no constitutional rights of the colonies in this matter, and that the question was really one of expediency. The hon. Member for Lynn Regis spoke with great confidence upon many subjects, and upon none more so than with regard to his interpretation of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses. He did not deny that the hon. Member was a great authority; but he (Sir W. Harcourt) preferred the authority of the responsible Law Advisers of the Crown, whose opinions were exactly opposite to those of the hon. Gentleman. It had never been regarded in connection with most-favoured treatment in Commercial Treaties that the colonies were included in the words "other nation" or "other country."

Is that view accepted by foreign countries?

Yes; by all.

^* : When a Treaty was made with a foreign nation it was not a Treaty with a colony, and when they spoke of the Most-Favoured Nation Clause they spoke of other nations with whom they made Treaties, and not the colonies. They did not make Treaties with the colonies, and, consequently, the whole foundation was knocked away from the argument of the hon. Member. He understood the hon. Member to wish to apply the doctrine of reciprocity exceptionally to foreign countries, but they were under no obligation to do so, and he saw no reason why they should do it. It would, in fact, entail a considerable loss of revenue to do this. The argument of the hon. Member would apply not merely to the new Estate Duty, but to all other duties. It should be remembered that they were not taxing the colonies or colonial property; they were taxing persons domiciled in England who had property in the colonies. It was true that personal property, wherever situated, followed the owner, and the State took the duty in respect of it from the executor to the extent of the assets under his control. There was nothing in the clause which invaded the rights of foreign States or of our colonies, and it was the desire of the Government to give to the colonies, in this reciprocal arrangement, an advantage they were not bound to give to other States, or even to the colonies unless they desired it. Under the circumstances, he hoped that this matter might not be made the cause of serious delay in arriving at a settlement of the question. The Government were desirous of acting in the most conciliatory manner towards the colonies. They had no desire to exercise arbitrary authority within their jurisdiction; all they proposed was merely to levy a tax on persons domiciled in the United Kingdom in respect of property belonging to them wheresoever situated.

said, they had no desire to prolong the discussion, but the stress the Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid on the point that the tax would be laid on the person domiciled in this country induced him (Mr. Williams) to place before the Committee a statement derived from the practical experience of a gentleman from South Australia. The hon. Member for Lynn Regis seemed to think that what the Government now proposed was an entirely new departure. He hardly thought that that was so, for when they came to bleeding it hardly mattered what amount of blood they took from the gentleman who underwent the operation.

said, it was a new departure, because they were for the first time levying the Probate Duty outside the United Kingdom.

said, it was not a new departure in taxing property not within the four corners of the United Kingdom. He thought it was very likely that the amount of duty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was proposing to levy would create some amount of feeling in the countries in which it was to be levied—a feeling which had not hitherto existed, because the amount of duty had been much smaller. The instance given to him was that of an Australian gentleman who died some years ago leaving property in Melbourne to the amount of £150,000, and £7,000 deposited in this country. He was domiciled here, having lived here for eight years previous to his death. Under the Bill these two properties would be aggregated. The testator disposed of the £150,000 secured on mortgage by two specific legacies, and then he left the sum of £4,000 to be paid out of the residue to a certain charity in Melbourne. His (Mr. P. William's) friend told him that under the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it would have been absolutely impossible for the executors to have paid the legacy of £4,000. What his friend had said was that if the state of the case had been made public in Melbourne, and it was known that the inability of the testators' executors to pay over this sum of £4,000 was owing to the large amount which was required to be paid into the Exchequer of this country, there would have been many people who would have had a good deal to say on the matter.

said, he retained his opinion that the whole proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter was inexpedient, both as regarded the colonies and foreign countries. The clause was not one which imposed taxation, but was one which remedied, to a certain extent, some of the inconveniences incident thereto. If they rejected the clause, they would fall back on a worse position than they were in originally. Therefore, he could not vote against the clause, which, though not going as far as he might wish, was, at all events, a modification of a worse condition of the law.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a second time.

called on Mr. Gibson Bowles to move an Amendment to the clause which stood on the Paper in his name.

After the ease has been given away by the right hon. Gentleman below me (Mr. Goschen) I will not move the Amendment.

said, he should like to have a definition of the words "British possession" mentioned in the clause. There were so many kinds of possessions that he was not certain what was meant. The Transvaal suzerainty had been alluded to that afternoon. Then there was Cyprus, British protectorates, spheres of influence, and Chartered Companies. These were all types of British rights.

said, it was difficult to give a definition of those words, but his idea was that they might be taken as generally as possible, and as including everything which we possessed. The question reminded him of the well-known definition that was once given of "archidiaconal functions." If it were necessary to make the words more expansive, he had no doubt it would be done. He was told that plain, ordinary, vulgar, English was not sufficient to interpret ordinary commonplace ideas, and that he must use the language of lawyers and draftsmen, which he always avoided as much as possible, because it made that obscure which without it would be very plain. He always endeavoured to avoid definitions of this kind. Therefore, without the leave of his hon. Friend, he would still say that a British possession was a British possession. That was, he thought, the first and last definition capable of being given to it. If further difficulties arose upon that they would try and put it straight if they could.

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Lynn Regis, who had not moved his Amendment, had avenged himself; but as the Amendment was not moved, he should not press the question of definition further. It was highly possible that upon Report it might be found necessary to argue the question with regard to foreign property, for he had always felt that it was undesirable that the free flow of capital to and fro between this and foreign countries should be interfered with. In France, for instance, equally high duties were imposed, and it would be impossible, therefore, for people to hold property in both countries.

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

moved a new clause in reference to the mode of assessment of Income Tax, the object of which was to restore the law relating to Income Tax to its original form as proposed by Sir R. Peel, and to the form in which it stood down to the year 1865. It had always been felt to be a hardship that incomes arising from the exertions of a man's brain should be charged at as high a rate as those resulting from invested capital, and Motions to that effect had been moved over and over again. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, in his great Budget speech of 1853, said that in his judgment the Income Tax

"bore, upon the whole, too hard upon intelligence and skill, and not enough upon property as compared with intelligence and skill."

The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies in his valuable work upon Finance and Politics, enumerating the objections to the Tax, said—

"The tax is professedly charged at the same rate on permanent as on precarious incomes, and thus its incidence is unequal, as between the workers of the world and those who toil not neither do they spin. A precarious income is taxed at an equal (and therefore at a propor- tionately heavier) rate as compared to the secure income. The objection to the present system of assessment is, that the tax is levied, in the case of precarious incomes, not only on income, but also partly on what is practically capital. The owner of a temporary income not derived from capital, and depending wholly or in part on his own health and life, is bound to save and invest a portion of his income, a necessity which cannot be said to exist in any thing like the same degree in the case of a possessor of a permanent income derived from capital…. Neither the Income Tax, nor any other tax can be made perfect, nor its incidence absolutely fair and just. But le mieux est l'ennemi du bien ; there is no reason because absolute justice cannot be done to everybody, that justice should be done to nobody. An injustice that cannot be redressed may yet be minimised. The demand made is not that individual incomes should be distinguished the me from the other, but that an endeavour should be made to distinguish on broad lines between that income which is permanent, i.e. , derived from property, and that which is precarious in the sense that it depends upon the personal exertions of an individual."

Surely, then, he might claim his hon. Friend's vote. Again, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, speaking recently at Plymouth, said—

"When you consider the enormous inequality and injustice which is inflicted by taxing incomes irrespective of the source from which they are derived, when you see how the professional man and the business man who makes his income by his brains, and whose income is precarious and dependent upon his own life and health, and the continuance of his exertions, when you consider that his income is taxed upon the same basis and to the same extent as the income of a man who has inherited property, and who is the mere recipient, and contributes nothing, you must acknowledge that it is a serious and a great injustice."

In a recent article The Statist said very truly, June 2, 1894—

"At the present time the man who earns a precarious income at a profession or by a clerkship has to pay exactly the same rate of Income Tax as the man who receives an income which he has inherited from his parents, and for which he renders absolutely no service, and which he will be glad to hand down to his own children. Everybody is agreed that this is not t fair system."

No practical remedy, however, by any difference of rate had ever been suggested. There was an immense difference, no doubt, between the two classes of income, as regarded extreme cases, but they passed one into the other by imperceptible gradations. Nor had any satisfactory treatment of investments ever peen suggested. Take one class: the securities of foreign nations. Some were excellent, others, unfortunately, as Investers knew to their cost, were almost valueless. The arrangement, however, made by Sir R. Peel gave a substantial relief to precarious incomes. Returns were made on an average of the income during the three preceding years, and if the amount fell short a rebate was given on the difference. Before the Committee of 1861 the head of the Inland Revenue Department gave evidence on this point, and estimated that this privilege was equivalent to a concession to industrial revenue of something like 30 per cent. It had, moreover, the advantage that it increased of course with the uncertainty. But in 1865 this advantage, and so far as he was aware-without any notice being given to those concerned or to the House of Commons—was considerably modified, and, instead of a rebate being given of the whole, the Income Tax-payer was now only allowed to bring in the current year, instead of the first one of the three. Supposing, for instance, that a lawyer or a medical man, or a man of business, had made for three years £1,000 a year. He would add the three years together, and, dividing the amount given by three, his average income would, of course, be £1,000, which he would return to the Income Tax officials. Now, supposing that, from any breakdown of his health, or from any change in the course of trade, he made actually no income, or even a loss. Under the old system he could claim the rebate. He could say, "I have paid Income Tax on £1,000, and, as a matter of fact, I have made nothing," and he was entitled to receive back his Income Tax. That certainly seemed only fair. But under the present system all he was entitled to do was to strike off the first of the three years—that was to say, to strike off £1,000 from the £3,000, and then add the profit for the current year (which in the case proposed would be nothing) to the £2,000 remaining. The £2,000 would then be divided by three, giving an average of £666 13s. 4d., and on this amount he would be liable to pay. Under the old system he would get his rebate on the whole £1,000; under the present one only on £333 6s. 8d., and would have to pay on £666 of profit which he had never made. The change was unjust, and an effort should be made this year to induce Parliament and the Government to revert to the old system, which, it was evident, would be only fair, and a great boon to all those whose income depended upon their own exertions, whether in law, medicine, or commerce. The change made in 1865 deprived those whose income depended on their own exertions, and were therefore necessarily somewhat precarious, of a compensation which they long enjoyed, and left them in many cases under a legal obligation to pay Income Tax on a non-existent income. The present plan gave an advantage to the rising man, to Nature's darling, the strongest, whose income was increasing, and who did not need it; on the other hand, it pressed unjustly on the man whose health was giving way, or whose business was doing badly, just in fact, when, if possible, he ought to be relieved. The rising and successful man was assessed on less than his income; the one whose income was falling was made to pay on more than his income. The Chancellor of the Exchequer during these discussions had referred more than once to the story of Sir T. Mery weather, who, after retiring from business, was said to have observed that he "had lost many cases which he ought to have won, but on the other hand he had won many cases which he ought to have lost, and so justice was done." The story was generally told as an example of false logic, but the Chancellor had used it as a real argument for his Bill. As matters now stood, many of those who lived by their own exertions were called on to pay on income they had never received. It was no answer to say that another man had enjoyed an income on which he had not paid. The proposal, therefore, was that no man should any longer be charged on more than he earned. The effect of this clause would be that we should revert to the old system; if we did so we should do something to redress a great and admitted grievance, and he begged therefore to commend the clause to the favourable consideration of the Committee and to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

New Clause—

(Commissioners may amend assessment in certain cases.)

"And be it enacted that, if within or at the end of the year current at the time of making any assessment under this Act, or at the end of any year when such assessment ought to have been made, any person charged to the duties charged in Schedule D on an assessment computed on the average of the three preceding years shall find and prove to the satisfaction of the Commissioners by whom the assessment was made that his profits and gains during such year fell short of the sum so computed, it shall be lawful for the Commissioners to cause the assessment to be amended accordingly and the sum so overpaid to be refunded."—( Sir J. Lubbock. )

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

said that, in moving this Amendment, which might be disposed of very easily, his right hon. Friend had urged the desirability of returning to the system that existed prior to the passing of the Act of 1865. He seemed to have overlooked the fact that the alteration effected by that Act, which he now wished to overthrow, was introduced at the express instance of Mr. Hubbard, who was a strong advocate for lightening the burden of the Income Tax wherever practicable. Taking the average of a man's income for the last three years was a plan specially devised to meet the difficulty in the way of appealing that would be experienced by business and professional men. He was quite willing to allow that system to continue, as he believed that it was, on the whole, fair to both parties. The proposal of his right hon. Friend, while adhering to the form of making a Return upon the average, did not in fact carry out that principle at all, for the first year was only to be struck out where the fourth year showed a loss. Surely, therefore, if the Revenue was to collect only on the small profits or receipts, the principle of average ceased at once. For this reason he did not feel justified in accepting the Amendment. If his right hon. Friend would consider the question of average he would see the absurdity of this proposal and that it was utterly irreconcilable with any principle of sound taxation.

expressed his disappointment at the speech just delivered, and regretted that the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment, which he considered to be most reasonable. The present system of taking the average of a man's iucome was bad, and had the effect of making anyone in difficulties go down the hill all the faster. It might be perfectly true that under it the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not get more than a fair total in the year, but it was absurd to contend that there was any ground of justice in saying that, because one man had paid too little, another should not complain because he had had to pay too much.

It is the average that is paid upon.

said, the plan worked unfairly, and it would be much fairer—if it could be carried out—that people should pay on each year's income. No doubt when Mr. Hubbard's proposal was accepted it was believed that it would work fairly. After several years' trial, however, that was found not to be the case, and he was prepared to say that there was a strong and growing feeling in the country that it should be altered. A man, let it be supposed, made £20,000 profit in his business one year, £12,000 profit the next, and a loss of £10,000 in the third year. Instead of paying upon his £22,000 income, he must pay on £43,300. It was useless for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that some more fortunate person had gone in the other direction, and that so the account was balanced. This was a most reasonable proposal. They had found from experience that this was not a new question. There was a feeling growing up in the country that the mode of assessment to the Income Tax was not fair; and even if this Amendment were not accepted, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to a system of yearly averages, which would not fall quite so hardly on those whose business was falling. Indeed, he thought it would be an infinitely fairer system. Income Tax ought to be a tax upon income; many people did not pay upon their real income, and the fact that some people evaded part of their obligation was no reason why those who were honest should be overtaxed.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 177.—(Division List, No. 144.)

The next clause on the Paper—that as to "variations in Estate Duty," standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for the Holderness Division of Yorkshire—is out of Order.

^* said, he wished to move a new clause in reference to works of art. As it was of considerable length he would not trouble the Committee by reading it, but would explain briefly that its object was to pro- vide that a register of works of art should be kept at the office of the Commissioners, and any person to whom a work of art passed on the death of the deceased might, on the payment of a fee of £5, register the work and receive a certificate of registration. If such work were already registered, it should not be aggregated with other property, nor should Estate Duty be paid upon it; but if it were sold before a further death, Estate Duty should he paid at the rate of 10 per cent. He was not committed to that particular figure, but he believed that by this process the Revenue would in the long run get as much out of works of art as it would by making them pay Estate Duty in the ordinary way. He supported his Amendment on public as well as on private grounds. He wished by making this change to do something to prevent works of art of historic value being driven out of this country by forced sales. It was well known that sales of pictures, manuscripts, and other objects of art were attended by buyers from Germany, France, and the United States, who were prepared to pay prices which rendered it difficult to keep art treasures in this country. Again, there was a natural tendency for the best works of art to gravitate towards our great public collections, and, therefore, there should be no encouragement to selling them to foreign purchasers. The authorities of countries like Italy and Turkey would not allow valuable pictures or historical treasures to be taken out of those countries. He heard only the other day the story of a well-known picture dealer in England who, hearing that a certain picture was about to be sold in Italy, telegraphed that he would give £100,000 for it, but his offer was not accepted. He believed that the Greek Government were also now adopting the same policy. On public grounds it was to the interest of the English people to keep art treasures in the Kingdom as long as they could, and he did not think that the Revenue would suffer if a duty of 10 per cent. were put on such works on sale. It had also to he remembered that those art objects were not income-producing, but rather, on the contrary, the cause of expense, as, for example, heavy insurance premiums. He hoped the Committee would accept the clause, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, despite his stern look, would not forget the remarks he had himself made about the portraits of fair ladies and ex-Whig statesmen, and would assist him in attaining the object he had in view.

New Clause—

(Works of Art.)

"(1) A register of works of art shall be established and kept at the office of the Commissioners, and any person to whom a work of art passes upon the death of the deceased may (if such work of art shall not already be registered in the name of the deceased), upon payment of a fee of five pounds, register in his name in the prescribed manner a full description of such work of art, and the Commissioners shall thereupon give such person a certificate of registration.

(2) If a work of art forming part of property passing on the death of a deceased person shall at the time of his death be registered in his name or shall within three months after his death, or such further period as the Commissioners shall allow, be registered in the name of the person to whom it passes upon such death, such work of art shall not be aggregated with the other property passing on the death of the deceased, nor shall Estate Duty be paid in respect thereof upon the death of the deceased.

(3) If a work of art passing upon the death of the deceased shall be sold before any further death shall occur upon which Estate Duty shall or would but for the provisions of this section become payable, duty shall be paid to the Commissioners upon the amount of the consideration passing on such sale at the rate of ten per cent.

(4) Upon payment to the Commissioners of the duty under the preceding sub-section the certificate of registration shall be delivered up, to the Commissioners, who shall thereupon vacate the registration and give to the person paying the duty a receipt therefor.

(5) A certificate of registration and receipt for duty under this section shall be conclusive evidence of the facts therein respectively-appearing.

(6) The Commissioners shall have power from time to time to make rules for the purpose of carrying the provisions of this section into effect.

(7) If a work of art forming part of property passing upon the death of the deceased shall not at the time of his death be registered in his name, or shall not within three mouths after his death, or such further period as the Commissioners shall allow, be registered in the name of the person to whom it passes upon such death, such work of art shall be aggregated with the other property passing on the death of the deceased and the value thereof ascertained in the manner in which the value of other personal property passing upon the death of a deceased person is ascertained under this Act.

(8) The expression "works of art" shall include pictures, prints, antique plate and furniture, antiquities of national or historic interest, articles of vertu, and such other objects or classes of objects as the Commissioners may from time to time prescribe to be works of art within the meaning of this section."—( Mr. Byrne. )

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

said, he had a great deal of sympathy with the object which the hon. Member had in view, and he hoped later on that he would receive the support of hon. Members for the Supplementary Estimate he would present, enabling the National Gallery to buy certain pictures for the nation. He was sorry, however, that he could not see how the machinery which the hon. Member proposed was likely to accomplish the object aimed at. First of all, the Inland Revenue could not be reasonably expected to undertake the work. Persons held such different opinions on these questions of art treasures. He read the other day a dispute as to whether Sevrès china was real Vincennes Sèvres or not; and the most eminent dealers in London came forward, some to say that the article was not real, and others to say that it was. Therefore, he did not think that that was a task they were capable of undertaking. He did not think that the Amendment would affect the object aimed at by the hon. Member. A great number of private owners had sold pictures by private contract to an enormous degree within the past 10 years, and those pictures had passed from one house to another in England. Many of them had gone to public institutions, and not a very large number had gone abroad. But under the proposal of the hon. Member an injustice might be inflicted. Supposing the near relation of a deceased owner possessed one or two very valuable pictures; to charge 10 per cent. on those pictures would be a considerable hardship. Desirous as he was, therefore, to see the object aimed at by the hon. Member accomplished, he did not think that the Amendment would be au effectual or convenient way of accomplishing it. After all, however, England was the richest country in the world. There were so many persons in this country who could afford to buy the best works of art that, though there might be particular cases where a picture might leave the country, on the whole the best market in the world for works of this description was here, even in spite of trade depression. This country would always keep its share of those works, and he did not think it was possible to erect the machinery of protection proposed by the hon. Member.

said, he regretted to hear the unfavourable answer of the right hon. Gentleman. The tone of his answer was sympathetic, but the substance of it was as obdurate as anything a Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever uttered before. The first argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman was the old one of administrative difficulty and the inability of the Inland Revenue authorities to undertake the work. But it surely did not need so much learning for this particular branch of work as was now demanded from the authorities of the Inland Revenue when they had to value works of art. It was part of the business of the Inland Revenue to judge and to value works of art. Of course, they did not do it themselves. They sent down experts, and he saw no difficulty in both registration and valuing being carried out through the instrumentality of the same individuals and by the same machinery. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that experts could be got to swear in any direction, but the right hon. Gentleman should not forget that experts were the very persons on whom he had to depend in every case to value works of art for the Estate Duty. He did not attach much value to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman as to the injustice of charging private in dividuals 10 per cent. if they wanted to sell works of art when, in other circumstances, they might get off with 5 per cent, duty. If, however, there was any foundation in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt his lion. Friend would be prepared to make some modification in the clause whereby a fixed ratio could be determined, as in the case of ornamental timber in parks. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was driving into the market by the Death Duties a larger number of pictures than had ever been the case before, and he was making it much less likely that any but the very rich would ever venture to invest in this kind of property at all. Hitherto persons with moderate fortunes had been tempted to invest in these things, but in the future more and more it would be the millionaire, and the millionaire alone, who would be able to buy these works of art, and the result of the Government having forced numbers of these works of art on the market would be that the foreign competitor would come into the market more than ever before, and the works would find their way to other countries not blessed with a Chancellor of the Exchequer so extremely anxious to mulct capital value after the death of the owner. Hitherto America had not been a very great mart for these works of art; but when they reflected how much money Americans had to spend and how little they had to spend he could not doubt that the fashion might soon set in of spending it on furniture and china, and when it did there would be competition on this side such as no English and no French fortune would be able to withstand. They would be better off in the future if they left the permanent possessions of works of art in the same position as at present. Let them look at the matter from another point of view. The proposal was recommended to them by its authors and supporters on the ground, with regard to all kinds of taxation, that there should be an equality of sacrifice. But that was not the case here. A man was to be taxed for a thing which brought him no revenue whatever, real or imaginary, and which he perhaps valued only because it belonged to his ancestors—say a family Reynolds or Gainsborough—that was not exacting an equality of sacrifice. Turning again from the case of individual hardship to that of public expediency, was it not inevitable that the result would be, except in the very rare cases of men of exceptional wealth, to break up these collections on the death of their present possessors? Did anybody doubt that these private collections were items of national wealth? He never heard of any great historic collection not being open to the public. They were sent to public loan collections or were open to inspection by the public at the houses of the owners. Were not the Government, then, impoverishing their country by imposing a tax which, he contended, must lead to the sale of these collections—collections which were open to the public for their pleasure, instruction, and enlightenment? Could not the Chancellor of the Exchequer do something for these vast collections of hon. income-bearing property? Believing that the scheme of his hon. and learner Friend was worthy of consideration, he would be prepared to go into the Lobby with him. He would, however, appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he could not accept the scheme of his hon. Friend, whether he could not himself propose some other scheme; whether he would not raise himself to the height of the interests involved and remember that he was responsible not merely for the Exchequer, but for all the interests of the country, and amongst them the preservation of these great collections of art treasures which, if they chose to be careless of them, other nations wiser in their generation than we would draw from us under conditions which would exclude the possibility of their ever returning to our possession.

said, he acknowledged the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not regard this as a question of taxation, and if he thought that the proposals of the Government were going to have the result which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think, he certainly would endeavour to devise some means of avoiding such a great danger. He did not, however, entertain any apprehension of that sort. The argument that was directed to non-payment in respect of property that did not yield income was a very difficult one to deal with. America had, or professed to have, a Property Tax which would be payable, he supposed, every year, and not merely upon the death of the owner. He disputed the unfounded alarm, and did not believe in the social convulsions put forward by the Opposition. He recognised entirely the great liberality of the owners of these art collections; but he could not accept the Amendment for the reasons he had stated. The right hon. Gentleman said that all of these collections were shown. He believed the exceptions were rare, but he knew some very remarkable ones. There was one for which the country paid an enormous sum, he thought an inordinate sum, which no man was allowed to see. There were in it manuscripts of great value to which access for literary purposes was absolutely refused. He still adhered to his belief that the changes likely to be made were not so great as the right hon. Gentleman anticipated, and that the wealth of England could always demand for this country the best works of art in this country and abroad.

said, he hoped when the Chancellor of the Exchequer commenced his speech that he was intending to find some means by which he could carry out their recommendations. There was no doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman really wished to carry out the object the clause had in view he could find some system by which to do it. He might find some way of doing it if he turned his attention to legislation in France. In France they treated personalty in two ways—that which yielded income and that which did not. It was clear that a distinction could be drawn between the two kinds. That was a suggestion he would throw out to the right hon. Gentleman, though he was afraid he was not in sympathy with the Amendment. From the beginning the right hon. Gentleman had never really seen the magnitude of his own proposals. He could not and would not realise that moderate duties had not the same effect as extremely high duties. Human nature was human nature, and if the duty was doubled its effect was doubled. He was sure that the arguments of his right hon. Friend would have considerable weight with the public at large. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was sometimes wise to disperse collections; but often the great beauty of a collection was that it was made up of pictures of a particular school, whose value depended on them as a collection. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would yet be able to form some reasonable plan before the Report stage. It would not interfere with the principle of his Budget, and would not, he thought, meet with much opposition from his own side of the House.

^* said, the terms of the proposal were very wide indeed. It was left to the Commissioners at Somerset House to say what were and what were not works of art, and they were asked to be judges also on books and historical manuscripts. It always seemed to him that pictures were more liable to be dispersed by gambling, dissipation, and speculation than by such duties as were proposed to be levied. Much as he loved pictures, he must say that he foresaw tremendous difficulties if this exemption should be adopted. As a fact, he was opposed to exemptions or limitations of any kind. He objected that his constituents should be taxed extra in order that somebody else might see a collection of pictures which was only to be seen in a private house. This seemed to him one of those exceptions the Committee could not possibly carry.

said, he wished the right hon. Gentleman could realise the enormous uncertainty which must rest on the value of art treasures. He knew a house where there were great historical manuscripts, and he did not think any human being could say at what point the valuer ought to put their value; and if the uncertainty of value were combined with the principle of aggregation, there was no limit to the amount which might be charged in respect of art treasures. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think that all the successor had to do was to sell some of these art treasures in order to pay the duty. That, of course, was exactly the thing which they desired to prevent. It was possible for a man to succeed to a great gallery of pictures, and very little personalty with it. Everyone of the pictures might be an heirloom which he would he unable to sell, and yet he would have to pay an aggregated duty on the works of art. He had no doubt that in extreme cases the Court would give some kind of relief when appealed to. In many cases, however, great hardship would be inflicted, and the person accountable would find difficulty in raising sufficient money to pay the duty on the works of art which by law he was not able to sell. Again, in many cases the possession of art treasures was not only no pecuniary benefit but a great expense. They were thrown open to the public. Custodians had to be engaged and a great deal had to be spent in connection with wear and tear, but this would not be taken into account by the Inland Revenue Department, who would insist upon payment being made on the full value. The successor might be anxious to sell, but, as he bad said, would not be able to. That would be a rare case. In the majority of instances the possessor would not desire to sell, but would take legitimate pride in these works of art. It would be admitted that it would be a serious public disadvantage if the owners of these great collections were encouraged to part with them. It had been sufficiently urged that they might pass to foreign buyers. Not only that, but they might be dispersed, and that, by itself, would be a great public loss. In many cases the collections, without the house in which they were, would lose a large part of their value. They were very often—especially in the case of manuscripts—connected with some particular house or some particular name, or reign, or family, and to disperse them all over the face of the country would largely diminish their value. There were museums kept by private individuals for the benefit of the public, and so long as they found private owners who did their duty to the public, allowing them to have the benefit of their collections—allowing their pictures to be seen, and their historical treasures they possessed to be made use of by those who could profit by them, whether as representing the Government or as members of learned Institutions—care should be taken to avoid injuring these collections. These owners were public servants in the highest sense of the term, and he thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised if he could find some means by which the possessor of these treasures and the performance of this great public duty would be saved from what would be almost a prohibitive fine.

^* said, that the hon. Baronet had stated that when sales of these art treasures had taken place it was almost always due to reckless living. Well, he thought that hereafter the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find that the sales were rendered necessary not by reckless living, but by natural death. When the right hon. Gentleman told them that he did not share the apprehensions of hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House he surely did not, on this Budget, expect them to be content with his ipse dixit , in regard to which he was not armed with the usual invaluable evidence of the Inland Revenue Office. No Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever before tried to impose this tax on works of art, therefore there were no data to go upon except the predictions of hon. Members. The sale of these works of art would cause their dispersal, yet they had no pecuniary value until they were sold. The State had a right to levy a duty of 10 per cent. when the owner converted the art treasures into cash, but, as the Leader of the Opposition had pointed out, so long as the owner did not do that and did not draw a farthing of income from them, there was no property or estate on which the Government had a right to levy taxation, because there was no basis upon which to estimate the value. He (Mr. Cohen) did earnestly entreat the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the interest of preserving for the country the splendid collections which were amassed in it to endeavour, on the Report stage, to give effect to the ideas for which he had professed so much sympathy.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 120.—(Division List, No. 145.)